The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The shipowners are at it at 1 hey have had
another meeting. It was held yeeterday, and
Mr. G. F. Young being Chairman, little need
be said of the language and opinions of that
active and able, but wrong-headed and mistaken
champion of the old navigation law, now utterly
inapplicable to the commerce and shipping inte-
rest of Great Britain. Mr. Young gave a
sort of personal explanation of the publication
by the Parliamentary Committee of evidence
upon the shipping question, unaccompanied
by a syllable of report or comment. But he
retaliated on the Committee by a report
of the shipowners themselves ; which we may
take for granted would have been (could the
Honourable Gentleman have accomplished it)
word for word, nzutatis nzutandis, adopted by the
Parliamentary Committee ; and, as the result of
which, had Parliament been silly enough to act
upon it, we should, in the course of a single
twelvemonth, have seen the merchantmen of this
country excluded from every port in Europe and
North America. Prohibitions against foreign
shipping were mighty well, so long as other
nations were willing to let reciprocity be all on
one side,—that is, to have British vessels ad-
mittPd into their ports, while she rigourously
excluded theirs. But such halcyon days are
over. It is row the language of every Power
on the continent—" Receive me, and I will re-
ceive you—or exclude me, and I will do the
same by you." Mr. Young has not told uu how
he would manage under such a general system
in Europe. Is it the fault of the British Go-
vernment if the value of ships, like that of all
other descriptions of property, has fallen ?
Times.

The general annual meeting of the Ship-
owners' Society for receiving the report for the
year 1833, was held yesterday at the City of
London Tavern. Our readers will find a report
of the proceedings in another column. The
committee enter at some length into a detail of
the various objects to which their attention has
been directed. They very properly dwell on the
importance of relieving commerce from all un-
necessary burdens ; and they particularly com-
plain of the " enormous amount charged on
shipping for the port of London Canal and
Dock Duty." In all that regards freeing the
shipping from unnecessary burdens and re-
straints, the public will heartily go along with
the shipowners. But when the committee enter
on the inquiry of the Parliamentary committee
of last session, it is difficult. to understand them.
No one doubts that capital invested in shipping
may, like capital invested in anything else, be
wholly or partially lost. If ships can be built
now at a much cheaper rate than fifteen years
ago, the owner of ships built fifteen years ago
must be content to suffer a partial loss of his
capital. A house, in like manner, may now be
built for much less than ten or twelve years
consequence seiqn ue
the nce
pur-
chase
r.
is,
tha
ago, on account of the fall in the price of
v materials;s ho
money
chase of houses ten or twelve years ago must,
building
that
individuals
except when protected by particular and favoured
si.uations, be content with a much smaller price
for them than what theygave. The shipowners
cannot expect that they should be exempt from
the casualties to which all other classes are
liable. Whenever the cost of production of
any commodity is lowered, all the holders of the
commodity experience a ditninution in the value
of their stocks. " The long continued and still
existing depression of the shipping interest (say
the committee)—the partial production and
great aggravation of distress caused by continual
changes in our navigation system—tie utter im-
possibility of the successful maintenance of an
unrestricted competition with foreign navigation
—the gross injustice of the peculiar and exclu-
sive burdens on maritime commerce, for pur-
poses purely national, while exposed to that
competition—the declining quality and estima-
tion of British tonnage—the embarrassment,
decay, and ruin of the British shipowners—may
now be viewed as incontrovertible positions.
A great many things are mixed up here in a
way which only serves to occasion perplexity.
" The utter impossibility of the successful
maintenance of an unrestricted competition with
foreign navigation" is a proposition, the admis-
sion of which would lead to conclusions which the
shipowners themselves would dread to encounter.
The right of the British shipowner to free
himself from all the burdens which add to the
difficulty of successful competition, is a propos
sition which few would be disposed to deny.
The Committee use a good many circumlocu-
tions to tnake a very simple matter unintelligible.
En order to reconcile the fact of the continental
building of ships with the carrying on a losing
trade, they talk of a tenacity of purpose by
which men will go on for ever carrying on trade
without profit. This is all sheer nonsense. Tire
shipowner already in possession of ships must,
of course, continue to trade with them, though
the return be below the average profit on the
'mount of capital originally embarked in them.
But no man would build new ships were the
return to be below the ordinary profits on capital.
The Chairman stated " that the British ship-
owners had long, but vainly, complained of the
great and peculiar burdens which are inflicted
on them by the Registry and the Navigation
Laws; and they claim, and they will not be
satisfied till they obtain it, either the removal of
these burdens and restrictions, or a protection
equivalent to their disqualification ;" and the
committee, in the report, express themselves in
language equally strong, winding up their list of
grievances with the determination to demand
either that those peculiar burdens and re,
strictions to which, for objects of national policy,
and in which he has no separate or exclusive
interest, the shipowner is exposed, should be
removed, or that protection should be extended
r continued to him, equivalent to the disquali-
tication created by these burdens." All unne-,
cessary burdens and restrictions ought, of
course, to be removed ; and their fellow-citizens
will willingly make common cause with the ship-
owners, it they see them sincerely desirous of
teeing British industry from the restrictions
under which it suffers from narrow and impolitic
aws. Hitherto, however, the shipowners have
shown themselves among the most determined of
he supporters of monopoly ; and they have more
han once factiously joined the parties in the
Legislature who had for object to prevent the
removal of restrictions on trade and industry.
their language yet is extremely suspicious.
However, repentant sinners will always be re-
t.e,ved with welcome. The shipowners complain
of the injurious tendency of some late regulzt-
iuns adopted wi h regard to the China trade, and
-heir remonstranceson the subject will, no doubt,
ecetve due attention. Why do not the .hip-
.)whers hold a more decided language with re-
'aid to the various monopolies whicn e‘rinarrass
)ur commerce, and tend only to the encourage-

rnent of the navigation of other countries ?
Why, for instance, do they compel the traders
to Brazil, and the various islands in the Eastern
Seas, to dispose of their return cargoes to Ame-
ricans, who thence obtain the commission and
freight which ought to be pocketed by our own
merchants and shipowners ? Why do they not
endeavour to open the trade in food, the restric-
tions on which are equally injurious to them-
selves and the rest of the community ? Trade
cannot be carried on without returns; and what-
ever the wants of an agricultural community,
they can only purchase manufactures by the sale
of their own produce. We can only purchase
food by the sale of manufactures, and the more
we purchase the more we sell. We should not
import food into this country if we were not
able to produce other commodities on better
terms than the food so imported. Happy
the condition of the landowners of a country
which is under the necessity of importing
food ; for the very fact proves that they sell
their produce at a higher rate, and purchase
manufactures at a lower rate, than the nations
which export the food. One might suppose the
shipowners would not be insensible to the bene-
fits which they would derive, in common with
the rest of the community, from the removal of
restrictions on commerce. But at the meeting
of yesterday, the speakers, instead of taking a
liberal and comprehensive view of the subject,
seemed chiefly to be occupied with narrow
jealousies of the foreigners who might share
with them the additional trade in food. Those
speakers, who dwelt so much on the importance
of a commercial navy to islanders, ought to have
asked themselves the question--How islanders
can carry on commerce by exporting without
importing in return ? This country exports
manufactures to the real value of thirty-six
millions a year. By preventing the obtaining
food in return for these manufactures, the market
for British industry is narrowed, and the return
for it less than it otherwise would be. What-
ever the difference between the price of food in
the home-market and the price at which it could
be imported, is of course a tax on industry for
the benefit of the British landowners. It is
a tax levied ol those who must produce
their goods at a lower rate than foreigners,
for the benefit of those who must always
have a higher price for their produce than
foreigners can obtain, by the amount of freight,
commission, &c. There would be more rea-
son in imposing a tax on the landowners
for the benefit of the manufacturers, to com-
pensate them for the additional price they must
in all cases pay for their food, in consequence
of the home supply falling below the demand.
Of all classes in the community, the landowners
are the last who ought to have any favour shown
to them, in a country like this, in which food
is dearer than in any other, and manufactures
always cheaper. We rejoice to see that if the
shipowners are inattentive to their duty in this
respect, other classes are on the alert. Through-
out the country we perceive a strong disposition
to agitate the most important of all questions—
the trade in food. A better time than the present
cannot be conceived for restoring the trade to
freedom, because the difference between the
price of food here and on the Continent is by
no means great, and the change would not be
productive of so much inconvenience as if it
were to take place after two or three years of
scarcity and high prices. But nothing is to be
done without agitation. The public must be
familiarized with the arguments in favour of free
trade, and enabled to refute the fallacies urged
in favour of the monopoly. Hence the benefit
of publications, which present the subject in all
its bearings, and periodically to the public. We
trust that the Corn Law Magazine, which
has been started in the metropolis, will, in this
respect, be an instrument of much good. Sure
we are, that if the people do not take up the
subject with vvarinth, the landowners will no

relent.—Morning Chronicle.
The decrease upon the Quarter's Revenue, as
well as that upon the whole year, is so intelli-

gible a symptom of public distress, that it may
be said to speak for itself. It is not an isolate'd
fact, the cause of which might, therefore, be

looked upon as accidental and temporary ; it is
the additional decrease of a series of declining
years ; it is another step towards a crisis which
it will require more honesty and intelligence than
the reformed Parliament has yet displayed, and
greater wisdom than, we fear, is to be found at
the helm of affairs to avert. But, even in this

state of things, the Candide of the Evening
Treasury Journal finds subject of congratula-
tion. He reads the melancholy tablet of finance
which has been laid on the grave of the departed
year not only without sorrow, but with some-
thing like an affectation of lightness, if not
gayety of heart. Where those who do not look

through the spectacles of Downing-street see
nothing but new proofs of the declining resources
of the country, he discovers nothing but the
" elasticity of the revenue, and the increase of the

comforts and wealth of the people." Credo quia
impossibile est was the motto of Tertullian, and
the optimist of the Treasury Journal adopts a si-
milar rule of faith. He believes the people wealthy,
and the country prosperous, because the revenue is
in a state of progressive decline. If his faith grow
strong in proportion to the failure of our re-
sources, he is not likely to want for evidences of

prosperity as long as the present system of Go-
vernment is pursued. But for people whose
faith in the prosperity of the country and the
successful administration of its affairs is not

founded on so paradoxical a principle, let us see
what the proofs of the fortunate condition of our

finances are—and here we must borrow a line or

two from our ingenious contemporary. " The
quarterly decrease," says the Globe, " is in the
taxes, and may be deemed attributable in part to
'considerable reductions, and in part to the in-
dulgence shown in the collection of the assessed
taxes." What reduction there has been in the
assessed taxes to account for this falling off we

Should be glad to know. Perhaps our contem-
porary, whose jokes are usually no laughing
matters, and whose serious arguments are very
often jokes, only means a silly and sarcastic hit
at Lord Althorp's boasted and ludicrous relief
to-the country by the reduction of duty on tiles
and taxed carts ! But whether he be serious or

in jest, the subject is not one likely to add much
to the pleasant anticipations of the country on
the opening of the new year. We cannot avoid

quoting here the just and sensible observations
of the Standard, in reference to this falling
off in the taxes, with which we entirely
concur :--‘, In a healthy state of finance,

it is well known that the reduction of

the taxes is always attended by the improved

productiveness of those taxes which are not re-
duced ; and when, as in this case, the opposite
phenomenon follows a reduction of taxation, it
is plain that an injudicious and mischievous
selection must have been made in the taxes re-

(bleed, or that the resources of the people are

'sinking at a more rapid rate than the diminu-
tion of their burdens." When the tax on gin
was reduced, it was, as we recollect, reduced on
the avowed principle that the increased con-
sumption would make the lower tax more pro-
ductive to the revenue than the higher duty.
In this instance the morals of the people were
deliberately sacrificed to a rapacity for revenue.
We believe the excise has been considerably
aided by the reduction ; but Ministers care little
for the morality of the people as long as they
can get money, or they would before now have
taken off the taxes from houses and windows,
and raised the duty on gin. But the Globe
speaks of the indulgence shown to the people
in the collection of the assessed taxes. Indul-
gence with a vengeance ! Never was the screw
of taxation worked with so high a pressure
since the assessed taxes were first laid upon the
country as it has been by the Whig Mi-
nisters, who denounced and voted against
those taxes, when in the cold latitudes
of opposition they sighed for the sun-
shine of the Treasury benches. Tax-
collectors have been, under their gentle sway,
promoted to more lucrative appointments for
their assiduity in running up surcharges—and,
certainly, the system of surcharging was never
carried on to so oppressive an extent as under
the present Administration, who stood pledged
by their former acts and speeches to the aboli-
tion of those taxes of which they make the
people feel the galling pressure beyond what they
had ever before experienced. To whom, then,
has indulgence been shown ? Have not: the
Government papers maintained that those taxes
should he enforced wherever there was ability
to pay? If indulgence has been shown to any,
it must have been to those who were already
beggared—to those from whom even the inge-
nuity of the Exchequer could obtain flowing,
simply because they were not able to pay. If
the number of such persons has been greatly
increased of late, and the necessity for such
" indulgence" consequently increased, what
becomes of the assertion that there is an " in-
crease of the comforts and wealth of the peo-
ple ?" As to the great decrease in the customs
of the year, it is the very best evidence that could
be afforded of the fallaciousness of the argument
of those theorists who contended that, to
break down the navigation laws, and enter upon
experiments in " free trade," vdiile the
mill-stone of enormous taxation is round the
neck of British industry, would promote the
trade, and thereby augment the revenues of the
nation. But we suspect the great mass of• the
people of this country are now fully sensible of
the delusions which the race of English Doctri-
naires have palmed upon the world under the
specious name of political economy. " The
decrease on the year," says the Evening Organ
of the Treasury, " is more than covered by that
of the Customs, amounting to 612,8941.,
which is reduced to the amount of the average
decrease of 442,4941., principally by the increase
in the Excise of 183,7411., and in the Post-
office of 63,0001." As to the Excise, we
believe, with the Standard, that, so far from
being at the present day evidence, by its increase,
of the increased comfort of the people, which
we see nowhere, it is evidence of the increase o

beer•shops and gin-palaces, which we see every-
where. These things impoverish the people
while a few individuals are enriched ; they
increase the revenue of Excise, while the mora-
lity of the people is blasted. If the beer-shops
were annihilated there would be more comfort

among the labouring classes and less crime ;
but as the Government derives an augmented
revenue from their demoralization, we fear it

will be a very difficult task to procure reform
in this respect. Yet, as we predicted the
consequences of the Beer Bill from the
beginning, so we hope to see that fatal
measure—that source of rural depravity and
crime—that exciting cause of a great pro-
portion of the robbery and incendiarism
which disgrace the land, erased from the statute
book, with the sanguinary laws which extermi-
nate the victims that its debasing influence pre-
pares for enterprises of depredation and violence.

As to the increase of the income of the Post.

office during the past year, the public are too
well aware of the means which were resorted to

for that purpose to make it necessary more par-
ticularly to allude to them at present. Still, with
all the fiscal ingenuity which has been displayed
in that department—with all the breaking open
of solicitors' and other parcels, there is a falling
off on the quarter of 14,0001. The decrease in
stamps, too, is the very opposite of a proof of

ncreased wealth and business. But we need

not pursue the subject further. Our sincere
wish is, that such proofs of prosperity may not
be too often repeated. We have a word or two
to say, before we conclude this article, on the
conduct of the Government towards ourselves.
We have for a long time past, as the public are
aware, been in the habit of receiving the account
of the quarter's revenue, and publishing it
simultaneously with some of our Morning
Contemporaries. Even when we opposed
the Duke of Wellington's _ Government,

his document, in which the public are always

so much interested, was not withheld from our
columns. We had it as early as those Contem-

poraries who were then the organs of the Tory
Government, and are now the " slaves of the

lamp" to the Whig Administration. On the
present occasion the " liberal and enlightened"

ook care that we should be excluded From that

which was not so much a favour to us as an

accommodation to the public. On inquiry being
made in the proper quarter, it was said that there
«•ere orders to that. effect from " superior audio-

rity." We despise too much the paltry policy
which dictated such a measure to state the cir-

cumstance as a matter of complaint. We feel
it necessary to say so much that our readers may
be aware there was no default on our part in
not having this document as early as any of
our Contemporaries. It is the penalty which
we have paid for the crime of independence—
that independence which, if it causes a Mini-

ster to frown upon us, has also brought with it
the compensation of the public favour. It is
true we have supported several of the measures
of the present Administration, or rather several
which the public voice has forced upon them,
and we will continue to give our support to any
of their measures that may deserve it ; but it is
not to be forgiven that we prefer the public in-
terests to those of any party, and that abuses of
Power and dereliction of principle receive from
us neither protection nor apology.—Morning
Herald.

The circumstance that during the last month
no less than twenty-eight patents for scientific
improvement—chiefly in steam, and its applica-
tions—were taken out, forms a subject of deep
interest in our notice, and which has been dis-
cussed by Sir H. Parnell, in his work on
"_Financial Reform." The anomalous laws

which regulate the right of patent are among

those which call most loudly for revisal. Those
laws are at present totally at variance with
justice and good sense as well as with the
principles of free trade. They are in concur-
rence only with the feudal prejudice and dark-
ness in which they originated. How much
more, then, must they disagree with that spirit
of inquisition and improvement which so meri-
toriously characterizes the present age ? Those
who are not familiar with the subject can form no
idea of the obstacles which present themselves
to the secure possession of the results of
mental acquisition, which,_ dependent on more
evanescent operations, cause more wear and
tear than mere bodily labour. One would
think that the object of the Legislature in mak-
ing those laws was to leave the highest class of
mental labour without protection, or to protect
the somnolent exclusiveness of the aristocracy

from the encroaching rivalry of untitled talent.
A poor man—and it is rarely any one else whom
narrowness of circumstances—the res augusta
dorni—conjoined with the elasticity of health,
stimulates to invention—either finds it impos-
sible to secure his discovery by paying the
enormous sum required for its appropria-
tion—or if he can manage to scrape the
sum together, finds his dearly purchased
patent altogether insufficient to protect him
from imitation and oppression. In obtain-
ing the patent he- is obliged to reveal his
secret. Another is thus tempted to get pos-
session of it ; and the latter either evades
legal penalty by a slight alteration, or, trust-
ing to the uncertainty of the law, and the
chances of failure in obtaining an injunction,
boldly passes off the invention as his own.
What, then, is the inventor to do ? After pro-
bably disbursing every farthing that he possesses
or can collect in the materials of the invention,
and the fine for the patent, he finds himself
presented with the fatal alternative of being
engulphed in the fatal vortex of a lawsuit, or
compelled to yield to impudence and inadequacy
the anticipated harvest of a life of toil. He
must get an injunction in Chancery, and he may
then proceed in the King's Bench or Common
Pleas for damages. But this is not only expen-
sive, but attended with the usual risks which
wait on the uncertainty of the law. He must
prove it to be the precise invention which is
violated. A variation would be fatal to him,
and load him with additional expenses to
those already incurred. The consequence is,
that the fruit of a life's labour has often
been torn from a man in inferior circum-
stances, not only at the end of the fourteen
years, when his patent expires, but during the
very period when he is supposed to be protected.
This state of things ought surely not to be. As
it grew out of the restrictive policy of a barbarous
age, it ought to be abolished in this new era of
commercial liberalism, in common with all that
tends to chide the spirit of productive emulation.
As one remedy, we should recommend that the
law officers, who receive the fees for their
opinion on the merit of the patent, which con-
stitute the chief materials of this burdensome
fine upon an invention, should defend it gratui
tously when it is impugned. But others wi

readily suggest themselves. In the meantime,
we call on the free-trade Ministers to be true to
themselves and their system in this instance, as
in others. Why should not the trade in mental
production be as well protected and encouraged
as that which looks to physical and grosser
materials for its profit ?—Morning Advertiser.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JAN, 7.

(Before Sir J. NwrioLL.)

J UDGM EN Te-- CONSTABLE AND BAILEY V. T UFFNELL

AND MASON.

Sir J. NICIIOLL gave judgment in this will cause
to-day, the arguments in which occupied several
days in the last term. He said the question was as
to the validity of the last will of James Robinson,
of Worthinford, deceased, who died, aged seventy-
six years, and possessed of real property to the
amount of 3,0001., and a personal property of about
10,0001. The deceased left several relatives by
the half and whole blood. The Learned Judge
went over the facts of the case as stated in a former
report, and noticed in detail the testamentary acts
of the deceased; the first of which greatly heneficted
the Rev. Mr. Tuffnell and Mr. Mason, and his last
will gave the residue to Mr. Constable and Mr.
Bailey. After alluding to the various bequests in
the will under dispute, the Learned Judge said the
question was whether the last will of the deceased,
dated the 27th of August last, was the act of a ca-
pable testator. The last paper was regularly exe-
cuted and attested, and there was no reason to
doubt but that the witnesses to the execution,
which, with the exception of Mr. Daniels, the soli-
citor, who prepared the will, were related to the
persons benefitted by it, were fully deserving credit
before the Court. The Court had only to decide
upon the validity of the instrument. It was fully
proved that the deceased had assented to the dis-
tribution of the property contained in the last will.
The opposition made to the will by Messrs. Tuffnell
and Mason was that the family of the Reverend
Mr. Bailey, who were relatives of the deceased, had
taken possession of his house, and had the deceased
under control, and that the will obtained in
August was by fraud. After referring to other
parts of the case, the Learned Judge said, on
carefully looking to the tenor and tone of the evi-
dence, he was clearly of opinion that there was no
ground for imputing fraud to the family of the
Bayleys ; that the last will of the deceased was
valid ; and that he should pronounce for it, and
condemn the executors of the former will in the
costs of the suit.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Mr. Tickner, the Common Councilman, waited
yesterday, as Chairman of the Navigation of the
Port of London Committee, on the LORD MAYOR,
in consequence of the publication of what took place
in the Justice-room some days ago between his
Lordship and Captain Fisher, the principal Harbour
Master, relative to the mooring of a vessel in ac.
cordance with the application of the Middlesex Ma-
gistrates, who, it will be recollected, have issued an
order for the reception of Irish and Scotch paupers
on board a 300-ton ship, previously to the removal
of such paupers to their respective destinations.
Mr. Tickner said that, as Chairman of the Navi-
gation Committee under his Lordship, he considered
it necessary to state that he had seen in the news-
papers a report which represented that his Lord-
ship had said that the Navigation Committee had no
right to authorise the mooring of any vessel in the
port of London without the sanction of the Chief
Magistrate. The Navigation Committee believed
that the report was incorrect, because they
thought that his Lordship must be aware that there
were several Acts for the regulation of the port of
London which distinctly authorised that Committee
to appoint the mooring or unmooring of vessels in-
dependently of any other authority. They were
charged with that power by the Lord Mayor, Alder-
men, and Commons in Common Council assembled,
and acted upon it without reference to the rights of
the Lord Mayor as Conservator of the River
Thames, or otherwise. The Committee, he assured
the Lord Maytr, would not have noticed the
statement, or at all taken up the matter, if the
duties which they had to perform, and which were
very onerous, were not likely to sustain a check and
interruption from the circulation of the report, the

regulations which it had been found necessary to
establish being viewed in different ways by different
interests. It must be evident that the idea that
the Navigation Committee exercised an usurped
power, and the impression that the Lord Mayor en-
tertained that opinion, were calculated to depreciate
that authority which they were bound to use for the
benefit of the community. Convinced that his Lord-
ship was misapprehended in what he stated, and
that a satisfactory explanation would be given, the
Committee had deputed him to wait on his Lord-
ship, to give utterance to their sentiments.
The LORD MAYOR was perfectly happy to re-
ceive the Chairman of the Navigation Committee,
of whose labours he could express no opinion but
the very highest. He would be the last man not to
allow the Committee the great praise which was
due to them; but his observation on the occasion
alluded to was to the effect that before the Harbour
Master had acted upon the application of the MA-
dlesex magistrates, the Chief Magistrate ought to
have been referred to, and that no order for the
mooring of the vessel ought to have been issued
without the knowledge of the Lord Mayor. It ap-
peared that the error lay with the Harbour Master,
who stated that he had received an order from the
Navigation Committee, when in fact no such order
had been issued ; and it struck him (the Lord
Mayor) as very odd that any order of the kind
should be given while he was occupied on the sub-
ject of the application in question.
The Harbour Master had been certainly in error
in saying that the Committee had issued an order.
Mr. Tickner intimated that the Harbour Master's
error was a very venal one. The Committee cer-
tainly had not given any order. The question was
not one of such importance as to require that a di-
rect authority to act should be received from the
Committee. It was usual on occasions not of a
serious nature for the Chairman to give directions,
and afterwards to inform the Committee, and he
(Mr. Tickner) had done so (as our reporter under-
stood him) in the present instance. By some mis-
take, perhaps, his Lordship had received no com-
munication on the subject.
The LORD MAYOR—I admit the very great
exertions and utility of the Committee of which
you are Chairman, and I shall always feel very
much gratified at your interference to save me trou-
ble ; but I am sure you could wish to do nothing
that was calculated to diminish my power as Con-
servator of the River, and it certainly was neces-
sary upon the occasion that I should have been
referred to in that capacity.
Mr. Tickner was one of the last persons to de-
tract from the dignity of the Chief Magistrate.
His object was to remove the impression that the
Navigation Committee acted without being author-
ised to act. He was perfectly satisfied with his
Lordship's explanation, and should report it in
such a manner as would no doubt give satisfaction
to the Committee.

The LORD MAYOR—" I must say that nothing
can be so bad as confining paupers in the way con.
templated. I see by the order of the Middlesex
Magistrates that they are to be restrained. Is not
this removing the distinction altogether between
pauper and criminal ?" His Lordship hoped, in
conclusion, that the Harbour Master would in fu-
ture communicate with him on such matters, and
prevent the necessity of recourse to the Act of
Parliament.