The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-08 00:00:00

PROVINCIAL JOURNALS.

.Wehave often observed, that leisure and reflection enable the
Provincial Journals to form a more accuratejudgment of pass-
ing events than those ot the
.Metropolis, and few are more en-
titled to attention in this respect than the Paper from which we
have taken the subjoined Extract.
[From the Leeds Intclligencer, Nov. 5.]

A writer in a neighbouring print asserts, that,the Tory Jour-
nals urge two reasons for the 'dismissal of Sir Robert WilsOn;
" either of which they contend is.suffiefent, as a justification-of
" the treatment he has received. One of these is Sir Robert
" :Wilson's conduct in aiding the escape of Lavalate ; the
" other is his attendance at the Queen's funeral." The " Tory
Journals" contend no such thing ; but some'men have. effrontery
enough to say any thing, to defend a outorionsly bad cause;
and, with professions of " candour" always in their mouths,
they are distinguished only for the disingenuousness with
which they pervert the arguments, and misrepresent the
statements, of slieir opponents. The Tory Journals do not
contend, that the conduct of Sir Robert Wilson, in the affair
of Lavalette, is a sufficient justification for his dismission now ;
but they do contend, that it was the clemency of the King,
which preserved him from being struck off the army list at that
time; and that, after such " flagrant misconduct," and the cen-
sure then passed upon it by his Majesty, Sir Robert had no
right to expect impunity, if he again offended. Neither do
they " contend" that " his attendance at the Queen's funeral,"
simply considered, is sufficient justification of the course pur-
sued towards him. But that attendance was coupled with othe
circumstances, which, we repeat, rendered Sir Robert's conduct
a disgrace to the army, and an insult to the King, who had
been his kind and generous benefactor ; but whose cause, with
true 'Whig gratitude, he has deserted, because •his own selfish
ends have not been fully gratified. As an attendant at that fu-
neral, Sir Robert Wilson saw the King's commands braved
by a lawless mob and the King's civil and military au-
thorities assaulted by a set of ruffians—a disgrace to the name
of Englishmen. •• And what did he do ?—lnstead of ranging
himself on the side. of the King and the laws, he " interfered"
in behalf of the rioters; and thus gave his influence and coun-
tenance to their atrocious conduct. The fact of his " inter-
ference" on that day is not disavowed—it is made a boast of by
his friends ; and it is ridiculous to think, that, after such con-
duct, he could be permitted to hold his situation. The efforts
of faction, have, however, completely faded in making Sir Ro-
bert an object of public commiseration. His subscription
amounts to a large sum, to be sure; but nearly 40001. have been
subscribed by fourteen individuals ; and of the rest, the greater
part conies out of the pockets of Sir Robert's parliamentary
coadjutors. The people of England look upon his dismissal as
deservedly incurred • and consider it as simply a just and equi-
table exercise of the King's lawful prero.gative:

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 7.
ELOPEMENT WITH A WARI: IN CHANCERA%

r SEALE V. THOMAS AND JOSEPH BAIILOW.
This was an application made by Mr. CHISG, on the'part
of the friends of a young Lady, to commit the defendants to toe
Fleet Prison, under the following circumstances ;---Miss Scale,
who was a resident with her aunt at Derby. being.' entitled to a
sum of 10001. on attaining the age of 21, had been indUced to
elope with th 6 defendant, Thomas Barlow, who was a journey-
man to :his brother Joseph, a toolmaker at Derby. The De-
fendant, Thomas, it was stated, had_ by some means olltained
information that the young Lady was entitled to a fortune, and
had accordingly paid his addresses to her ; but the circumstance
becomingtknown to the aunt, she forbad him the house, and
• informed him .that her niece was only 19 years of age, and a.'
Ward in Chancery. This however did not induce him to with-
hold his attentions to the young Lady, and on • October 8, they
eloped and contrived to remain undiscovered for some time.
Application was then made to the Master of the Rolls, for a
writ of Habeas Corpus, to bring up the body of the young lady,
and it' being discovered that the parties had gone to Liverpool,
a Solicitor was sent after them, who ultimately traced them to
Staverley. The order having been served on the defendant
Thomas, he at first refused to deliver up Miss Seale, hilt after
a lapse of two hourssonsented to do so. The young Lady was
then conveyed .backito Chesterfield, and from thence m Lon-
don, accompanied by the two defendants. She was then com-
mitted to the care of her uncle, with whom she now was.
Mr. ROUPELL said, he had been applied to • by the defend-
ants, who had been in Court yesterday, and who glad informed
him
,that they could rebut the greater part of the allegations
against them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated, that it;might be too
harsh to issue the order at that moment, as they might appear
in the course of the day. .

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 7.
RIGHT OF BATHING ON THE SEA SHORE.

BLUNDELL v. CATTERAL.

When the Judges took their seats this morning, a decisior
was given upon a question of considerable interest to the pub.
lie. It arose out of ah -action of trespass tried before Mr. Jus.
tice.BAXLEY at Lancaster. _ _

The plaintiff,svho is Lord of a Manor, and owner of soil on
the banks of the Mersey, where he claims the exclusive right of
fishing, sought to deprive the defendant, who keeps an hotel on
the spot, of the power of passing machines below, high and low
water-mark, for the purpose of sea bathing. The defendant
insisted upon the common law right of all the subjects of the
King to bathe on the sea shore.
rfue Jury found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of
the Court. _ _ _

The question consequently arose whether the public had a
right to pass over the barren sand of the sea for the purpose of
sea bathing..
Mr. Justice BEST .delivered a most luminous judgment upon
this interesting- point; He commenced by-expressing concern
that he was compelled to differ from the other Learned Judges
in the opinion he had. formed. After giving the case all the con-
sitbrationle could, he found himself obliged to say, the sub-
jects of this country had a common law right to pass over the
sad of the sea for the purpose of bathing. When he men-
tioned bathing, he considered it only as part of a greater right.
The subjects of this country had the right to use the sea shore,
for the purposes of navigation and commerce, and they could
nut be obstructed in the enjoyment of that right by the erection •
of buildings on the sea shore, except those buildings were
wharfs and quays for the purposes of navigation. This was a
most,important question, because, in his opinion, it was impos-
sible to say the people of England had not the right of bathing
in the sea, and using the shore for that purpose. England was
a maritime country, and the use of the sea shore was the com-
mon right Of, the people. The right of fishing exclusively
claimed by the plaintiff, could not interfere with the right of
the public. No Lord of the Manor could say to a person walk-
ing on the sea beach, for the purpose of bathing, Sir, you shall
not bathe without my consent. All the legal authorities lie
could find were against it. To claim such a right was incon-
sistent with the law of the land. The principle upon which he
formed his opinion was this Lord of a Manor derived his
right from the King, to-whom the sea shore belonged. It was
impOsSible the Lord could:have a greater right than the King,
who had no right, in the soil of the sea shore, to prevent his sub-
jects going over it. The King held the sea shore in trust for
the public. The sea, by the Common Law, was open to all the
subjects; and by the same law the public had a right to
pass over the sand, which was the only approach to the sea.—
The King had a right of wreck upon his coast, and .the public
were expected not only to secure a wreck, hut assist the dis-
tressed mariners. If persons had not the right of going over the
sand, how could they afford the assistance expected ? No pre-
scriptive right could be good which deprived the subject of the
fuse- of the seashore. The sea had been called by an eminent
writer, the great highway of the world; and it had never be-
fore been contended that the sea shore could be considered pri-
vate property, upon which the public had no right to land. If
any part of the sea coast was inclosed as private property, the in-
closure, unless it was for the purposes of navigation, must be re-
moved upon indictment for a nuisance. There was no specific
part of the sea coast where persons were prolnbiteafrom bathing,
and no one had ever heard that the Lord of a Manor could pre-
vent persons bathing. Then it had been said bathing machines
were a new invention, and could not be allowed. .If bathing
was the right of the subject, decency was nevertheless required,
and no objection ought to be made on that account. Without
those machines females, and persons suffering under infirmities,
would not be able to bathe. 'I he right of fishing was only part of
the great right to approach the sea. Free access to the sea Was:
one of the great interests of the country. The business of a mari-
time nation could not go on without free access to the beach:—
Could it be said a ship coming from a long voyage could not land
upon the sea beach without the permission of the Lord of the Ma-
nor ? The Learned .Judge, adverting to the law on the question,
referred to Hargrave's Law Tracts, where a passage is given from
Bractonnestating that die right the public had long enjoyed
upon the sea-shore, was established on common law. The
banks of rivers were free to fishers. Rivers perpetual, as they
are termed, were public. The shores of the sea were also pub-
lic. Bracton's-law had been impugned by Judge Buller, who
was of opinion that was not the common law, but Callas
adopted the passage of Bracton, and considered it as forming
part of the English common law. if Bracton's doctrine was
law ,in the reign of Heim the Third, it must be law in the
reign of George the Foarth. The Learned .Judge cited the
dicta of .Judges found in various legal authorities in support of
his opinions, and concluded by declaring that the defendant,
upon his view of the case,.was entitled to judgment. •
Mr. Justice 'Joni° rp commented with great legal know,
ledge on the passage in Bracton, which was copied from. Jus.:
tinian, lib. 2. s. 1. That doctrine he held to be contrary to
many sound decisions in cases which the Learned Judge cited.
He was of opinion the right to bathe on the sea shore.was not
to be found in the Common Law, and held that the plaintiff in
this case ought to have judgment,
Mr. Justice BAvi,ET and the LORD ChtiEr JUST ICE also'
held that the public hail not the right of going upon the sea
• shore to bathe. The sea shore belonged to the King, who corn
ferred the right of navigation and fishing ; but it did not follow
that the right of bathing was conferred. If that right really did
exist, it must extend to the whole range of sea coast, and in
that case mischief and inconvenience must unavoidably arise.
If a person had a rant of land extending to the sea shore, was
he to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it, either fbr recreation
or any other object by machines for bathing? The Crown cer.
tainly would nut withhold the right of bathing where it did not
interfere with private property. If bathing had long been al,
lowed in any part of the sea coast, it would become a-right by
custom. Having considerable doubt on the doctrine of Bruton,
both the Learned Judges decided, that the Plaintiff ought to
have a verdict, and judgment was consequently entered for the
Plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
IM ANTPORT CASE.
Imvis v. Tilt BANK OF ENC LAND. •
This day, Mr. Serjeant LENS' moved this Court for a rule
to shew cause why the plaintiff, Mr. Horitio Davis, in a cause
in which the Bank of
.England were defendants, should not
have a new, trial, on the ground that he was taken by surprise
in a material fact, which had led to a recent verdict against him.
It will be recollected that Mr. Horatio Davis, a gentleman of
consideration, had brought an action to recover front the Go-
vernor and Company of the Bank of Enkland,tWO MITI:: of 50001.
which stood in his name in the 3 per cent. Consols, and 75 Long
Annuities, and which bad been fraudulently drawn outof the
Bank, by 'Mr. Davis's brother, Sir. J. H. Danis, whO was wrest-
ed' on a charge Of forgery upon Messrs Drummond and Co.,and
who afterwards escaped, in female attire, from the Poultry
Compter. Mr. Horatio 'Davis, as was his right, proc,eded to
recover from the Bank that amount of stock ; tie Bankialthougb
bearing similar losses when no suspicion attaches to the claimant
who is forged upon, resisted the payment on the ground that Mr.
Horatio Davis was appriSed by Ins brother, while in custody
at the Poultry Compter, of the forgery he had committed, and
had not disc ose'tha circumstance to the Bank. Illtt what
principally induced the verdictfor the Bank when the case came
before Lord Chief Justice Abbott, was the defendant's shelv-
ing that on the 10th of January, the day when the dividends
upon stock became payable at the Bank, the brother, J. 11.
Davis, had paid to the plaintiff's banker on his account 1501.
which was the identical sum due out of the 3 per' Cent. Consols
Annuities. From that fact, then for the first time introduced
by the Bank, all inference was forcibly raised that Mr. Horatio

Davis must then have known his brother had committztd the
yJrgery, and by not disclosing such knowledge to the Banlq.
had preclud..d himself from any legal claim against that
4,:stablishment for any reinibutsment- of his loss. Mr. Se.r-
jeant Lens now tendered several affidavits, for the purpose of
sheWing•that had not the plaintiff been taken by surprise at the
trial;_he.cduld haVe,satisfactrifily proved that the 1501. was dis-
tinctly paid on a housekeePing account, which was-conjointly,
kept between Lady Davis and her sons;. and which on the day
m question amounted to 4501. and each in-liquidation had paid
1501.'50 that as far =as,the particular paymmt-Went, the infe-
rence upon which the :fury went was.-,altogether fallacious. It
wastrpon these grounds that he,applied for a new trial.

The Court gr;nted a rule to slilir. cause.
The Court notified that they would not go into the City to-
morrow, as was published on the paper, owing to the Court
in Guildhall being in preparation for the iord Mayor's festival.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 7.
IN' THE GOODS OF - CHAMBERS, DECEASED•

[The iJou7trOsevelie.niy, having been entirely occupied
with motions in the usual course, and these, with the following
exceptiOn, poksessing no public interest] :
In the above case, Dr. JENNER stated that—. Chambers,
Esq., late a Captain in his Niajesty's navy, had died abroad, leav-
ing a will, by which he bequeathed property to the amount of
2,3001. Under this disposition, he had left his mother, the Hon.
Dame Chambers, a legatee to the amount of 6001., which sum
was directed to be secured to her for her own use, free from all con-
trol on the part of her hi\iband. The learned counsel added, that
Dame Chambers was appointed executrix ; but her husband
not appearing in this Court, no proxy being offered • for him,
and he, in point of fact, having been under sentence of excom-
munication passed by the Spiritual Courts so long ago as the
year 1803, and it not being known where he could now be
found, he (Dr. Jenner) 'was instructed to move the Court that
administration with the will annexed should be granted to the
Hon. Dame Chambers.
_ _ _

Sir JoH NICHOLL said, that though these circumstances
were very peculiar, and though no opposition was offered to this
prayer of Counsel, the more regular course, and that which he
should direct to be taken, would be, to give due notice of this
application on the part of Dame ChamberS, by publishing it on
tne of the Royal Exchange, and by advertisement in the
public newspapers. If no appearance should, after Chi:; be
given on the part of her husband, within the usual time ordered
by the law in such cases, the Court would feel no difficulty. in
decreeing as prayed.

IMPORTANT TO MANUFACTURERS:

NOTTINGHAM SESSIONS.
KAYE v.IIOGEItS.

This was an appeal against a warrant of distress issued
againSt Kaye, the appellant, on the.complaint of Thos. Rogers,
the respondent, a workman in the silk and cotton trade, that he
had been paid the sum of £79 wages due to him, in,goods 414
not in money, contrary to the provisions of the Act of the 12th
of George I. • Rogers was called, and deposed, that abciuf three
years ago he obtained work from Mr. Kaye for two warp ma•
chines, at the full price, and was paid in money ; he had been
working before at another place, and, was paid as four for five.
When he had worked for Mr. Kaye a month, he was told that
he must receive half his wages in goods and half in money, as

the other men did; and lie consented, receiving watches-,''
breeches pieces, a parasol, lea-caddy, prints, and such like
articles, some of Which, were produced Court. Thus he
worked for a long time, and at length made a fresh contract for'
some figured work, for which he was to be paid all. in money.
He was not paid. according to agreement, and applied to the
Police Office for the payment of the wages which he had, been
paid in goods, and on this complaint the magistrates made an
order for the payment, and granted a warrant of distress. Af.
ter Mr. Hurst, for the respondent, had been heard, an attempt
wa4 made to comproMise the matter, but it failed, and Mr. Par-
sons was heard for the appellant. The learned Record,:r said he
would look into the Acts of Parliament referred. to, in the course
of the evening, and would give the j udgment.of the Court on the
following day. Accordingly, on Friday, the decision of the Court
was pronounced in favour of the respondent. Mr. Recorder ob-
served, that the facts, in this case, were not disputed ; the only
question was, as to the construction of the'Act of Parliament. It
was admitted on both sides, that providing the payment in mods
was a lawful payment, nothing would now be coming to Rogers,
he would have been paid the whole of his demands ; but if pay-
ment in goods was no 'payment in law, it could not be disputed
that the magistrate had a right to grant a warrant of distress on
the complaint of Rogers. This question turned principally
upon the construction of .the 3d and 4th clan* of the 12th
Geo. I. c. 34, the provisions of which, by the 22d Geo. 11., had:
been extended to the cotton trade. He believed this was the
first judicial opinion which had been given on' this point, and ,
after a very careful perusal, on , the best construction he could
put on the different Acts, he was bound to say that he thought
the magistrates were right, and that the warrant was good and
valid. The third clause enacted, that the payment should be.
made in good and lawful money ; now if that had been all, the
proceeding must have been by indictment : but it proceeded
further, and said that the payment should not be made in goods,
and fur non-payment in money the magistrates were to issue
their warrants of distress. Now it was not contended -that there
had been any payment in money, and therefore the warrant
was properly granted. Mr. Parsons had ably contended, that
if so, the 4th clause, which enacts a penalty for payment in
goods, was in 'this case nugatory, but he thought it was accu-
mulative; and that this was an additional fence and guard for
the workman, against the oppression of his master in bad tim.s.
Under all these circumstances, his judgment was; that the pay-
ment in goods was no payment at all under the Act of Parlia-
ment, and, therefore thai. the magistrates had done right in
granting their warrant of distress.—Appeal dismissed. Mr.
I'arsons instantly signified his intention of removing it to the
Court of King's Bench eif he should find that he had power so
to do. •

CIUSTER 1" outcE.,—We congratulate our fel-
low citizens on the vigour and promptitude with
which our worthy Chief Magistrate, Mr. ltoc-Eas,
has commenced his Mayoralty, with a view of
enforcing the laws of the land against breaches
of the peace and good order. His Worship has
.dUring the last week issued an advertisement,
announcing his determination to suppress the
practice of keeping- open shops on. the Lord's
day ; to proceed against common - beggars, and
other disorderly persons ; regulate the hours
of shutting up public houses ; and 'likewise 16
enforce a due regard to weights and measures.
And especially we rejoice to •see, that he ex-
presses his determination to correct that most
flagrant and disgraceful nuisance, arising from!
the crowds of disorderly per Sons; both male and
female, which nightly infest our rows, particuil
larly on the evening of the Sabbath. This is an
evil which has long been the subject of complaint
and regret both to residents and strangers, and
which calls for not only the interposition of
magisterial authority, but for the zealous and
concurrent exertion of every inhabitant who has
a proper regard to decorum and the well-being
of society. 'We believe the notoriety and gross-
ness of the fact is so strongly impressed upon
the minds of our respectable fellow-citizens, that
if the Mayor would solicit their personal assist-
ance, for effectually, putting down the evil, his
call would be answered with alacrity and effect;
and that he would certainly secure the " co-ope-
! ration of the heads of families, in assisting him
in preventing this offensive nuisance."--To every
reasonable mean which the !Mayor may adopt,
for effectuating the laudable ends-he proposes, he
will at least have our best wishes and thanks,
as well as 'our most cordial support.—(Chester
Cow ant.)

CARMAGE BRIDGE'

TO THE PRINTERS OF THE KENTISII GAZETTE.

GEATL EM EN-1 request you' will correct• a'
statement which appeared in your Paper of Fri--
day last, relative to the repair of the CAR"'
itl GE "LODGE at the tail of the Abbot's Mill. in%

this City,. in which it was erroneously said they
bricked arch had given way and sunk, and that,
it had become necessary to stop the passage, or_
carriages over it. The fact is this, the workmen:
employed had omitted to ease the centre upon the
completion of the arch, as was directed by the
Surveyor, and upon the sudden removal of the
centre on Thursday morning last, the natural set-

ement of the arch caused the parapet waJis to

sink in the middle only, but no injury whatever,
was done to the arch, which is built in the most
substantial and workmanlike manner. The pas-
sage of carriages has been obstructed only durina.
Friday morning, the time required by the work-'
men to repair the parapet walls ; it is true that•
an application was made to the Mayor to put up'
barriers, but such proceeding was to the meanest.
capacity quite unnecessary, as no danger what:
ever could arise from passing over the bridge.--'
In reference to the observation, that a considerA
able expellee might have been saved by a repair
of the old bridge with timber, the public should-

be informed that the estimate for such repair, de.
livered at the last Sessions by a builder of this
city, was upwards of 601. whereas the charge for
the present much more substantial work not
exceed 701.'The incorrectness of the statemeot,
that the main timbers of the old 'bridge " were,
as sound and firm as when first laid by the late-

lessee of the mill, Mr. Alderman Simmons,';
may be ascertained by viewing their rotten aol"
dilapidated state in the yard of Mr. S. Ilaclieft
builder, of this city.
AN OBSERVER.
Canterbury, Nov. 5, 1821.. •

CAUTION TO FARSIERS,CARRYERS, AND °nags!
—There are -snme men traversing this Count/
with the view of making a sum of money by lay'
lug informationS'against the owners of waggeng/
caravans, &c. which have not the proper nanle
and place of abode of the owners ; it therefore
behaves all those who have any carriage of that
description to have them properly marked, which'
according to the statute, must be painted on the
body of the carriage in the most conspicuous parr
thereof, and not on a tin plate or piece of boar'
nailed thereon ; .and the Christian and surname
must be in words at length, and the name of the
city, town, or parish in which such owner resiJes'
otherwise the Magistrate before whom the it"'
formation is given must inflict the whole penaltY
for every waggon, caravanl cart, &c. not thus Pf°-
pe rymark ed K.-en/Lit Ga7,ette, Nov. 6.)

BO ROUGH GANG OF RESURRECTION 11101'.-:
On Friday last, three fellows named 5)104
Thomson, and Collins, belonging to this jag."'
mous gang, and who forfeiter', their
at the last Maidstone sessions, were returning to
town a cart, having six dead bodies, whio
they must have stolen from some church-yard ill
the neighbourhood of Footscray, and were sta;
ped at that turnpike-gate ; but the villains e`;
fected their escape, leaving, bow ever, the hor%
and cart with the dead bodies behind. It Or
the same horse -and cart they, had at Seal, oeaj
Seven Oaks, some time ago, when they attemPtew
to rob4;hat church-yard.: This subject is- or.,
being investigated by .Mr. Ell'E•Nl?,j an active)."
gistrate of that , neighbourhood. On the sarl'a
night the two Crouches (,llrothers,) //a7viel, 31,15
another fellow, all belonging to this
gang, were stopped with a'horse and cart allula
dead body at Epping. The. hOrse and cart 3.tier
the two Crouches were secured, and the latter
safely lodged in Barking•giol. Barnett and 10.,
other fellow escaped by knocking,downthe c,c)tv
stable. T‘vo or three aotive• oifice-rs .are
look-out for the, whole of these desperadoes'

roar
On Satvday -afternoon last, between '
and five o'clock, as EDWARD BUCKHAM, a 911,6
man who assisted' his father and mother in
management of a small farm near Ponteland, ILI
driving a
_cart laden with manure on thee
near Bullock-steads, 'there being three rajoa
carts returning from Newcastle market bel' r.;
him, the driver of the last, W. Bitows, a farn,'ert,
son, when about '2OO yards from the dung"--rifi,
set oil at a gallop, passed the. other two 3joci,
which continued their Usual pace, and l'acjv
only reins to the shaft-h Oise, drove his clirt,ted
rectly upon pOor P;uckbam, who had retr% of
behind his own vehicle for safety ; the sha—iiis
Brown's cart was instantly forced through cifbody,
body, clothes and all, and the end brActile
short, protrUning both ways ! Of course
co,
sufferer died instantly. The author of tbistc;
tastrophe drove on at a trot, but was called ret‘
by the spectator's, when he evinced his rejs
On Monday an inquest was held on the bnufaiet
S. REED, Esq. and the Jury returned a veri.ottr
of Manslaughter against Brown. and he -aS 014:
mitten ny• the -Coroner to-Moriwth gaoll
'
his trial at the next A,ss;zes —(Ber---ick )1
tezer.)
Pricell4.l
Snider >°,o'
Lold - - - t
,ct
tie'

'Mt

COAL-ILAR.a.I7I, No v. 7.
Ships at Market. Ships sole,
105 Newcastle - • • 894