The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

In the Table of Imports and Exports printed
by an order of the House of Commons last
Session, it appears that the total value of ex-
ports from Great Britain for the year ending sth
of January, 1829, was nearly 62,000,0001.
sterling, of which rather more than 52,000,0001.
consisted of British and Irish produce and manu-
factures. The remaining 10,000,000/. exported
wee e only in transitu through this country ; and
of them about 1,000,000/. was the produce of
our own colonial possessions. The imports--
meaning, we suppose, what was for home con-
sumption—amounted (officially) to 43,500,0001.
Among these there are more than 800,000/.
from British North American colonies, and
consisting, we take for granted, in the greater
proportion, of timber; the whole of which is of
infinitely inferior quality to the growth of Nor-
way, from which country, under the existing sys-
tem of taxation, England cannot afford consump-
tion for more than between 60,000/. and 70,0001.
It seems to us that the day must come when
the Legislature will revise this plan of prohibit-
ing durable and valuable timber for the encou-
ragement of a trade in that which is compara-
tively worthless. All the buildings, public and
private, in this kingdom, where American deal
has been used instead of Norway, have suffered
more or less from the substitution. Germany
is the portion of Europe with which we drive
the most extensive trade, our exports of home
produce and manufactures thither having
amounted last year to 7,500,000/. ; those to
Italy to upwards of 3,000,000/. ; to the Nether-
lands little short of 3,000,000/. ; to Portugal,
&e., 2,500,000/., to Russia, 1,800,0001.; while
to the United States of North America we ex-
port above 8,200,0001., and to 8razi13,750,000/.
Our trade with France amounts to no more than
an import of 2,500,000/., principally wines, and
an export of 500,0001. Such a scanty inter-
change does little credit to the policy of which-
soever of these great kingdoms has thrown ob-
stacles in the way of a more extended and liberal
commerce.—Times.
If the dispute between the Bishop of Lincoln
and the Rev. Mr. Wray should lead to some
measure for a better dispensation of the wealth
of the Church among the respective classes of
the Clergy than that which prevails at present, it
will have done great good. The disparity of in •
come which exists between those who are called
the inferior Clergy and the Dignitaries of the
Establishment is not very creditable to a Chris-
tian country. It is time that this disparity should
be reduced, and a better apportionment of the
revenues of the Church be substituted for the
present grossly unequal distribution of its riches.
It is neither just nor decorous that those who
are the real " labourers in the vineyard"—those
who " bear the burden and the heat of the day,'
should be left to struggle with poverty and priva•
tion, while the wealth of the Establishment is am.

ply sufficient to give a decent and comfortable pro-
vision to all the working Clergy, and a liberal allow-
ance to those of superior rank. We object not to
the existence of degrees of dignity and power in
the Church, but we do object to that sort of dis-
tinction between the higher and inferior Clergy
which showers all the means and appliances of
pomp and luxury upon the one class, and leaves
poverty, with all its sordid anxieties, as the bit-

ter portion of the other. A less unequal divi.
sion of ecclesiastical wealth would, instead o

impairing the strength, add to the stability of the
Church, by giving it a firmer hold upon public
opinion. ro take from the superfluities of the
higher Clergy as much as would suffice to make
a comfortable and independent provision. for
Curates and others of scanty income would in-
crease the moral influence of the Establishment,
by adding to the respectability of the Ministers
of religion. It is better for the character and
authority of the Church that those who serve it
should neither display luxurious splendour on
the one side, nor feel the abject condition of a
scanty subsistence on the other. The mild
virtues of the Christian Pastor best flou-
rish in that middle fortune which is above

the temptations that beset poverty, and
below the inflating vanity of great riches.
It is impossible that a Curate can sup-
port himself and a family decently upon the
stipend which he is now allowed by law, even
though he receive it without any abatement,
which is far from being always the case. He is
consequently obliged to have recourse to some
other employment to eke out the means of life,
and if he cannot procure another Curacy, or
some other engagement in the Church, he, ge-
nerally, becomes an instructor of youth, and thus
fills two sorts of occupations, either of which, if
rightly performed, ought to be quite enough to
employ the laborious attention of any man.
But some Bishops, of late, set their faces against
Curates and other ill-paid Ministers of religion
taking pupils, because, they say, it interferes
with their clerical duties. So Vicars and un-
patronised Rectors, with very small livings, are
prevented from enjoying pluralities, while the
greater number of the dignitaries of the Church
are themselves pluralists !—Surely a Christian
Church ought to be regulated upon principles
more consonant with the just sentiments and the
meek and beneficent virtues of Christianity.--
Morning Herald.
We yesterday gave a sort of indication of the
nature of the transactions in which Mr. Nash
was concerned respecting the Regent's Canal.
The following important evidence of Alexander
Milne, Esq., Chief Secretary to the Office of
Woods and Forests, is so important by way of
introduction to this affair, that we shall give it
entire (Evidence, p. 70):
" Have you the original correspondence between
Mr. Nash and the Treasury and the Board of Works,
which led to the agreement for leases to the Re-
gent's Canal Company, and the subsequent transfer
to Mr. Nash of certain allotments P-1 have (pro-
ducing the same.)

" Have you a schedule of the papers you have
now delivered in ?—I have. (The witness delivered
in the same.)

" Will you read the Memorial of the Regent's
Canal Company, for a lease of four acres of ground
adjoining the Commercial Basin in the Regent's,
park ?—(The witness read the same,)
" Have ytsu a list of the General Committee ?
Yes.

" Is Mr. Nash's name among them ?—lt is.
" Did the Board understand then that the Com-
mittee intended to erect these wharfs and ware,
houses themselves ?—Yes, they did.
" Will you read next Mr. Nash% Report of the
17th of May, 1816 ?—(The witness read the same.)
This letter appears to have been sent down to Mr.
Huskisson, who was then First Commissioner of
Woods; and on the back of it is a memorandum in
his hand-writing—' the lands on the banks of the
Commercial Basin should either be let by public
tender in one or more lots, or to the Regent's
Canal Company, on the terms suggested, as the
Treasury may suggest.
" Will you read the terms on which Mr. Nash
proposed that the land should be let to the Com-
pany ?—c I should recommend the lease to be'
granted to the Company of the land for fifty years,

at a gross rent, for the first fourteen years, of ten
pounds per acre, and fifteen pounds an acre for the
next seven years, at ten shillings per foot, measured
on the banks of the Canal ; for the next fourteem
years, at the full rent of one pound a foot for the re-
mainder of the term.'
" Does not he also suggest, that the banks of the
Cut should remain in the hands of the Company ?
The banks of the Cut in the hands of the Canal
Company, would be more likely to let, and will be
better covered than in the hands of the Clown.'
" Will you read the part at the end of the letter,
in which he states his interest ?—c I should not have
given any opinion on this subject, being interested
as a proprietor in the Canal, but I am called on so
to do, in discharge of my duty to the Commissioners;
and in doing so I have endeavoured to divest myself
of personal consideration:
" In what capacity did Mr. Nash act for the
Board, in ,giving this advice ?—He was the architect
of the Board in letting ground for buildings in the
Regent's Park.
" And he received compensation for that duty ?
Yes.
" In what shape ?—ln the shape of a half-year's
ground-rent upon all the property let.
" You mean, that the same contract existed with
regard to the Regent's Park, as existed with regard
to the new street 7—Yes.
" Mr. Nash planned the Regent's Park, did not
he ?—He did ; the -whole plan originated with Mr.
Nash."

The next document is a Report of the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests on the oth of
July, 1816—(The witness read the same).
" Does not it appear by the Report of the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests that they did not
consider them entitled to the favourable terms which
they themselves had applied for originally, and which
Mr. Nash had recommended to be given ?—lt does.
" Have they incurred any responsibilities or risks
in the construction of their Canal which they did
not calculate upon in their returns originally to Go-
vernment ?—None; all that they had agreed upon
during the progress of the Bill through Prliament.
" Was not the consideration which weighed upon
the minds of the Commissioners to induce them to
look favourably upon the application of the Com-
pany, the security which would accrue to the Crown
by the Company undertaking to erect wharfs and
warehouses instead of being left to individual en-
terprise ?—The opinion of the Board is stated in the
letter I have just read, and it is to that effect.
" And they expected that the Company would at
their own cost and charge, erect such wharfs and
warehouses ?—That appears to have been the ex.
pectation of the Board.
" Do you think that they would have been dis-
posed to give those terms, if they had imagined that
it would he afterwards left to individuals to erect
such wharfs and warehouses ?—I can form no opi-
nion on that subject; it was not a matter under con-
sideration at the time.
" Is there any thing upon this letter which would
induce you to suppose so ?—No.
"Is there any thing in that • letter which would
induce you to suppose the contrary ?—Nothing.
" The letter you have read contains these words—
'lt may, however, be worthy of consideration,
whether it might not be more beneficial fr,r the
Crown to have the Company for its tenant of the
ground in question, than any private individual, by
reason of the great inducement the Company would
have to cause a speedy establishment thereon of
proper wharfs and warehouses, for successfully car-
rying on the trade, with a view to which the said
commercial cut and basin were undertaken ;' does
that lead you to suppose that they preferred having
the Company to any individual; and that, therefore,
the prospect of having the Company was the main
inducement to them to accede to the terms of the
Company, although they had previously asserted in
the letter that the Company had no claim to such
indulgence? I do not think it rests with me to
put any opinion upon the language of the Board,
other than what it bears upon the face of it. The
next is a letter from the Treasury, in answer to the
Report I have just read, dated the 12th August,
1816.—(The witness read the same.)—The next is
a letter written by myself, on the 31st of August,
1816, under the direction of the Commissioners, to
the Chairman of the Canal Company, communicat-
ing the terms for lease.—( The witness rend the same.)
" Who was the architect alluded to in that an-
swer, whom the Board employed to point out the
conditions of the lease with the Company ?—Mr.
Nash.

" If that alternative suggested by Mr. Huskisson,
of letting by tender, had been adopted, it is pre-
sumed that the Canal Company would not neces-
sarily have erected the buildings ?—They would not
necessarily.

" Are the Committee to understand by the last
letter, that the terms which the Company originally
demanded were acceded to ?—The Company did
not demand terms; the Company applied for a lease,
but did not state any terms. The next is a letter of
the 11th of September, 1816, from the Chairman
of the Canal Company to the Commissioners of
Woods, applying for reduced terms. (The wit-
ness read the same.)

" Does not it appear by that document, that the
Canal Company thought the valuation of Mr. Nash
too high ?—They did.

" Do they not state, that the advantages to result
to the Crown would be by the occupation of the
wharfs by the Canal Company ?—They do. The
next letter is on the 4th of June, 1817, from the
Secretary of the Regent's Canal Company to me.—
(The witness read the same.)

" Can you state what was the cause of the delay
from the 11th of September ?—I think the proceed-
ings of the Canal Company were suspended from
want of funds. The next is a letter from myself to
the Secretary of the Canal Company, on the 11th of
June, 1817. (The witness read the same.) The
next is a letter of the 27th of July, 1818, from
Messrs. Edwards and Lyon, the Solicitors of the
Regent's Canal Company. (The witness read the
same.)

" Can you inform the Committee whether they
were solicitors to Mr. Nash do not know.
" They state, that in their corporate capacity they
cannot become the lessees of the Crown. Are you
aware upon what they formed that opinion ?—No.
" Had they not, in their corporate capacity, pur-
chased land of the Crown ?—They had.
" Can you state how it was that nothing occurred
between the 11th June, 1817, and the 27th of July,
1818, in that communication between the Canal
Company and the Board ?—No; I only know that
the works of the Canal Company were proceeding
very slowly about that time.

" Is the Mr. Edwards, whose name is signed to
that last letter, the Mr. Edwards who afterwards
became the lessee of the Suffolk-street property?—
It is.

"Is lie still a solicitor ?-4 believe not. The
next letter is also from Messrs. Edwards and Lyon,
on the 9th of September, 1818.—(The witness read
the same.)

" Were not the petitions referred to for a fifty
years' lease ?—They were.
" They state that they will make the excavation
at their own expence. Is not it usual for Canals to
mAke all excavations at their own expence ?—Yes.
" Do you know why they made this statement ?
—No. The next is a letter of the 31st October,
1818, from myself to Mr. Nash.—(The witness read
the same.)—:The next letter is on the 31st Decem-
ber, 1818, from Mr. Nash, in reply to my ►letter of
the 31st October.
" In a letter from yourself to Mr. Nash, dated the
31st of October, you state that Mr. Nash had been
desired to transmit tq the office a regular survey
and valttatioa of the land, specifying also a number
of partlettlars therein mentioned, which Report was
to he verified on oath according to the Act of Par-
liament; was such detailed Report verified upon
oath given in by Mr, Nash ?—There is only the Re-
port in answer to that letter, and the plan referred

to then was not delivered by Mr. Nash till the lease Mr. Nash to report on that proposal on the 31st of
was to be granted. December, 1818 ; Mr. Nash does report on the
" Then that Report is not upon oath ?—lt is not 14th of January, 1819; the Treasury suggest that
upon oath. the request of the Canal Company should be ac-
" Is it not the fact, that no plan whatever was de- ceded to; and then, on the 6th of November,
livered in by Mr. Nash, the previous plan having 1821, the Treasury warrant is made out; how can
been delivered in by the Company ?—There is no that be reconciled with the statement which is
other plan ; this Report has reference to the plan now made ?—As Ido not know the details of the
delivered by the Company, in applying for an ad- , works of the Regent's Canal Company, I cannot
ditional quantity of land for a basin. answer that question.
"In Mr. Nash's last letter to the Board which has "In this letter from Mr. Lyon on the behalf of
just been read, he proposes 61 years' lease, instead Mr. Nash, more favourable terms are asked for an
of the original period 50 years' lease; was that a extension of the period to ninety-nine years; to whom
voluntary proposal of his own ?—He says, I beg was this letter referred before the Commissioners of
to observe that it would be more advantageous to Woods and Forests deemed it advisable to accede
the Crown, and I think also to the Regent's Canal to the request ?—I do not think it was referred to
Company, that liberty should not be given to re- any body; that letter was not referred to any body :
move the buildings, at the end of 21 years, but that there is a minute upon the back of it, The Board
the usual building term of 61 years, should be granted are of opinion that the two first propositions are rea-
paying 101. per annum. sonable, and proper to be granted, but the third can-

" Mr. Nash says,' I am also of opinion that the
bonus which they will get in the grass rents of 101.
and 1.51. per annum will not over-pay them, if they
wall the basin ; are you sufficiently acquainted with
the construction of Canals as to say whether a basin
can exist unless it be walled 2—l apprehend that
the walling the basin would be partly the duty of
the Canal Company, and partly the duty of the per-
son who possessed wharfs upon the banks of the
basin ; if a different person was the owner of the
wharf., then I think the walling of the basin would
le a duty equally belonging to them both.

" In the letter of July, ISIS, the Company apply
to the Board to know whether they may have per-
mission to substitute Mr. Nash's name, instead of
the name of the Company ; was any answer made
to that ap,Olication ?—None at all. . . . .
Yirxt!it.+ter is the 19th of January, 1819, from
the (onseiss,:-)nors of Woods to the Treasury.
(The Xittj ess he,-e read the same).
" Werr • not all those valuations upon which the
C°lnmisY loners of W.:iods and Forests relied made
by Mr.. Nash?—Yes.

. -
" W' oat portion of the eight acres is it that the
,t3oard recommend to the Treasury being granted in
feg ? No portion of the eight acres; the eight
acres v ;ere to be granted on lease; it was the por-
-lion forming the bed of the basin that was to be sold

in fee.
" 1 sit necessary that that which is actually exca-
vate( as the course of water should be granted in
Seel —That is so ; it is the bed of the canal.
41 Then, at the expiration of the term, if the Com-
y should not agree with the Crown, the basin
.ild be of use to nobody ?—Yes; the next is a
.I:iti.er from the Treasury of the 12th of February,
;1,819, in answer to the Commissioners' Report,
:.authorising the extended grant to be made.—(The
-,jvitness read the same.)—The next is a Report of
t:lte Commissioners to the Treasury, en the Bth of
:Novernl.,er, 1821, requesting a warrant to make the
yrant.—(The witness read the same.)
“It appears by this letter that the Board of
IV,;Otis and Forests consider Mr. Nash not as the
'is see fur the eight acres, but as the trustee only for
he Company ?--Yes.
. • •

. . . • . .
ic i')id the Crown grant a lease of the whole to
-mr. N, tsh in trust, or did they wait until they had
4„oset of the property and then grant leases to
pecsc, ns buying under him ?—lt was granted to
'llr. Nash in three different leases, upon the nomi-
matioa of the Regent's Canal Company, and they
ztre parties to the lease, their nomination being sig..
iii6ed by their seal being affixed to the lease.
" So that they were leases to •
Mr. Nash as pro-
nietor not to Mr. Nash in trust ?—On the nomi-
-..naoon of the Company.

•
Will you read the next letter ?—The next let-
the.2jth of February, 1823.—(The witness
read tin.' same.)
The Committee state here, that the grant should
Le modified in such a manner 83 may over a fair in-
ducement to the traders to nccupy the basin; was it
not their origlasl idea that the Company themselves
would erect the buildings ?—No ; I apprehend the
view of the Company wo.s to underlet it.
'4 By whom is that signed ?—lt is not signed ; it
is in she name of the ' Committee.'
" Voi.: do not know in whose hand-writing it is ?
—No ; my answer was directed to the Clerk of the
Regent's 011,1 Company of the 10th of March fol-
lowing.—(The wLtness read the same.)

. • •
" Will you -read the ne;:the next is dated
Regent's Canal-office, 21st. Ai:gust, 1823;' it is
a letter from Mr. Lyon to me.—(The Witness read
the same.)
" What is the next letter in point of date ?—The.
10th of November, 1823; this is a further lter to
the Commissioners from Mr. Lyon, on beha letter to
the Con2lsSlofltrs from Mr. Lyon, on behalf of a
nominee of the Regent's Canal Company.—(The
witness read the same.)
" Who is the nominee referred to in this ?—Mr.

Nash.
" is his name mentioned in the letter ?—No.

. _
I not be entertained ;' the third was as to the reduction
of rent ; and, there is on the margin of the letter, in
Mr. Huskisson's writing, against the first and second,
agreed to,' and against the third, rejected.'
" Was all the other building-ground let at 99
years ?—lt was.
" Was it known to the Commissioners at that
time that the nominee who was referred to in that
letter was Mr. Nash ?—lt was.
" Was it known to the Commissioners that Mr.
Nash was acting in this case, not for the profit of the
Company, but for his own profit ?—I do not think
it was at that time.
" Will you proceed with the correspondence
The next is a Report of the Commissioners to the
Treasury, dated the 25th of November, 1823.—(The
witness read the same.)
" Are the conditions there the original conditions ?
--They are the original conditions, except as to the
length of the term.
" It ►rants that modification as to the length of the
term ?—lt does; it extends the term to 99 years.
" But there is no reduction of rent given ?—No;
none.
" The Board admit Mr. Nash in the place of the
Company ?—Yes.

" Will you read the next ?—The next is a letter
from Mr. Lyon to myself, dated Office of Woods,
Nov. 29, 1823.'—(The witness read the same.)
" Will you read the next ?—The next is a letter
from Mr. Lyon in answer, dated December 13, 1823.
—(The witness read the same.)
" The six s%harfs that are let are let at nearly a
pound a foot, are they not ?—Nearly.

" What is the next document ?—lt is a Treasury
Minute of the date of the 16th of January, 1824,
authorising the Commissioners of Woods to grant a
lease to Mr. Nash.—(The witness read the same.)
" What is the reason that they rescind the for-
mer lease ?—Because the term was extended to
ninety-nine years.

" When were the leases actually granted in con-
sequence of this new warrant ?—On the 12th and
14th of February, 1824, leases were granted of the
house in Augusta-street ; and on the 31st of May,
182,5,a lease was granted of fourteen plots of ground,
abutting on the Commercial Dock of the Regent's
Canal.

" Are they for ninety-nine years from those re-
spective dates ?—No ; for ninety-nine years from
the sth of April, 1819.
" Are those leases produced ?—They are.
" Are the Committee to understand that this
paper, which states the annual rents on the ground
granted by the Regent's Canal Company, contains
the whole of the eight acres ?—Yes; there were, in
1824, twenty-six houses in Augusta-street, 261.;
that is a pound a house; the 14th of February, the
same year, twenty-seven houses in Augusta-street,
271.; the 31st of May, 1825, fourteen plots of
ground, abutting on the Commercial Dock of the
Regent's Canal, with sundry Messuages, 241. 14s.
for the first seventeen years, 631. 11s. for the next
seven years, 1341. for the next fourteen years, and
1,3211. for the remainder of the term.
" The 1,3211. for the remainder of the term, is at
the rate of 11. a foot frontage on the Canal, is it not ?
--Yes, it is ; a part of the eight acres was not granted
to Mr. Nash, the Commissioners having reserved one
wharf for the landing materials for the repairs of the
roads in the Park.
" You state that the houses are let at a pound a
piece, is that the ground rent, or the rent of the
houses ?—The ground rent.

" What is the paper we handed to you ?—lt is
the Minutes of Wednesday, the 15th of July, 1818,
of the Regent's Canal Company—' Present, the
Earl of Macclesfield in the Chair; Colonel Drink,
water ; Culling Charles Smith, Esq. ;
Elliott, Esq. ; Henry Brooksbank, Esq.; and John
Nash, Esq. The Committee resumed the con-
sideration of the question respecting the wharf land
adjoining the basin in the Regent's Parlc, And Mr.
Lyon having reported that the Company could not
legally take a lease of the same, Mr. Nash signified
his readiness to take the land in question on the
terms offered to the Company by the Commis-
sioners of Woods, &c.; and stated, that in theld not
event
of the lease being granted to him, e wou,
without the authority of the Committee, let the
land to any person who would not agree to pay the
Company the proportion of the expence of the
lining of the basin which would be attsched to their
respective wharfs. Resolved, that under the cir-
cumstances above mentioned, Mr. Lyon be directed
to express to Mr. Milne (the Commissioners' Se-
cretary), that the Committee not having power by
the Act to avail themselves of suck leases of the
land in question, desire that the lease of ,the land
in question should be made out in the name of Mr.
Nash.'
" Had you any official notification of those mi-
nutes ?—Only that which I have read.
" How was that paper communicated to your
Board ?—lt was not communicated to our Board; I
received it from the Chairman of the Committee at
the present moment.
Will you refer to the letter from your office to
the Treasury of the Bth of November, 1821 ?_(The
witness read the same.)
" Will you read the next letter, which is of the
6th December, 1821 ?—(The witness read the same.)

" Mr. Lyon states, in his letter of the 10th of
November, 1823, ' that more than six years have !
elapsed since the basin was formed and walls
built how can that be, when the Treasury war-
rant to sanction the sale of the ground to the Com-
pany for the increase of their basin, is dated the 6th
of December, 1821 ?—lt is very probable that the
Treasury warrant might not be applied for till they
were desirous the sale should be corn_pleted; it is
very usual to have the warrant of the Treasury
dated long after the transactions which they are
meant to sanction have been in progress.
" Would the Company be at the expense of ex-
eavatiog their wharfs before they knew whether the
Treasury would sanction the sale ?—lf the Company
were told that the Board would apply to the Trea-
sury to sanction it.
" This excavation must have been made in the
year 1817 for six years to have elapsed by the 10th
of September, 1823; now the first application for
more land is on the oth of September, 1818, when
they state, that as the prospect of an increasing
trade appears, they wish tor an additional piece of
ground
acid eeir basin ; the Commisstoners of
Woods arid Forests on the 31st of October, desire

additional four acres for the Company, the Com-
pany were ignorant of this application ; and the
Commissioners, in equal ignorance of his cha-
racter, at that time were directing Mr. Nash to
report on his own application. That the Canal
Company were ignorant of the application, ap-
pears from their minutes produced in evidence,
and from the evidence of their Secretary, Mr.
Snee, p. 204.

" Wes that book contains the Minutes of the
proceedings of the Board of the Directors of the
Regent's Canal Company, of the year 1818 ?—Yes.
" Will you refer to any Resolution or any Mi-
nutes of the Company determining to take a second
grant of four acres in the neighbourhood of the basin
of the Regent's Canal ?—I do not recollect such a
minute as that.

" Is it usual to take land without any minutes or
any resolution to that effect, or lease of ground of
Our acres ?—I should think not.
' There is no minute to that effect 2—There is
that I am aware of.
And no record in these books to that effect ?
.No.

not,

" Are you aware of a letter from Edwards and
Lyon on the 9th of September, 1818, respecting
the subject that has been alluded to ?—Yes.
" Do you know any thing about the authority
given for writing the letter ?—I do not, at this dis-
tant period, unless it was on some conference with
the Chairman :—I have certainly not any clear re-
collection about it.

Do you consider taking the four acres of land
as a matter of such trifling importance that there
would be no minute to that effect ?—I think not.

" In point of fact, did the Canal Company ever
take these four acres, or did they not ?—They did
not.
__Mr. Nash, I believe, took the whole of the

land."

Mr. Lyon, on being asked, p. 206, " By
whose direction did you write that letter ?" an-
swered " Upon my word it is so long ago, I
cannot remember ; I should have said; if I had
not heard there was no minute, it was by direc-
tion of the Committee ; I should have said so, if

1 had not heard there was not a minute to that
effect." It would have been a miracle if Mr.
Nash, the Crown Architect, delivered in Re-
ports unfavourable to Mr. Nash, the Crown Te-
nant in these eight acres of land. In his Repoit
of the 31st of December, 1818, on this spuriou
application of the Company, he recommended
better terms to the Company, that is to him-
self—that the term of fifty years should become
sixty-one years, and magnifies the great advan-
tages the Crown would derive from the opera-
tions of the Company as an inducement. A
curious document appears in p. 132, alluded to
in Mr. Milne's Evidence, dated Regent's Canal
Office, 26th February, 1823, soliciting from the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests, for the
Company still (not a word of Mr. Nash!), an
extension of the period of the lease to 99 years,
" awl to lessen the ultimate rent for the frontage
of the land from one guinea to fifteen shillings
per foot." This request was refused by the
Commissioners. In the Minutes of the Canal
Company of that date, 26th February, 1823, it
is stated, " Mr. Lyon then submitted a letter,
which he this morning received from Mr. Nash,
confirmatory of the above statement, and re-
questing the Committee to memorial for an ex-
tension of the term, and for a reduction in the
rent of the land to be leased by the Crown to
Mr. Nash on the margin of the basin." And
the Committee resolve to second the views of
Mr. Nash. These are certainly strange pro-
ceedings. But our limits force us to close fur
the present.—Morning Chronicle.

There is no subject connected with the revenue
of the country, or the prosperity of the cotton
trade, which reflects more disgrace on the Go.
vernment, or to which its attention, with the view
of effecting a reform, is more imperatively called,
than the duty which is levied on printed cottons.
The Government, or rather the revenue, gains
nothing by it ; and the country suffers to an ex-
tent in its export trade of the article of which it
would be difficult to form an accurate idea.
According to a Parliamentary return, the whole
amount of the duty on calicoes in 1828, amounted
to somewhat more than 1,640,0001.—n0 great
addition to the revenue it will be allowed,
when it is considered that of almost all the ex-
portable articles from this country, printed cali-
coes hold the highest rank in the estimation of
foreigners, as they are assuredly the most sale-
able: in this country. On this amount of reve-
nue, however, there is a drawback on exporta-
tion, which last year amounted to nearly
1,300,0001., leaving only, in round numbers,
about 350,0001. of actual revenue ! Even from
this sum, however, must be deducted the ex-
pense of collecting the gross amount of
1,640,000/. of revenue, and of disbursing, the
nearly quay largo aMcvint Of 1,800,000 t.—a
tax which, even at day labourers' wages, must
reduce the quantum received by the Exchequer
to a mere nothing. There are undoubtedly
taxes of a much more mischievous and
disagreeable character than the tax on cali-
coes ; but we believe there is none more
purely futile, or which the Government might
relinquish with less risk of loss. It enhances
the prices of the article to the foreign consumer ;
it lessens the consumption at home ; its collec-
tion is doubly more expensive, on account of
the drawback on exportation, than that of any
other tax
and lastly, it yields nothing to the
revenue ; and stronger arguments, we think,
cannot well be produced against its continuance.
We trust, however, now that the Catholic ques-
tion has been settled, that the Duke of Welling-
ton ant his colleagues will turn their attention to
this and many other matters connected with the
Stamps and the Excise, which demand not only
consideration, but even on the first view, the
most decided reform.—Morning Advertiser.

• I • ,
" If it had been understood by the Board that on
the sth of July, 1818, the actual property in these
leases was transferred to Mr. Nash, do you think
that the Board would on the 31st of October, in the
same year, have applied to Mr. Nash for his opinion
about a higher extension of the lease and further
conditions ; or that they would have sent Mr. Nash's
opinion to the Treasury as an authority for.them to
act upon, if they had been cognizant at the time that
Mr. Nash was the actual proprietor of the leases ?
No, I apprehend the Board would pot have done so,
" Did not you in one of :your letters warn Mr.
Nash that he waz to verify on oath ?—Yes.
" Did he so verify on oath hp did not.
" What was the
.time when the Board were first
aware that Mr. Nash was the actual lessee ?-1
really do not know ; I do not think it was more
than two or three years ago i I think it was when
tha leases were granted.
" Before that they believed him to be a Trustee
for the Company ?-,They did.
" Are :you aware whether, whop the Commis-
sioners of Woods and Forests became informed
that Jr. Nash was the lessee, any inquiry was made
of any other yc.hler as to the value of the land ?
No, there was not,
" Notwithstanding it had come to their knowledge
that Mr. Nash had himself a beneficial interest in it ?
; the Commissioners had previously agreed to
let to the :Regent's Canal Company the land at a
certain price, and they felt themselves bound by that
agreement."
Let us rest a little here. The lovers of mys-
ti6cation will find it here to their heart's content.
The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, up
to the very last, when the leases were granted to
Mr. Nash, conceived that their paid Architect
had merely chosen to relieve the Canal Company
from .in embarrassment, occasioned by their dis-
covery. that they could not take leases of land
by acting as Trustee fpr them. On the 15th
July, 1818, the Company, behig in want of
funds, could not help regretting that they had
applied for ground for wharfs, and Mr. Nash
consents to take it off their hands. On the 27th
July, 1818, Messrs. Edwards and Lyon write
to .isli. Milne, requesting, " as it is doubtful
whether the Company can, in their corporate
capacity, Biter into any valid compact by way of
lease," that the lease l.;e granted in the name of
John Nash, of nover-Street, Piccadilly, Esq.
The Company did not state that they were wfant
of funds, and that they were glad to be relieved
of their bargain. And why ? M6ssrs, Edwards
and Lyon, Solicitors to the Company, and Soli-
citors to Mr. Nash, in a month or two after-
wards, that is, ID,I the 9th September, 1818, as
there was a fair prospect of pr.* establishing it-
self in the Regent's Park, to a greatow
than kVQ,S, expected, applied to Mr. Milne for an
extension of the Basin, having liberty to use the
soil excavated in the mak-ing of bricks. If the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests had
known that a month or two before the Canal
Company were in want of funds, and had aban-
doned the first four acres to Mr. Nash, the ap-
plication for another four acres would Kaye made
them as wise as Mr. Nash himself was. The
letter of the 21th July, and the letter of the Dth
of September, therefore, dovetail admirably into
each other. Our, readers will please to bear iu
mind, that when Mr. Nash was applying for an

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-S BEET.

was kept without provisions, cruelly beaten, and hove
over the ship's side in a situation where he was con-
tinually in the sea-water. Witness—Yes, Sir ; he
was once so exhausted that he lost his hold and went
overboard, and would have been drowned, but I
hauled him out of the water.

Yesterday Richard Breadcutt, a determined-
looking fellow, between 50 and 60 years of age,
was charged with having desperately assaulted two
Irish women, mother and daughter, both of whose
heads exhibited dreadful cuts, which it appeared the
prisoner had inflicted with a poker.
The elder female, who said that her name was
Mary Allison, and that she lived in Kentish-town,
was obliged to be supported while giving her evi-
dence, which she did in a voice scarcely audible.
She stated that the prisoner came from his own
house at Cain's-place, Kentish-town, that morn-
ing, to the house where she and her daughter
were residing, which was about 100 yards distant,
and without any reason whatever began to attack
her (the witness) with a poker, with which he came
armed. He struck her several severe blows upon
the head, and when her daughter came to her assist-
ance, the prisoner immediately fell upon her, and
swore that he would murder them both.
Bridget Hogan, daughter of the last witness,
stated that she had lived in the service of the
prisoner, but that his wife having brought her to a
house of ill-fame, she (the witness) left the situa-
tion, and upon going to demand her wages, the
prisoner's wife threw a pail of water upon her, in
consequence of which they fought, and then the
prisoner's wife went to Hatton-garden aid obtained
an assault-warrant against witness. The Magistrate,
however, upon hearing the case, decided that the
complainant was the first aggressor, and dismissed
the charge. Witness supposed it was in conse-
quence of this defeat that the prisoner attacked her
mother and herself. She then proceeded to state,
that the prisoner having struck her mother upon the
head with the poker until she was covered with
blood and in a state of insensibility, began to attack
her with the same weapon, expressing his determina-
tion to be the death of them both. Witness re-
ceived several severe blows upon her head, and in a
few seconds she was covered with blood. The
prisoner struck her so hard and seemed so determined
to put his threat into execution, that he broke the
poker while hitting her upon the head.
The witness here produced the knob of the poker,
which he fairly broke off, and exhibited her wounded
head to the Magistrate.
The witness Bettie said, that before the assault
took place, the prisoner was heard to declare that he
would murder both mother and daughter. The
person who heard him say so would have been pre-
sent, but that he went in mistake to Hatton-garden-
office, thinking that the charge would be investi-
gated there.
Mr. MINSHULL (to the prisoner)—lf either of
these women should die,—and there is no knowing
how their wounds may turn out,—you will have to
stand your trial for murder.
The prisoner (who appeared to treat the matter
with the greatest indifference) replied—" I suppose
I must take the consequence."
Mr. MINSHULL—I shall certainly not take bail
from- you until both women are out of danger. Until
that is determined, you still remain in prison.
Prisoner—lt is all one to me—l shan't trouble
my head about it.
The prisoner was then remanded, and Mr. MIN-
SHULL directed that both the women should be con-
veyed without loss of time to an hospital, where
their wounds would be properly attended to.
THAMBS-OFFICE.

Mr. BALLANTINE—In your opinion did that treat-
ment cause his death. Witness—Why, yes; I say that
his wanting grub (food) was the cause of. his death.
The prisoner again declared the evidence of the
witness was false.

George Conley, another seaman, deposed that he
joined the ship at Singapore. He had run away
from another ship, but did not say so to the Captain
of the Francis Watson. Saw the deceased Lewis
Sinclair : he was in bad health, and no seaman. 1
heard he was turned out of the cabin. I knew he
was flogged and half-starved. I knew he had no
allowance from the ship. He entirely depended
upon what the sailors gave him. I have given him
food. I have seen him flogged by the chief mate,
the Captain, and the black fellows. I was on the
watch upon the deck about afortnight ago, oif Sicily.
We were taking soundings. I saw the Captain
strike the deceased with a capstan-bar. I saw the
deceased again some hours afterwards; he was then
dead. I think his death was occasioned by starva-
tion and cruelty.
Charles Bateman, another seaman, deposed that
he sailed from Liverpool in the Francis Watson.—
The deceased shipped as steward. He was a fine
healthy young man, and had before been at sea, but
was no seaman. At Batavia he got tipsy, and was
sent before the mast, losing his birth as steward.—
This witness detailed several acts of cruelty towards
the deceased, and confirmed the testimony of the
other witnesses.

Mr. BALLANTINE asked him if the whole story
was not made up in order to ruin the captain ? -
Witness declared solemnly that the whole statement
was true from beginning to end.
Mr. BALLANTINE—HOW long was it before the
man's death that the last flogging took place ?
Witness—l cannot say; I should think six or seven
days. He was in a weak state previously. We
had six black men on board. There are other wit-
nesses if they will come forward.
The prisoner asked the witnesses if he had ever
refused any of them provisions when they applied
for them.

They answered that there was a shortness of pro-
visions on board. They were allowed pork twice

a-week.

Murray, in addition, said the prisoner struck him,
and said, " You rascal, you are stealing the
bread and provisions to keep that fellow (the de-
ceased) alive till we arrive in England."
The prisoner said he had always supplied the men
with provisions and medicine.
Murray said he had received a dose of salts, but
the deceased neither received medicine or provisions.
The prisoner declared that he was perfectly inno-
cent of what was laid to his charge, and which he
hoped he should be able to prove. He had given
all his men every encouragement.
Mr. BALLANTINE—It is stated to me that you
took the deceased as a steward, for which situation
he might have been tit ; that for his intemperance
you discharged him from that post, and sent him be-
fore the mast, to do duty as a seaman, to which he
was unequal. That he then fell sick, and thencefor-
ward commences a continuation of most atrocious
cruelty towards him. I have heard of a crew being
engaged in scraping the ship's sides when the ele-
ments are calm, but the deceased appears to have
been so employed when the vessel was going ut a
great rate, and when the sea ran so. high that be
was washed away, and but for the humane exertion
of one man he would have met an earlier death than
that which has since overtaken him. It is also
stated to me that when he was labouring under a
great degree of sickness his allowance was stopped
and nourishment denied to him. This is extraordi-
nary cruelty if the statement is true; and also that
he was flogged in an indecent and unmanly manner,
and that he sank day by day under such continued
injuries until he died. The witnesses examined be.
fore me have charged you with being the author of
all this, and if their statement is true, I must say you
are guilty of murder.
The prisoner became much agitated, and again re-
peated that the witnesses had sworn falsely.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he would remand him upon
a charge of murder.
The prisoner requested to be allowed to return to
his family, and said he would meet the charge at
any time.
Mr. BALLANTINE —I cannot part with you; you
are here upon a most serious charge.
The prisoner was then remanded for another exa-
mination, and the officers directed to procure such
additional evidence as they might be able to collect.
The prisoner was then removed in custody of the
gaoler.

Yesterday Captain Sampson Bragge, commander
of the Francis Watson, free trader to India, was
charged before Mr. BALLANTINE with the murder of
Lewis Sinclair, his ship's steward, on the high seas,
within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England.
Capt. Bragge was unattended by any legal adviser.
Hugh Murray, a fore-mast man in the Francis
Watson' deposed as follows :—I sailed from Liver-
pool to Batavia, thence to Singapore, and home to
London, in the ship. The steward, who is now
dead, also shipped at Liverpool. At Batavia the
steward got drunk, and was turned out of the cabin.
When at Singapore he took ill. We had no doc-
tor on board. The captain ordered that the steward's
allowance of water should be stopped, and in a day
or two ordered him to be slung over the lee side and
the bow, to scrape the ship's side. This was done
when we were at sea, and sailing from seven to
eight knots an hour. The steward was very ill in a
day or two after we left Singapore. The captain
stopped the steward's allowance of meat, bread, and
food of any kind, and treated him with great cruelty
from that time until one morning When he had him
dragged over the windlass end, and had him flogged
with a stocking full of sand, and afterwards washed
the wounds with salt water. I saw the man flogged
upon the naked back and posteriors, and the wounds
were Washed with brine and pickle. The man was
gradually getting worse, and was ill-used by the mate
as well as the captain and the black fellows.
He had an allowance from the ship ; he had nothing
but what he got from the crew. I saw the captain
kick him and knock him down on the deck. I saw
the man about a fortnight since, when we were at
sea. He was lying under the boat upon deck. The
captain came up and took a capstan bar, which he
forced down the man's trowsers, between the waist-
band and his belly, and pounded him downwards ;
he then raised him up and let him fall. The man
cried helplesaly ; he was crazy, and talked wildly.
I saw him about sixteen hours afterwards; he looked
like a starved man, and was, I think, endeavour-
ing to get to the ship's bow, but he fell at the
foremast. I went and lifted him up, and he died
in my arms,
Mr, BALLANTINE desired the witness to mention
any particular instance of severity exercised by the
captain.
The witness reflected a few moments, and then
said, " I recollect one day that the captain ordered
the steward should eat fourteen biscuits. He had
not had any thing for three days before. He ate
about seven, when the captain compelled him to eat
some chalk, and had him started (flogged) round
the deck three times, and then compelled him to go
up the royal yard.
Mr. BALLANTINE asked the witness if he had
ever quarrelled with the captain ? Witness—No,
Sir ; I never had a quarrel with Captain Bragge.
Mr. BALLANTINE next pointed out to him the se.
riot's obligation which an oath imposed on him, not
only here, hut hereafter, He had pledged himself
solemnly to the Almighty God to speak the truth,
and he begged him to speak the truth, and nothing
else, because the charge against the prisoner was
one of a most serious nature. Witness--I know
what 1 was sworn to do, and I have spoken nothing
but what I sae(,
Mr. BALLANTINE.—Was the deceased ever seized
tip to *the gangway upon any of the times when you
saw him flogged ? WitnessNo, never, He was
thrown over the windlass' and the Captain once
held him over by holding his head while the black
fellows flogged him. I have seen him flogged by
the boatswain and the mate. The deceased never
had any peace night or day.
Mr. BALLANTINE—Was the man in his senses at
Singapore ? Witness—Yes, Sir, he was; he be-
came crazy a few days before his death,
Mr. BALLANTINE minutely crosssexamined the
witness for a emicierable period, but he persevered
in his statement, adding, that he was afraid to in-

terfere.
The deceased could not perform a seaman's duty