Star.
London, England, 1817-01-28 00:00:00

that pat.ence was the best remedy at present; but he
would ca.' upon those who practised this doctrine,
even the Head of the Church himself, to try 'the
misery which the people of Lancaster had :offered
fur seventeen mouths, but 'for seventeen hours, and
then say vitiator, patience would atiord a solace to
such horrible privations ? We had :nen of talent in
all ranks. We had those Divines who could untold
the oracular dispertartions of 1101 Y Writ—we had
Philosophei s, Astronomers, .a.:13 Mathematicians,
who could solve the most :klastreseprobl.ms ; but yet,
none of these men coold pier Out the way to &nil
food for the Wavy,. cr ra;roept foi- the naked. Itt
truth, he thouLiht for si.cli w4e was the
best place.
Frrrsu E.:3, if he. understood :the question
rialuly, it was the keaolotion, of the last Meeting to,
adjourn to the present day, and that from thence the I
Deputies were to meet front week to week. If this
determination should moat' be altered,
.and go forth
to the wtald, he was afraid it Might look Reit there
was no. fa?aJiuess in their purpose. For his own
Fait, he did notate that there was business of suffi-
cient ;pro:Lance to detain the Delegat.4s in to .vn ;
but. he • feaied the capticimemeas .of their conduct
would serve the sons of cprcuption with another
eitese.for. when they belitakthe Meeting
do ti.is thing io.day and the -other tomorrow. 'By
meeting eccasionelly, as was proposed, he thought
tee hopes and spits of the people viusdd he kept
alive, and applications farm all quarters: Would in-
creases_sild Parliament more than ever be looked
to'10:1- the attainment of the • great object they had
iu It•!eie...7 he was tite int,re convinced of this, from
titC absolute state of stasoation in which a great ma-
jaritrol the people were. In Lancashire, he could
state that nuoibets were without food. Under these
cmisideratiour,•-although he did not disagrte with
Mr: Hdtu its any other sense of importance, he could
Dot altogether agree in the propriety of dissolving the
Meeting of the Deputation in the manner proposed.
The 'Gentleman delegated Item .Middleton. was
desirous of assisting the great cause, by seconding
the-views of the Rev. Mr. liarriss, from Paisley and
Edinburgh, holding with him,,that meeting from week
to week would be the most essential mode to adopt.
Mr. HAGUE said, that as Sir F.. Burdett was im-
mediately to pray for leavt to bring Mahe Bill talked
of, perhaps a meeting appointed for a ,month hence
would answer every purpose, and be equally calcu-
lated to keep alive the hopes.of the people.
Major CARTWRIGHT said, that Sir F. Burdett *as
nut at present in town, and he had 'not seen him to
imettain when he would name a day for leave to
bring in the Bill. In this'there might be great delay,
as, after leave was given, day after day might be
named fur its discussion.—(Neer, Anse).-.15 was ne-
cessary, to be 'sure, that the Deputies should bare
some precise principles to• act open, but he saw no
- business of importance to detain the Wageless and.'
of course, no reason to make any alteration in thoi
proposed Peesidetion. He would further remark
Ow, agreeable to their Oen decisioti, they had-left
the matter to-Sie P. Burdett, and he mast, es it were;
Dot only feel the pulse of the House on the proposed
measure, but consult with many of the Member',
• -known friends of Retest. When all this. was.
dame,' end the result knowiteitiotice leslgle bitgives
ota day for at Galerl. Meeting, and then the sub•jeetwouldhe fixed in the mind of every lover of Re.'
fortnation in Perliament.—(Hear, hear).—An im-
mense body would then assemble ; while to press on
- the present stage, without deliberation, to force
hasty conclusion, or to excite immediate hopes d
the good they sought, might tend vitally to injure the,
sacred cause.
Mr. MITCHELL was of opinion the present Meeting
bad done all it had been required to do, but sug-
gested the necessity of keeping open the Meeting, as'
it were, for .the assembly of other Deputies, who'
might -not only discuss with their brethren on the
. Fuhject of Reform. but at the same time present their
retitions while in town.
• Mr. Hamm again rose to preaellit, amendment.
Mr. BeNeow said he was delegates ao remain and
do what good be, could do to the ,greet cause. Hr
thought the other DepUties would dti:the same, mid
he suggested the necessity of even waiting until the,
• Bill was brought in, and return to their several homes
with.the result. If no good. however, could be done
by remaining, then tg every man to his tent."
Mr. Hoare replied to the several arguments urged
in favour of keeping up a weekly meeting of the De-
• pude., but he would raise his voice against Delegates
thus forming themselves into a sort of petit Parlia-
ment, and sitting dims is die. As to the idea of a
wanderer from the country fold to town, holding in
his hand a Petition, but not knowing whereur pre-
sent it, he.asould say, that he would be no lost sheep;
that he had hut to say he had a Petition to present
• to Parliament, and the name °folk. F. Burdett or
hijar Cartwright would be instantly annoosteid to
m. Beside, most persons coining with PetitiOns
from the country, had their particular. Members to
represent them ; and he hoped, dud on thiegreat oc-
easion, those who were deputed tObring up Petitions
in London, would take care to put "them into the
hands of those alone who would give a pledge to
support them. What, be would ask, would the
over the way say (the House of Commons),
If they attempted to erect themselves into a dicta°.
tial toady assembled weekly ? Would they not say
that they were usurping an illegal power, with a view
to controulling the deliberatlifes of Parliament, and
would ant that be the meant of petting them doirn ?
The Amendment suggested. by Mr. Harris was
• then put and negatived by* large majosity.ssed the
original Resolution was earried.
• Mr. Hu NT then moved ihe following Resolution :
neselea—Ttiat this Meal's of Deloptes be now ilissolved,
`sod It ie hereby dissolved soileldingly.
Mr: BENIP/W thought. before the present Resolu-'
. ,dam ivas.carried. the Delegates slitiold fix a certain
. flay for a future deliberation. . He' thought, atter
astir 'dissolution as a betty, ttfey would have ut.
power so to do.
Major CARTWRIGIIT saitlt- they had no power to
waxed the duty.they .bad, been delegated to execute
pit the present occasion ; ;and added. that the.), would
abe fully qualified. hereafter' to call a Meeting as in-
ttlividuals: • .
The Resolution was•then put and carried with only
lane dissenting voice.
A vote of thanks was then passed to Major Cart-
wright, for his upright conduct in I'le
Mr. IluaiT, p:cvious to the breaking up of the

f'B4,. • ; •
Mfet;nr. proposed, dot all,thertelegatee front the
petitidning bodiet,thr••gbosi .tp&A.laited Kingdom.
should meet on Monday, the 10th of March next, at
the Crown 2nd Anchor Tavern. He made this mo-
tion more on account of others to' whom he had pro-
mised to bring forward this motion, than froth any
intention to approve of the motion if it was carried.
After some conversation, however, it was thought
advisably to withdraw the Resolution, and it was
withdrawn accordingly.
It was lastly arranged, that those Delegates having
Petitions to present to Parliamento.should assemble
tomorrow, at three o'clock, in Palacelard, to put
thecti into the h7inds of Sir F. Burdett and Lord
'Cochrane. The Meeting was then finally dissolved.

LAW INTELLIGENCL •

COURT OF KING'S DENCR, JANUARY' V.

THE RIOTERS.

On the motion of Mr. COURTKOPZ, John Hooper,
James Carpenter, Richard Gamble. and William
Gunnell, who were indicted with John Cashman at
the late Old Bailey Sessions, and acquitted of stealing'
arms in Mr. Beckwith's shop, were now brought up
from Newgate to plead to an indictment for conspi-
racy and riot. The indictment being read to theta
by Mr. DEALtiti, Clerk.of the Pleas in the Csltiee
Office, they severally pleaded Nut Guilty, and Mlle
remanded.

GREZ3 AND ANOTHER W. RAYTHORNI AND ANTIMpII.
This was an action of trover tor 12 bags of wool.
At the trial before Lird Ett.esnoanuott, in the
S ttings at Guildhall, artier last Term, the jury found
a Ve-AleCt for the Plaintiff—Damages 4,608. 19s.
Mr. Jztivis now movsd for a Rule to. shew cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new.
trial granted. The ease was this :—On the Bth of
August, 1815, the • defendants, who are merchants
r.:aidinz at Brmol, sold, by their agent, 68 bags of
Spanish wool, being of the value of awl I to Messrs.
Jarman anu Lacy, to be weighed off immediately, and
paid for by a bill at mine months date, from the stir'

'if September then next ensuing. The deleadaats
sent an invoice of the goodi to Jar map and Lacy, at
the bottom of which was written a menamandtas
that they were to be paid for by a bill at nine months,
and at the same time forwarded thentaiensples att.:
wool. Jarman and Lacy then proceeded to make
sale of all the 68 bags of wool, except twelve, which
were the subject of the pretest actions and which'
were exchanged by them with the plaintiffs for her.
seymerea of equal value. AU the wool except these.
twelve bags bad been delivered by the defendants to
the order of Jarman and Lacy, although they bad
'never been paid by the bill at nine months, as agreed
for ; and on the 16th of October, when the plaintiffs
wrote to them, requiring the delivery of these twelve
bags, per a particular carrier, they hesitated in giving
.any answer until the 21st of that month, when Jar.
man and Lacy became bankrupts, ntid then they
wrote an answer, saying, that as they had sin been
paid for the wool, they should bold the twelve bagel
,stirlalsituld not deliver. The question, under thew
circumstances, was, whether the defendants, who had
never been paid. had a lien upon the 41delitieted
,wool, for that wbichlad been actually delitasiaiPe.
The Learned Cdunsel contended that, as the• gond:
had ..aevee been oitinf the' defendant's poissessiou,,
their lien continued, and, consequently, that the
plaintiffs bad no right to recover. He relied mainly
upon Hansim Meyer, 6 East's Rep. 614 1 and
Stoveld o. Hughes, 14 East's Rep. 308.
The Coma, however, were unanimously of opi.
tied that in consequence of the defendant's baits.
tionifrom the 17th to the 21st of October, they must
be taken to have waved their lien. By inch lathes,
they proved that they were reposing the same eons
deuce in the situation and circuntstances of Jarman
and Lacy, which they had before relied Upon; and
having claimed their lien only when those persons
had become Bankrupt% they were too bite. A claim
of lien roast be made promptly; but instead of doing
so the e.::fendants suffered four long days to escape.
before, they made up their minds t •snit vontequendy
pitch unjustifiable delay defeated their deem upon the
;nods.--Rule refused. ,
. • . CORRIE AND co. v. COLES AND itEIRERE.
. This was an action for goods sold and delivered,
land money paid to the account of the defendants.—
At the trial before Lord Eta.ansoaouou in the Lon.
don Sittings after last Term, the plaintiffs were 'soa-
r suited. •
Mr.. Seancarr now moved to set aside. the thilfe
suit, and obtain a new trial. The cue was thieves
The three Coles, brothers, having each an infant scat
had executed a deed of trust to Richard Barker and
William Garnett, whereby they bad settled upon their
children the suns of 42000, in order to carry on trade
for their joint benefit.. The Coles and the trustees
bad joined. in a mercantile adventure, with i nser,
chgne residing at Amsterdam, named Nicholas De
Jetige, which, On the part of the former, was to be
carried on with the trostinndt• TIM of the'Colee+
tamers, who were curling on the business Otbrokers
and merchants in London on their own amine, fur-
chased a quantity, of sugar, coffee. and other.goods,
of the plaintiffs, who were brokers, carrying on buti-
oess at Liverpool and in London, and; gave directions
that they should provide a ship to carry the goodstii
Amsterdam, deliverable to the order of De Jonge....
The order for these goods .was shwa in the name of
the two Coles alone, anktbere was nothing to indi-
cate that they were purchased on the joint account
of the fathers, trustees, and Do iotige. The present
action, however, was brought jpintlragaiastAite six.
The twoColes pleaded their bankruptcy, and the other,
defendants ma inseernsiii and the question was whether
the other defendants were jointly liable with the IWo
Coles upon the contract made bythrtn.idthtliepbtituji:s?
was admitted that there wan, no *vide:mean ail!
veer the other defendants with the.eontract ; but i
wat insisted that there biing a CoMaltnitty int*:
rest between them in thendventure, teas alleged to
have been shown by their ,mutual. cdtrespondOneet
they were aN jointly liable. At dfti.fttiol,
LaNnomouott was of opinion► upon the cam* of the
Case, that no joint liability could bejledaiseds -and,
therefore, directed .a nousuit. • • • • :.•
The Court were PAWN ho7eVii; of,,epinioiki.that
45 the case was quite new in its naturf, it aught,
I undergo further consideratiGn, and therefore grog
a rule to thew cause.

TILE KIK° V. ROPE%

This was an indictment against the defendant for

• . .
perjury counuar red an• an aptly to alai in Chancery
for a disiovery, touching a certain ship of tyhich the
defen,dant was part owner. The defendant, it will
be recollected, was found guilty in the London 'Sit-,
tings after last term; and
The COMMON SMIJILANT now moved for a new trial,
on the ground that the policy of insurance set forth
in the indictment, whiels was alleged to have been
signed breight underwriters, was in truth and in tact
signed by no more than seven.
The Court granted a rule to *chew cause, but they
jhnught the objection would not be of much avail to
the defendant. . .
. . eas• MAYOR OF LONDON B. BRANDON. • •
VhfS, it will be recollected, tits an action igaiiist
a London broker, to recover the penalty of -his bond
given to the Corporation of London for the faithful
discharge of his duties. There were Several breaches
assigned, but none of them being satisfactorily made,
out at the trial, the plaintiff was nonsuited.
The ArfORNRY-GENERAL now moved for a new
trial, relying upon that breach which charged the de.
lendant with having employed a person to act under
him, as a broker, such person not being duly Admit,'
ted according to the provisions required by the Cnr-
poratiori.* The eiridence to prove this assignment,
Was, not •that be had .employed any, person under
him, but had suffered bit`bentber to act jointly with
him, as a brokpr, aid side hie name. with his ; tnit
Lard ELLEND3ROUOII was of opinion, that• this was
not within theietter, although it was, in point of
mischief, as ball ,as. the bleach charged. It did not
appear that the defendant bad employed his brother
under him, but that the employment was co-ordi.
nate with *his own. This, bowery'', was not the
breach charged, therefore the rule must be refused.