Star. — London, England, 1819-11-15 00:00:00

-:T"'" cf COWNTY of EDINBURGH. received to-day a long account of the s cf a Meeting of this County, held on the purpose of voting a Loyal Ad- Ilrincc Regent on the present state of the Muar- A press et matter to•day obliges us to de ' • ( „, : ;i: oar nest the insertion of several interesting uhich were delivered on the occasion ; for orrice'; \V e must c , iiiteat . ourselves with laying a fair'riloniine el the pi oceedings before our Readers. • The Marquis ot Lo nit AN, Lord Lieutenant of the k-tar:, : was called to the Chair. Ike of Mottros moved the Resolutions, and e !nhod)ing them, to the Prince Henn% Pitt.: Hops seconded the Resolutions, which o r c mica n n.i n . lousl y. t i ; t he lotion being put for the adoption of the ' 1 ••••:Iv ill 7, ,IFFI7 it EY submitted rot an amendment—not 2 ,I,ection. but an addition to the Address, every „,„,f w;.;.:1 he warmly approved of. *.,l,yrn in.'s Amendment was seconded lay Jou ri k t on3.tio Mint RAY, DuNuis, Member for the City, Sir GEORGE; fLEM .Nlember for the County, Mr. HOPE VERE, m r . Aid .1 Am ES WALKER, opposed the u iopion of the Amendment. !fr.Gins ,, s, of ingliston, Mr. AIKEN, and Mr. jou SrewART, supported it. :1. MulltAY replied, after which the Amend ter,: wai wit to the vute, and negatived by a great eighteen only voting for its adoption. The original Address was afterwards carried una- were then voted to the LORD LIEUTENANT conduct in the Chair, and the Meeting sc• Fated. 11/1. 1 ..1FAX, A . 0 VEMBEE 11. A t irctanstance took place here on Monday night, er.cia-d the coars of the timid, and the regret of •r ii disposed alld ordctly. A....at eight o'clock that evening, the Reformers r 2 :ed the town of Halifax on their return from the Ibt'.,:2rsfield Meeting, with banners flying, music candles burning en the ends of sticks, which La :Le appearance of torches, and what is most to be pistols were repeatedly tired. Those eir cr..:to.ces have called &r ill the utmost vigilance on of the Police and the Magistracy of Halifax, his led to the apprehension of Joseph Wood, Ilaigh, Joseph Baines, John Ing,ham, and .laseph ),!.erts, which five persons yesterday underwent an r.n.i.:a:ion at the Magistrates' Office in this town. nevioui to entering on the examinations, two in the town, the one a bookseller, and the in,en-draper, were invited into the private room, for the purpose of giving ;,at after receiving from :Mr. Howros, the Magistrate, a very severe rebuke, they e 4.sruFtly dismissed. ilotvroN then opened the business by saying, Icing his life he had never before witnessed ::„..ragcs in Halifax, and the actors should not cimpunity ; if the Reformers were ten times than they are, he was determined should not disturb the town as they had done aM tea: night. M:. Fa;rar, linen-draper, was then called, and " At eight o'clock I was standing in my door, z~ia crowd passed, about 203 in number, they had au.:c and banners, and fired a pistol, at which I was La the moment, and thought it a serious NI. David Crossley, lives opposite Mr. Farrar's, Exps a hardware-shop, he merely swore that fer.c's deposition was true. Mr. Mudd deposed to the same as Mr. Farrar, but - .. , :m.!ted that his alarms were considerably greater. ::ext witness was Brierley, the Deputy Con aV:e, an I to his evidence Mr. Horton required par .:a:l4r Attention. Brierley stated, that he had met n4l) at Barum Top, with music, banner!, sticks, rd piAols, walking in files, which Mr. Horton ex '7air.ed to be sections, and that they were playing, and shooting; that he charged the peace, a which attention was paid for a short time; but ban again soon after as violently as ever, on itich i:e followed them down the street, and, in one of the prisoners, whom he pointed out, uck him with a stick on the thigh. Another per- A he ,aid, had seen the blow given by the pri er, but that person was not brought forward. ll , )aT011—" Do you think, Brierley, that the zple were alarmed r Brierley— ,, I think they ought to be alarmed." Here the examination ended, and the prisoners ,ne committed to York Castle, on a charge of form .; patt of a riotous and tumultuous assembly ; but e following day they wore all admitted to bail, .tre,elves in 1001. and two sureties in 501. each. MANCHESTER, NOVEMBER 13. (rrom Cowdreis !Winchester Geneve.) Public will be surprised to hear, that Meagher, w..11-known trumpeter of the Yeomanry, has been az :thirty. The examination of witnesses in his Pr ce W;i3 tesamed yesterday ; and as the Solicitor ecution purposely and advisedly deter :aa to strengthen his own case by offering fresh ": : Ili, the business occupied comparatively a very t,ite. Upwn the actual merits of the case, we :it make no comments, merely observing, that, un -:11y, two British subjects, entitled to the protec thc laws (which, as far as we know, they were ier;:4Cll charged to have infringed) have been sJict, the evidence being completely contradictory, tot Iniful Magistrate, Mr. KALIPX WRIGHT, as himself all the functions of a Jury, decides ti.e cicSibility of the witnesses, and acquits the 'ker• It this be law, if it be right, the institution a useless incumbrance, and every corn rmght be more speedily disposed of by the ''ELity decision of a Magistrate. We have been even by the PaiNex IlEcizter, that the •'?•(:1 Justice were open to those who suffered on, ( o ;;;equence of the events of, the l¢tii of Au•. it not a mockery and an insultio say so, '7 , cid Juries and Magistrates are to stand in the !)y their conduct on introductory processes, rlttplainants from all access to them? Sup 'he other facts to have been the mune, and ' 6 ..er to have been a Radical Remoter, would he then have been discharged ? On Monday, he was heard to threaten what he would do if he were in sulted after the 12th. Did he then know that he should be ulischarged on that day ? From an Advertisement in our first page (Offering a reward of .C. 500), it appears that, abOut a quarter past eleven o'clock on Thursday night, as Mr. Nem N was proceeding alone from his house, he was shot at, near the top of King -street, or between that place and Fountain-street. lt is said the ball passed through his hat, but we have not heard whether it has been found. Upon this subject we shall only say, that if on one hand the existing irritation of the populace renders probable such an attempt on the life of an unpopular individual, on the other, the expected measures of the coming Session of Parliament render it necessary rigidly to investigate all the circum stances of the case, in order that the Public may be convinced, that no ground exists for supposing it to have been managed with a view of adding to the materials necessary for the tilling of a Green Bag. QUEENSBERRY CAUSE. It has been stated by one of our contemporaries, that the QUEENSBERRY Cause is not likely to termi nate for half a century ! The probability is qui:e otherwise. We understand that the Executors of the Duke of QUEENSBERRY have delivered in a Memorial to the Court of Session in Scotland, in which they pe tition for what, in the Scotch Law, is termed " liberty to purge the irritancy." Should this be allowed, it will have the effect of establishing the Leases granted by the Duke of QUEENSBERRY, under certain condi tions, and tend to bring the proceedings to a very speedy issue. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 13. TIIE KING V. MIL LOPEZ AND EIGHTEEN OTHERS. It will be recollected that Sir M. Lopez, and the other defendants, were convicted at the evon As sizes, last Spring, of bribing certain Electors of the Borough of Grampound, for the purpose of pro curing, by corrupt means, the return of a Member to serve in Parliament for that Borough. There was also a second conviction against the Baronet, for an offence of the same description committed in Cornwall. The particulars of the case have already been fully detailed to the Public. The defendants now put in affidavits, in which they severally stated, that Sir Manasseh had not requested any of them, at the time of election, to vote for him; nor had he pointed out to them any person for whom he desired they should vote. Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Court in mitigation, and ccntended that Sir Manasseh Lopez had not com pleted his offence, inasmuch as he had reaped no benefit from it. He had not been elected, nor has, .;;;,. friend cf his been chosen to repreent the Borough. The ATTORNEY•GENERAL, on the part of the pro secution, replied to Mr. Scarlett. His Learned Friend had recommended his client, Sir Maa.ts-,e:i Lopez, to their Lordships' mercy, on the ground that the offence with which he was charged was not com plete, inasmuch as he had not been ultimately suc cessful in obtaining a seat in the House of Cerninons; but, though that Gentleman had not succeeded, he had used his utmost efforts by bribing a nu mber c.' voters. Of the act of bribing there conl.l be 1,0 doubt; and of that he was convicted. His Learned Friend had also contended that Sir Mana:s , ..h was not the principal mover in the business, but that Mr. Hunt had taken the prominent and active pa.-t. It might be so, but Mr. Hunt was only the agent cf Sir Manasseh, for whom it was his intention to se. , :re a seat in Parliament. With respect to t: c other de fendants, he had not a sufficient knowl..l:- f :be facts, as related to them, to be able to a whether' there were any shades of difference in the agnitude of their offences; it did appear, however, to that some of them held situations in the Borough, which was an aggravation to their crime.. This was originally a private prosecution, and the tie:el:2:lms were convicted at the Spring Assizes ; na s eps, how•. ever, had been taken for bringing the defe7:d.. nts up fir judgment ; and the House of Commons ia con sequence, instructed him (the Attorney -Ge.le , -.11) apply for their Lordships' judgment on the subiett The House of Commons had consid-red . E ^ , . ~..•,, defence of the rights of the people, L' whilst they prayed judgment, they di, . dictive spirit : they rested the case • their Lordships, who would, in their s ie, in, such a punishment as would seem to t:.7.:n "n:*•L • the offence. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in delivering the judgr;.e , .. of the Court, commented in strong terms on tl,l enormity of the offence of which the defendants, pe7- titularly Sir Manasseh, had been c avicted. H. Lordship dwelt particularly on the lecessity there was at all times, but more especially at present, to preserve the House of Commons pure, that the people bight place confidence in it. -Amongst the defen dants, Sir Manasseh stood conspicuous; heir , ' abused the property with which PRoViDENCK blnsed him, by applying it to the worst of , aod might have induced those who came P w ll iT t ir his in fluence to commit the horrid crime of perjury. 'deed, it did appear that one of the defendants, De vonshire, had commenced taking the bribery oath, and would have gone through it, but for the mercy of the person who had required it should be admini stered, who, on seeing his intention, humanely prevented his proceeding. The Court had taken all the circumstances of the case into consideration, and for the first offence of which Sir Manasseh had been 'convicted, they sentenced him to pay a fine of £Booo' to the King, and to be imprisoned 21 months in Exeter Jail ; for the second offence, a further fine of L'2ooo, and three months' imprisonment in the same prison. Devonshire they sentenced to six months imprisonment in Bodmin Jail, .and the rest of the de.fendants to three months' imprisonment in the same prison. Till ZINO V. MRS. CARLII.P. Mr. GURNEY said, the defendant in this case had been attending for some days past in Court, to shew cause against the Rule obtained for a Criminal In- formation against her; for selling " Paine's Age of Reason." As she was in a situation which rendered it inconvenient for her to attend, their Lordships would perhaps hear her now. Map. Carlile then came forward on the floor, and ille CHIZIP JUSTICE asked her if she had Any thing to urge why the Rule should not be made absolute?— She made no reply to his Lordship's question, and was apparently overcome by her agitation. Mr. MILLs, of Bristol, now well-known by his fre-1 quent appearance in the Courts of Law, appeared to be her adviser, and by his direction she handed in some papers to Mr. Dealtry, which were read. One of them objected to the ftule being made absolute, on the ground of an irregularity in it ; and further, that her person was not described with sufficient accuracy. Mr. GURNEY said, service had been made per sonally on Mrs. Carlile. It might also be right to state, that since be applied for the criminal informa tion four other Numbers of the work had been pub lished. Mrs. Carlile then requested that the other paper, might be read, which was in the form of an Address to the Court ; and in it she contended, that the Rule could not be made absolute, since it was no offence to publish a fair and correct report of what passed in a Court of Justice. She had an authority for this opinion in the case of Currie v. Walter, and.also in the case of Daniel Isaac Eaton, whose trial was pub lished at length, and no objection taken. Her hus band, at his trial, read the whole of the Age of Reason to prove to the Jury that there was nothing of an immoral tendency in that publication. She bad so high an opinion of her husband's principles, that she confided entirely in his opinion; in fact, she consi dered it as a religious duty on her part to do so. She was convinced her husband would, if desired, take a' I responsibility on this occasion on himself, and give his sanction to all she had done. For there reasons she contended that the Rule against her ought to be discharged. Mr. GURNEY—The title to this publication, my Lords, declares it not to be a fair r2pr.rt of what passed in a Court of Justice: it is called The Mock Trial. The defendant Carlile was indicted for sell ing Paine's Age ("Reason for 10s. 6d. Mrs. Carlile is now selling it for 1 s. Gd. The CHIEFJUSTICE said, no doubt could exist in the mind of the Court on the question. If in the course of a trial the ends of justice required that matter defamatory and improper should be gone into, that af forded no justification of a republication of such mat ter. This had been decided in the case of the King v. Creevy. Mr. Creevy made a speech in the House of Commons defaming an individual; he afterwards published that speech, and was prosecuted for it. He pleaded privilege of Parliament. The Court held that he was privileged to make the speech in his place, as a Member of the House of Commons, but for publishing it afterwards he was convicted and punished by the Court. There was no doubt this Rule must be made absolute. Whether this would, prevent the parties from continuing the publication or not, would be for them to consider. If they did so, perhaps the parties who prosecuted the Rule would , rotted no further ; but the defendant, if she still pc. -rered, would discover, that ultimately she must suhr it to the law. M-; Justice BAYLEY .remembered the case of the King v. Creevy, and the strong opinion laid down by Lerd Ellenborough on that occasion, in which he fully agreed. Proceedings in a Court of Justice wou!I never authorise the republication of defania tors, )r immoral matter. In cases of adultery, for asta,ice, would it be contended that persons were justified in a republication of the disgusting matter which, for the ends of justice, the Court and Jury were frequently obliged to hear ? With respect to the present publication, it should be known, that all who uttered, by selling, lending, or giving away, v.et e equally liable. Mr. Justice HoLnovo agreed in the opinion laid down by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bayley, and adverted to the case of the King v. Lord Abing don, as an authority that even Peers of Parliament welt: not authorised in republishing speeches which contained defamatory matter. Mr. Justice BEST also agreed In this opinion; but in this case it was not necessary to advert to any of tar authorities which had been cited. It was only contended, as he understood, that it was legal to pub fair reports; now the present, on the face of it, was not of that description. It described the trial AS the Mock Trial. No man could say this was a jai:- report, the first line of which was a gross libel on the Court, whose proceedings it pretended to de scribe. No man could be justified in reporting that which went to defame character, spread sedition, or ,:roy the morals of the Public. He trusted the the Rule absolute, would stop the further :b,ir-at;on ; and then, perhaps, as the object of those sio trov:d for the information: would be obtained, se , I:ether steps would be taken upon it.—gule made itbs,lutv. THE OLDHAM INQUEST. Mi. Dramas, as their Lordships were leaving the ottrt go to the Exchequer Chamber; said, he had short, L it important motion to make to the Court. :11 was fora Mandamus to a Coroner, directing him to proceed 1.1 an Lquest, which he had, on no suf ficient ground:, and without cause, as was stated in the affidavit on 'vhich he moved, adjourned to the Ist of December nex t Mr. Justice 13 i L r .Vhen - did the adjourn ment take pla.e ?" Mr. DEN:I 414—" My 1. d, the Inquest met on the 7th and Bth ct OcobL r, 11. - d on the 9th, the Jury again assembled, sil t tile Coroner, without any rea son assigned, adjourned the further proceedings to the Ist of December." CHIEF JUSTICE — " Take a Rule to show cause." CORN-EXCHANGE, MARK-LA N.% NOVEMBEtt 15. Having a great deal of Wheat left: over :from list week's arrivals, and a fair supply this morning from Essex and Kent, the trade was heavy at a decline of full 2s. per quarter from last Monday's prices, and only that of tine quality could be disposed of at the above reduction. Barley is alb* 2s. per quarter lower, and dull sale at that abatement, the con sumers being at present well stocked with last week's arrivals: there is little or no demand for the inferior qualities, although offered at low prices. Beans are 2s. per quarter cheaper. The arrivals of Oats having been very considerable have occasioned a decline of ls. per quarter on the article, and the trade was ex ceedingly heavy particularly for the ordinary samples. SMITHIMD MallgET, Nov. 15.—Beef, 4s. Od. to ss. Od. per stone of nibs. ; Mutton, 4, Od. to 55. 6d. Veal, 4s. Od. to 6s. Od. Pork 55 Od. to 61.6 d.; Lamb Os. to Os. Od.—Cattle at Market— Beasts 2820 ; Calvese37o; Sheep and Lambs, 16,800; Figs, 310. per load, Ms. to U. St. Clover, 61. to 7/. Os. Straw, U. Ss to a 16s. COURT OF KING'S BENtli. THIS DAY. CASE OF THE BOWDICHES. Mr.Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to shew cause why a Criminal Information should not be filed against James Sutton and James the Learned Serjeant said, it would be in the recollection of the Court, that last Hilary Term a Rile had breki before them for a new Trial, in the case of Maria Glenn against Bowdich and others. That on this occasion, no less than one hundred and nine Affida vits had been made. It was most unfortunate that the cause had created a greater sensation in Taunton, where Miss Glenn lived, than it ought to have done. Hand-bills had been circulated, meetings held, and subscriptions entered into, all of which were very unfavourable to the cause of public justice.— Had the party stopped here, the Learned Gentleman said, he would not have troubled the Court. But in the London Sessions for October last, bills were pre ferred against Miss Glenn, and her servant, Mary Whitby, for perjury, which they were alleged to have committed. He would not remark on their in- nocence of this charge, since that question would be decided elsewhere ; what he had to complain of was, that three days after these bills were found, a hand bill was circulated at Taunton, of a most dangerous description. This hand bill was printed at the request of James Bowdich, who ordered one thousand of them, and then handed them toJasnes Sutton, who cir culated and posted them in the streets of Taunton, so that Miss Glenn could not stir out without seeing them• The hand-bill was headed " The fate of Maria Glenn and her accomplice," and set forth that true bills had been found against Miss Glean and Mary Whitby, " for perjury alleged to be committed by them in the infamous prosecution of the Bowdiches, and proving their villainy, treachery, and cruelty, against the per sons now suffering in the King's Beach Prison." This hand-bill, the Learned Gentleman contended, was calculated to prejudice the public mind against Miss Glenn and her servant, and tended to bring into con tempt the proceedings of a Court of Justice. The CHIEF JUSTICE here said, that sufficient ground had been !hewn to the Court. Tl.e Rule was therefore granted. I SHOREDITCH PARISH CLERK. Mr. NOLAN moved this day for a Mandamus to the Churchwardens of the Parish of Shoreditch, to com pel them to admit William Lamming to the office of Parish Clerk, he having been elected to that office by the Parishioners. Mr. GURNEY argued against it. He stated, that owing to the conduct of Lamming, the parish. of Shore ditch was at this moment in the utmost state of fer ment; and that were it not for the interference of Peat* Officers, twine Service could not be performed.— The affidavit of Lamming, on which he grounded his right to the office, was not correct; he had stated, that his father, who was Clerk of this Parish for thirty-five years, told him the right of election was in the Parishioners, and that he had left a paper, ex tracted from the records of the parish, quoting fourilt stances in which such right had been exercised by them. Now so far from this being the case, the list parish clerk, Mr. Lamming's father, was appointed by the Vicar, to whom he paid fifty guineas per annum for such appointment, and which he had often com plained rendered the office scarcely worth having. —All the records which Mr. Lamming's father is stated to have examined, are missing, ratlm mys• teriously, from the chest in the Church, with the es ception of those within the last 90 years, during which time there is not an instance of any election made by the parish. But he would go further a Committee had been appointed to investigate this business, and they had ascertained that for the last three hundred years the election had been generally, and for the last 150 years invariably, in the Vicar : the only case in which it was otherwise was in 1665, the year of the Plague in London, when there was an appointment made by the Curate, the Guardians, and Parishioners. —This was the only exception to the 'appointment having been in the Vicar, and he did not think it proved any thing whatever in favour of Lamming.— He admitted, that if the right was in the paribioners, then had Mr. Lamming been duly elected, as he had a majority of vctes ; but denying, as he did, that right, and contending that Mr. Lamming had not shewed the slightest proof that it ever existed, there was not the least ground for the motion. Mr. NOLAN conceived this a proper case, in which a Mandamus should be issued, to ascertain whether or not Mr. Lamming was duly elected. S The CHIEF-JUSTICE inquired in whom the right of election was by the common law? Mr. NOLAN said, it did not appear by the Common Law, in whom the election was vested ; but by the Canon Law, as established in 1602, and which was no longer recognized, the election was in the Vicar. He stated, the appointment of Mr. Lamming's father ) in 1784, which was evidently by the then Vicar, al though attempted to be shewn to the contrary, since the Vicar had intended to have appointed another [Anon. During the time Mr. NoLabr was addressing the Court, he was frequently interrupted by Mr. GURNEY, as to some points which he did not conceive cor rectly stated. Mr. ABRAHAMS followed on the same side as Mr. NOLAN ; he went over the same grounds which, he ' thought, were sufficient for the Rule, and cited several cases in which, where there was only the sur mise of a custom, a mandamus had been granted. The LOBD CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice HOLROYD, and Mr. Justice BesT, severally gave their opinions, all of which were decisive against the Rule. The Mandamus was therefore refused. ~ r i . . sf. :.-4 1 .1 111 41 11 . 1 ,t Ir ‘ 1 4 C . I .: 1 j li 11 A 4 i' . ~ . i 1 i . :. 1 I 1- .. . .•,' a • ril i A i . 4 , : it' ..I. i •