Star. — London, England, 1820-05-06 00:00:00

9 f 1 t 1 'l'H 4; EV.ENING STAR. LON DON. SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1820. TIIF. FUNDS. PRICY' Of STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE &CLOCK: Bank Stock 226Y4 S per Cent. Reduced 68 7 4 69 1 / 4 69 3 per Cent. Cmsols 6978 % 4 per Ccnt. 86X 78-5 per Cent. 105% 106 Bank Long Annuities 17 15-16 18 Old Annuities 69—New Annuities 68% = Exchequer Bills Ss. ss. pre. Consols Acct. C 9 N 70. • Last night Mr. BROUGHAM brought forward his motion to take into consideration the Droits of the Crown, the Droits of the Admiralty, the Hereditary Revenues, and other Funds, supposed to be not under the coati oul of Parliament. The motion was strongly supported, and the debate animated—but, of course, negatived by a majority of 118 ; the numbers being, for the motion 155, against it 273.—0ne of the argu ments in i'avour of a new arrangement is strongly il lustrated by an account that has just been printed by order of the Commons, sheaving the payments which have been made since the sth of April, 1812, to the sth of 3atatat y, 1615, in respect to the charge on the Civil It cu!ht to be known by every person, and is styposeJ to be known, that the charge on the Civil List includes the salaries to the Judges, &c. but it is undeniable, that most commonly when the ex pense of the Civil List is mentioned, the whole, or by far tilt greater part, is believed to be for the Royal Family, whereas, in fact,' only a small sum, compara tively, goes to this branch of expense. The following wia give a correct idea of this account 1813. 1814. Royal ram - - - - i 0334,500 334,500 Judges 32,678 52,955 llini3ters at Foreign Courts 91,685 106,553 Lord Chanibtrlain's Derartment,Scc. 273,673 284,853 Salaries to ditto - - 108,645 112,842 Pensions and Ccmpensations - 160,5e0 151,7'88 Small Pets and Salaries - 46,485 45,652 Treasury - - - - 13,C83 13,822 Occasional Payments - 248,818 278,144 £1,310,070 1,361,291 The Palk Papers of Wednesday arrived this fore noon. The KING gave, on Tuesday, a private au dience to Marshal Soutr. M. LAINE has been named Iteportet from the Committee on the Project of Law respecting the Elections.—Five per cents. Tuesday, 731 r. 60 c. • The Paris Journals, received this morning, state, that the QUEEN Of ENGLAND was daily expected at Paris. The Journal des Debate adds a confirmation of the statement, which first appeared in The Star, of 4n intended conference at Versailles—" We are as stfred, that the differences existing between her Ma jesty and her Royal Spouse will be the subject of a uegociation, which will be opened at Versailles." • Copy of a letter from a Gentleman at Pesaro, dated the 17th of April: Her :Majesty Queen CAROLINE, will leave this, for England, on the 19th. Yester4ray, she took leave of most of her friends in the neighbourhood of Pesaro; she gave them a magnificent dinner; the guests gave her Mansry unfeigned testimo nies of their respectful attachment, and expressed much regret at her intended departure for England. Her MAJESTY drank Health and prosperity to his Majesty GEORGE IV.' the toast was received with en thusiasm by the whole company. The guests left the Palace at eight o'clock, highly gratified by the amiable .and condescending manners of her MA• Jcsrlt The health of her MAJESTY is Si good as her. sincerest friends can wish ; she will thus be enabled to travel rapidly to England." A Mail from Holland arrived this forenoon. The Criminal Tribunal of Eslingen has condemned M. IftErikßlCK SCEYBOLD, Editor of the Nets Gazette 91 Siutg,ard, recently suppressed, to six months impri sonment in a fortress, for certain offences against the Law of the Press. M. SCEYBOLD has appealed from the judgment. Numbers of the Nobility and persons of the first distinction were at Mr. WYATT'S house all this week, to view his work of the Cenotaph, which excites so rnuch public interest and well-merited approbation. CANSRIDGI, MAY s.—Yesterday, all ranks of per srns in this place were thrown into the utmost con sternation, by intbrmation that the infamous spy ./..../a , ;:rds was here again. But we are happy •to say, that he has not been seen here since the ThorsdaY previous to the late trials. • (;LAsuow AssizEs.—Monday, John Wilson and James Smith, were convicted of rioting and throwing stones at a party of Military, who were escorting 'the' Committee of Radicals from Gallowgate to the Jail, on the 23d of February, and sentenced to be Aransported beyond the seas for seven years. John O'Hagan, indicted on a like charge, was found—Not Guilty. Tuesday, Charles Fitzpatrick and James Tavern were convicted of having wickedly and feloniously attacked Mr. Thomas Grahame, jun. writer, in Glas guy:, a private in the Glasgow Yeomanry, and Mr. M.iiay, Cornet in the same Corps, and pelting them with stones. Fitzpatrick Was sentenced to eight een , and Tavern to twelve months imprisonment. The three remaining prisoners taken in the affair at Ronnymuir, were brought. from Stirling to New haven ou Saturday fthe 22c1 ult.) in the steam-boat, .asd from the.ace sately escorted to Edinburgh Castle. NAVAL INTELLIGENCE. • Dent., MAT S.—Came down from the River and sailed, the Criterion, Areas-, for New York ; and Whin= GaAs, for Halifax. A large homeward-bound ship arrived l ast night,and proceeded for the River. Particulars unknown.—Wind N.E. Ilsawien, May s.—Arrived the Lady Nepean Packet, with a Mail from Holland.—Wind S. - - PORTSMOUTH, MAY s.—Anived his Majesty's ship HINTS from a cruizs; and the Mary, Dszw, from St. Michael's: sailed 6th April. Went out of Ilarbour his Alajesty's ship Matsu, and brought up at Spithead.—Wind S. F. Cowes, :Nlar S.—Sailed the Regulus transport, with troops for Gibraltar. Remains in the Roads, his Majesty's ship CAME tios, from Spithead. I•tynourn, MAY 4.—Arrived the Eliza and Jane, Wstenrs, from Bourdeau a ; and Lord Nelson, LITII.T., from London.— Arrived off this Port, the Ocean, Broaxia ; and Bacchus, LEUSTATHER, from St. Uhe's ; and Armenius, Grasux, from Baltimore for Rotterdam.—Wind ESL NAVAL MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS. Dr. VAscr, Surgeon of Hadar llospitid, to be Surgeon of Greenwich Hospital ; Mr. Doasos, Surgeon to the Division of Marines at Chatharn, to succeed Dr. VANCE ; and Mr. M‘Laon, Author of " The Voyage to Cuina in the Alceste Frigate," to succeed Mr. Doasorr. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 5. After some cursory motions had been disposed of, and the whole Bench assembled, Mr. Justice BAYLEY resumed the reading of the evidencefor the defence, in the case of " Hunt and others," as postponed from yesterday, and in recapi tulating the evidence of Robert Gundry, the Learned Judge took occasion to recur to a question put upon the trial by Mr. Hunt, when this man was gking his evidence. It was a question suppositiously put, " whether, if certain expressions (so and so) were used, what would then be the feeling of the multi tude?" The words were supposed to have been used in Parliament by one of the Counsel for the Crown, then on the trial. There was some objection made; to putting the question, and that objection was dis cussed; when he (Mr. Justice Bayley) said he was of, opinion there could be no objection to put the ques tion, if it was pressed; but he, at the same time, bad expressed his idea that it could be of no service to the defendant's case, if put; and Mr. Hunt did not ptit it. When Mr. Justice BAYLEY came to read the evi dence of William Binns, the person 'who had been employed to paint the flag of the Bury party, who had marched into Manchester on the 16th August, Mr. Hunt begged to call the recollection of his Lordship to the testimony of that witness, compared with the evidence df others upon the same point.— It was stated by some of the Counsel for the Crown, that the flag-staff of that division was surmounted by a bloody dagger ; and this witness was called in the defence, in order to shew that the thing was not meant for a bloody dagger, nor to represent a dagger, and to shew the reason why it was painted red ; and the man proved the thing was meant to represent a dear-de-lis ; that he was ordered to paint it yellow, but that having no yellow paint left on the Saturday night, he painted it red, and left it so, because he did not choose to work the nest day, which was Sunder. Mr. SCA RLETT said, he could not be quite positive in speaking from general recollection ; but he thought it was clearly proved on the trial that there was a bloody dagger on the flag-staf. Mr. Hunt contended, there was no such evidence on the trial. Mr. Justice BAYLEY recurred to the evidence on that point, and said, it stated the thing to be a fleur de-lis with the centre part projecting beyond the sides. The Learned JUDGE having concluded the reading of evidence, recurred to the notice for convening the Meeting, of which he had no copy on his notes ; but In substance it had stated the object of the Meeting to be to consider of the most eligible and effectual means to obtain a Reform in Parliament; and it an nounced Henry Hunt in the Chair. Mr. Hunt reminded his Lordship, that there were also a great number of other names signed to the paper, with their addresses annexed ; and it might have been very easily ascertained, upon the least in quiry, whether or not these names were annexed with the consent of the owners. The Learned JUDGE then recapitulated, as nearly as he could from recollection, the substance of what he had said to the Jury, on summing up the evidence for their consideration. He had stated to them that the Meeting might be very legal as to the bulk of the people assembled, though illegal as to the bulk, ge nerally ; and it might be legal as to all those who at tended the Meeting, provided their object was not il legal, and that their numbers, and other accompany ing circumstances, did not tend to excite any alarm in the neighbourhood. He told them that the avowed purpose of the Meeting did not appear to him to be an illegal purpose ; and he then left the question to the Jury, as to its general illegality, and whether they thought it was calculated to produce apprehen sions of terror in ordinary minds.of the inhabitants, or to excite alarm in persons better disposed ? Ile then directed them to find against all those of the defendants who attended the Meeting with such views to alarm and disturbance, provided it should appear to them that they previously knew of the circum stance : and he told them, that if they believed the Meeting was calculated to produce alarm and danger, even at a distant period, then they must find their verdict as to the special danger distant ; and he thought this was a right point to he submitted to the Jury ;-- because if tne party against whom a verdict should be found on that point should feel aggrieved, he might have the benefit of appeal to a Court of Error. —He also told the Jury, that although there was no proof thin the Meeting had any object immedi ately dangerous, still it might be rendered illegal by parties who went there with views of their own, of an illegal nature; and that if any went there for the purpose of raising disaffection and discontent in the minds of his Majesty's subjects, or to excite hatred and contempt for his Majesty's Government, they went there illegally, and such Meeting would be ille gal as to them. He then referred them to the pro ceedings and Resolutions of the Meeting at Smith field, to the banners exhibited by the Saddleworth and Middleton divisions, and told them, that if they believed the objects of this Meeting were in unison with those to which be referred, the Meeting was il legal, as to all persons joining . in those principles.— lie had also called their attention to the fact of drill : , ing; and he had said, that if the persons were drilled merely for the purpose of going in an orderly manner to the Meeting, there could be nothing illegal in drilling for such a purpose; kut if they were.of opi nion that those people were.di ;lied in order to give the appearance of organized strength to their num bers, and to induce the people to listen to seditious speeches with more effect, or to lend themselves to seditious purposes, then, to any persons attend big the Meeting for such purpose, and who knew the drilling was instituted with that view, it .was to such persons an illegal 'Meeting. He had then referred to the inscriptions on the ban-. ners, which appeared to be directed to all who could read ; and he represented to them, that every person who made use of seditious language in this way, or carried seditious standards so inscribed for the pur pose of being read, were acting ille . g , lly ; and all persons who went to the Meeting with such views, were there illegally attending. He had then ennt mented very strongly on the conduct of Mr. Hunt, as to the Smithfield Resolutions, and heliad desired the Jury to look at the Smithfield Resolutions, and to consider whether they were calculated to produce hatred and contempt to his Majesty's Government? and he had said, if such Resolutions were to'he pro posed at the Meeting at Manchester, and the Jury should be of opinion that such was the intent and purpose of them, then the Meeting would be illegal ; and he left it to them to judge, whether such Reso lutions were intended to be proposed at the Manches ter Meeting or not ? He had al as referred them to the circumstance of hooting and hissing at the time Mr. Hunt's carriage was passing the house of a man named Murray, who had seen the drillings at White moss, and was severely maltreated by the parties there assembled, and desired them to consider whether Mr. Hunt took any part or interference in that hi s ing? and that they would take into consideration, whether or not this hissing was calculated to excite tumultuous violence against that man, for whom it appeared the mob had conceived an implacable hatred? And with regard to the flag carried by the party from Saddleworth, and its inscription, he had left it for the Jury to consider, whether or not that was calculated to excite disaffection in the people towards his Majesty's Government ? and be had also directed their attention to the flag which had been borne by Bamford. He had at first called the attention of the Jury to several counts, charging the defendants with assembling with inflammatory flags, and he stated the specific terms of the inscriptions proved; but he had afterwards withdrawn this part of the charge, and directed their attention chiefly to the fourth and , fifth counts, which charged the defendants with at-. tempting to bring his Mejes . ty's Government into hatred and contempt; and with assembling for the purpose of creating discontent and disturbance among his Majesty's subjects ; and the Jury, after. retiring for some considerable time, hid . found the present defendant guilty on the fourth count, which was the former of the last two mentioned. - - Mr. SCARLRTT asked their Lordships permission (not being in Court when that part of the evidence vas read) to state, that it was shewn en the trial that the Resolutions of the Smithfield Meeting were proved to have been published In The Afenchester Observer, on the same day wi:h the aw ttacement for the illegal Meeting at Blanchester on the 9th, only that the word " debt," near the word " national," had been omitted. The Paper was produced before his Lordship on the trial, and Shawcros sprayed that it appeared previous to the Meetings both of the 9th and 16th. He submitted, therefore, that the Smith field Resolutions, and the Summons for this Meeting, both ap pearing In the same Paper, must have had a strong influence upon the views of the intended Meeting. The circumstance was calculated for the very purpose, and the Paper was put in to prove that fact. Mr. Hunt submitted to his Lordship, that the Paper was not put in for any such purpose. It was put in merely to prove the proposition for the Meeting on the 9th, which was relinquished, as the proposal included an illegal object, which was withdrawn from the announcement for the Meeting of the 16th, and the Smithfield Resolutions had nothing to do with the question. Mr. Justice lityLay said, the Paper was put in certainly, and proved; but he did not know for what other purpose it was put in, except to prove the point stated by Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Hunt—l say it was put in to prove the Meeting of the 9th, and for nothing else. Mr. Scaatsvx—l afral the contrary. Mr. Justice Baxter—l cut them out myself when the Smith field Resolutions were read, in order to be compared with the Manchester Observer. Mr. Sea,'Lerr—l said your Lordship could compare them, and see in what they varied. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Shawcross was examined after Michael Fitzpatrick, and he proved. Mr. liunt—l objected to tbercading of the printed copy, and said it could not be read, as there was a manuscript original in existence, and I said these was no notice served to produce the written Resolutions. Mr. Scaaterr--The paper was proved, beyond doubt. Mr. Justice Raster—The intention of the Meeting for the 9th, was proved by the production of the Manchester Paper, and the Smithfield Resolutions were pointed out in the same Paper. Mr. Hunt—The Manchester Paper was certainly produced. but not to prove the Resolutions of the Smithfield Meeting, which bad nothing on earth to do with the business under trial. If I had understood it was produced to. such a purpose, I should have objected to the production, on the ground of the case of the " King v. Perry . ' It was introduced, merely to prove the intended Meeting of the 9th, and I submit to your Lordship particularly, if that paper bad been produced for anything else tn of the intended Meeting at Manchester on the 9th, your LoMthip would have sent it to the Jury without any correction? I deny that the paper was produced with any avowed purpose to thew that the Resolutions of Smithfield were put in the Man chester Paper fee the purpose of producing any influence on the ' Meeting at Manchester. The Cuter JUSTICE said, he thought the Court should con sider of the propriety of the Learned Judge's admitting the Smithfield Resolutions, as if they had nut been there, (in the Manchester Ofistruer). Mr. Hum then addressed the Court in support of his motion for a Rule to skew cause why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. Ile professed to feel that he rose on his occasion under great difficulty ; but he felt also, that when he was addressing four wise and just dispensers of the law of his country, he had ground for confidence in their deci sion. He should not urge many technical points, but state what he laid to say as shortly as possible. He felt that he was ap: pealing against the decision of the Learned Judge who tried this case; but he had, in the course of attend a n c e o n thi s a nd ot h er law Courts, heard enough to see frequently the Counsel at the Bar felt great difficulty in persuading any Learned Judge that he was in error; and though be felt this difficulty hi his own case would be an impediment *his way, yet he coat quite sure that if, since the trial, the Learned Judge who presided, felt. as reflection that he had decided improperly, he would himself be tbkfirsr to correct his error. He then applied Lis objections, seriatim, to the' different points on which be founded his mo tion ; and, first, with respect to the cutting and maiming by the Military at Manchester; It was charged that the People re sisted the Military ; but if it was right to admit evidence to shew the People bad given any residenee to the Military, it was also lawful evidence for admission 'to skew what the Mili tary had done to justify that resistance, and that proof tr,4glit have been allowed of the peaceable co nduct: 9f the People, to shew bow far their resistance was justifiable. Mr. Ihdtutt•o as allowed to swear to the raising of sticks and stones and brickbats against the - military; and if thatlnan's evidencewas admissible to prove such assertions, since contradicted by hundreds of must respectable stitnesees, it was surely legal evidence for the dcfen , dams to prove the people were justified ice any resistance they eaatle,by previoutprovocatiou and outrage? The testimony of Mr. Hulton.was put down by a whole host of most respectable evidenEe ; and though perhaps his Lordship was bound to send thistnan's evidence to the Jury " with ell itsimpet fections on its head," yet it was sent to thii Jury 'witiout any pte mutton us to wheiber Mr. 111.1 ton was ruistabt:n or not ; and, a t erefore, Ire was entitled to bring evidence to ;hew bow the people were war. ranted in the resistance they were forced to make in their ow l I defence, though he was refused that right on trial. woad rut the case of a conspiracy to break open hi. horse, Tooloos rob and murder himself, and that he knocked eiceve the first men who entered, that man might swe-r an assauls aesinst ; and possibly some of the very consoirators might ferns the Greed Jury, might find the bill, and seed him to mitt for tbs: assentt • but would be not be allowed to prove in his defeece the act o f burglary, which justified the assault? area must he not brirg this man to trial ? Suppose he had put such a person to deeds on entering his house, for the law requires a man to retreat to the very last extremity before he is warranted to take the life of another, he ntii In have a bill foond against him for murder by a Jury composed of some of the very accomplices of the deceased, and must he not be allowed to bring evidence in his defence. for a jt: tifialsce homicide ? So, in the case of a man presenting a Mach and robbing him on :be highway, he wrests the pistol from hint, and knocks bins dawn with it, the robber may silage hint with assault sod robbery, and must be net bring his servant, who accompanied him, ES evidence for his defence? Suopose he hears the shrieks of a wcman in a ficll by the highway, through the violence of some villein committing a nameless crime, would he not be warranted to flee to her eid, and strike the villain to the earth, without the liability of beirg prosecuted for the assaulty and being refused liberty to addeee evidence in his justification? Similar was the case of the Van chester attack on the people. Rut he woo not allowed to give evidence in the jusAtication, while (he Jury were exposed te the false and injurious impressions made on them by execs - era:id arol false statements, in Parliamentary speeches and pattirt Newspapers, which were circumstances, be teas sure, that had 'scat influence on the minds of the Jury who tried the case.— It was sworn by some of the witnesses for the Crown, that Ise (Mr. Hunt) lied said to the people, pointing out the soldiery, " There are your enemies; if they molest you, put them door, and keep themolown." Now it was proved, over and over again, that the addle: y did molest the people, and that the people did not attempt to put them down and keep them down; and, there fore, any such direction as he was falsely sworn to have uttered was at least Ineffectual But a host of respectable witnesses proved that no such words lied ever Leen uttesed by him, or any one else at the % , :cetioe. Mr. Ilunt then came to another pare of his argument, name!r, that as the Resolutions :at the Smith field Meet Me, were irrelevar t to the issue between the Clown alai defendant; they ought not to have been received in evidence. No previoes canoe( tion was proved between hint and any of ',h: de fendants before the fish Aug. when he came to ISullock Siotithey. —ln the next place, the best evidence of These Resolutioas, ac cording to rules of law, had not been given; for a copy only of them had been produced, wheieso a notice should nave been served upon bins to produce the originals, and it could be oely in default of doing so, that the copy caulai be received. Even it was not a con ect copy put, for the witness Mr. Fitzpatrick said some of them heel nut been passed when Me. Hunt put theist into his hand. Toe Learned Judge Was nest warranted, in the absence of preof of the fact, in presureino that he meant to pro pose like Resolutions at Asoci.ester ; on the contrary, he shonld suppose that he had no stech intentions. his Lordship had de clared, that a Meeting celled for )reform was not an illegel Meeting e thew: was uo evi.let.ce to show that those assisting at it had any other than the pi 0. - essed object hi view, and ,he tutus of .shev.ine that they had, lay with the Crown, who ki:settle name and aeleitess of every man who s t gnad the Requisition, and might have called them to declare what the real objects of the Meeting were. By the law of England every man was innocent until he was proved to be rellty. Why, then, is the absence of steelo they be presumed to have one object in view and frosts another? It was not in evidence that they nieeet to pr :puse airy Itesolutioos at.all ; indeed, the witness liareosSire e.eore he saw no papers at all upon the hustings. The very na ture of Public Meetings did not requico that Resolutions should have been prepared hetOrehand, for a Meeting was a deliberative Assembly. He said, he now held in his hand the affidavits of the first ten persons who signed the Requisition ailing the Meeting, to spew the purposes for which it was • Mr. Justice litrsee said, they could not receive the affidavits of persons who might have been examined as witnesses. sir.. Hunt said he was taken by surprise at the trial. Mr. Scarlett, in his opening speech, did not say a word about Reso lutions or the Meeting. kit. Justice BATLEY said that Mr. Scarlett had mentioned the Resolutions. Mr. Hunt said Mr. Scarlett began by charging them with a design to follow up the election of a Member of Parliament, which had been begun at Birningham; but then, not finding that ground tenable, he turned round and said their object was to propose the same Reiolutions at Manchester as were passed at Smithfield. To meet the first charge be was prepared with evi dence; but by the second, as it only came out in the course of the trial, he was taken entirely by surprise. The Cuter JUST/Cll thought he could not have been taken so entirely by surprise, for the charge against him was; that he con spired with others to excite hatred and contempt of the Govan. meet, and of the nature of the charge he was apprised before ha came into Court. Mr. Hunt came next to the training, ppon which be submit ted improper evidence had been received, improper becau...e no one of the defendants was connected with the training, neither bad the Crown shown that the Meeting at Whitemoss was Lie ge'. Their marching regularly to the Meeting was no evidence of their having been trained at Whiten:on. It was in evidence even from a military man that they might have been equally or derly, though they bad never been drilled. The hissing before Murray's house old not prove that they who hissed had been present at Whitemoss, for the fact of ..alurray's having been abused at Whitemon was known all over the country. Mona). was an unpopular character, and his having been abused at. IVhitemoss was no evidence that the Meeting was illegal these, The nianner in which be was treated might have arisen from the spleen of an individual. lii Con sequence of the publication of the evidence at the trial to which, however he did not now mean to object— Mr. Justice Barter observed, that if it occurred to him at .the time, he.certainiy would have torbid the publication of the proceedUrgs at the trial at York. Mr. Hunt said, in Lensequence of wiring the evidence re. garding this training, ;:nd the objects of it, a Gentkinan from Bolton, who was honsarf c..nnecttd with the Police, wrote a letter to Mr. l'earsun, oft.ring to come forward and depc* the real objects of .the trahting at Whitesuoss, but he disco vered afterwards that this Laier had beat detained five days its the Post-office. • Mr. Justice BATLICY said, that if it had net been for the pub lksition of the evidence, he would nut have had the opportunity of finding out this witness. • Mr. hunt witia rtgard to himself, he had no reason to rtgret the publication a the proceedinp, but lie me,•.- tinned the circumstance, btcatue the Learned Judge, in sum ming up to the Jury, observtil that no evidence Waw CAW by the defendants to shtw the real purposes of the naming Whitemoss. Mr. Justice Bastes said he had not laid much stress epos the training in his charge to the Ju ry. . • Mr. Hunt litre added, that it was entirely for the prosecutors to spew that that training was for illegal purposes. It was ytite inipessible for him to call evidence, for it any one CAD., it.to the box who had been there, he would immediately he made a subject of prosecution oy the Attorney or Solicitor (ieneral. He then adverted to another part of his case, namely, that supposing the Bags were evidette, still the best evidence of them, accordiug to rules of hew ~b ad mot been given, which was possible ; when the flags themselves coaled be had, co written copies of them should be admitted. The defendants should have been noticed to produce them and if they did not, then the best co pi es w h ic h could be had nigh be admitted., Ile then- ade et d to the inconsistent it sit many of the witnesses in swearing to the instriptions ten the Sags, one swe.ering that:a 114 bore—a Lib.irty or Death," ith groaner, that it" here—" I.qtal Representation or Death."— ,They•all omitted to titer:rim, a flag which was carried before the carriage, and on which were inscribed the words ,4 Ureter, Older.'.' was also chitty:4We, that She witnesses ter -the Crown invariably swore ter the most excepeioaabk of the liags,, and emitted those that were cot:knit:dory. This showed how us certain this oral testilootty was, and that the Sags themselves should have been prodaced. 'The Came J...s.Fxe :tow said, that as the other Judges were waiting for them,- they would Lear Mr. Menu on acuts..er . Their•Lordsliips :lice kit the Coon. Mr. Hum held in his liaael a paper, front which be :cad the beads of the .erguicenis which he audresred to the este. • BIRTH. • At Edinburgh. on the 29th hitimo, the Lady of Dods' Fa seobou, 'evertor of llovlt.ah, of a dm:4)mm - - LONDON ; Primed and r.ulillsbcd Lynx kw% tykes. "'lace. Temple-Dar l' I, lip 1.1 • 1,