The National Register. — London, England, 1820-05-14 00:00:00

~A~ Imperial Parliament continued from page 155. of Petitioners, adding that they did not belong to any particular party in politics. Mr. SPOONER trusted that the House would not re fuse that enquiry which was sought. The difficulties of trade were great ; but as to relieving agriculture by rail lag the tr ice of corn, he trusted that the means of pm , - chasing at higher prices would be first afforded, before the high prices were granted. He stated that the trailers and others of Dudley mid Swerbridge were going about in gangs of hundreds, sad they were about to be joined by the colliers. He lamented that they were so misled, at they batne time, if enquiry were not instituted, and relief afforded soon, it would be granted in vain. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the ',coed reading of the Civil List Bill. Sir R. HERON said, it was impossible for him to ap prove of this proceeding, when the Civil List was fixed at the highest rate, now that the country was in the se verest distress—when it was doubtful whether the revenue would produce what was estimated, and whether the in terest of the debt could continue to be paid. Economy was mentioned in the King's Speech ; it was an ominous word, bnt he was afraid that the mention was made only that the practice might be dispensed with. Bill read a second time, and on the motion that it be .committed on Monday, hir.„HUME complained of the want of information. AU that could perplex had been granted; what could infest,' had been withheld. He should not go into the subject, as he understood it was desired to postpone the debate; but he had examined the items, and he found that 450;0001. would maintain the household of his Iffe esty. at the title of the Bill was a misnomer, for no •°_, ()vision ß was to be made by it for the often, and surely he Queen, a man's wife, was part of the household—' every man's wife was an important part of his household. He complained that the Acts tegardiNg the Civil List had • never been properly acted upon.; and he maintained that the accoonts could be and ought to he simplified. The House was treated most unworthily by the refusal of ac counts ; secrecy and seclusion would do a good deal of harm in the country. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply, .denied that there was any improper concealment, and added, that in the Civil List Accounts, or the Consoli dated 'Fund Accounts, all the items were to be found sufficiently detailed.—Motion agreed to. Lord A. HAMILTON postponed his motion respect ing the fourth Bacon of the Exchequer in Scotland to the zith umlaut. The Marriage Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. The Irish Chancery Composition Resolutions Bill went through a Committee, Sir J. Newport observing, that on a future day he should call the attention of the House to the subject of the Compositions—Report on Motley. The remaining orders helms gone through, the House adjourned to Monday. FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. D. Armitage, Modal&ld. IA N i tt i gS r. . L. Baines, Leicester, ails& lididose, Mr. James, Ely Plots, J. Milner, Cambridge...Wm Bob. Messrs. Teens and Co., Lincon's Inn Fields. T. and J. Danvers. Carper's Row. Tower Hill, roachants. Bd. Mr. Hodgson; Castle Street, Holborn. J.; T., W. H.. and J. H. Hardy, Birmingham, merchants. Skews. Baxter and Barka, Gray's Inn Place. T. Peke. Bodbotese, Glammtashire, civil engineer. Sol. Mr. Sespant'slna , srlemoor, imairs. Barks, farmer. SoL Mr. Pittman, Smarr lan. Omar, Lars IL Sinn sal T. W. Comm Northampton, pocas. Sol. Ms. Grapey, irmana's Cana; Comb& DIVIDENDS. Maylo.4. P. Greaves, H. Sharp. and F. Fisher, Coleman Stress, ammohants-30, T. Buchan, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Squan.sdanaarte maker—JO. B. Parkes, Halliford. Middisma, British eriesenerchant—t6, W. Adam, Narrow Wall, Lambs*, timber merchent-27. G. Simpson. CepthaU Court, morelorid -27, J. Shaw, Bond Street. carpet nanufacturer-31. W. M ips, Briglothehnstone, builder-31. T., J. J., and R. Retold,Blwachease. calico printers—n, R. Banda, Coleman Sasso, alsoinosliadi factor—June 6, li r Z i tr. , Lardeniall SOM. rattle ar adasr-7, S. Roberts, spirit mordast.-1, J. B. Mame, North Waltham. Norfo grocer—July u. G. Vidalia& and G. Clarke, Basinghall Street, Blackwell-hall factors. CERTIFICATES to be granted May M. W. Reynolds. Bristol, soap W. Hindle. Leeds, draper—P. H. Delman, Bamford, auctioneer—T. Hubbard, jun., Coventry. silkman—T. Addis. Pawl. Worcestershire. plumber—G. Forster. Berwick upon Tweed, merchant—G. Pa ra. Yak Saar, Westminster. plumber—J. Atkinson, Dal mon, Yorkshire, mordsant—J. Wild, Liverpool, merchant—G. Audio. Lag Aas, mach plater—J. T. Clarke, Tothill &vet, Warminster, Sbeward, Belgrave Place, PiO3I)CO, boarding hams. Isorw—G. Dann. Linton, Kent, butcher—T. Nessalp.Cdralsn Saw. warehouseman—J. Marauder. Nor folk Street, New Rsad, master mariner—W. Thomas, Cheap. aide, tailor. The King of Prussia has presented to the Arch bishop of Canterbury, by the hands of Baron Bu low. a splendid desert and tea service of porcelain. A similar present has been made to Mr. Wilberforce, and to N. M. Rothschild, Esq. accompanied by a complimentary letter from Baron Hardenburg, in the name of his royal master. Lord Sidmouth has intimated to the Lord Lieu tenants of the different Counties, the Militia of which are to be called out for training and exercise, that it does not appear to his Majesty's Government to be advisable that any of those men whose peritak of service will expire in the present year should be called out for that purpose. There is at the present time, in the summer house of W. Padwick, Esq at Cosham, Hants, a robin's neat, with five young birds; the nest being built in a paper bag, which carelessly stood on the table ; and more singular to say, the door b, nig bolted and the windows closed, the bird has to de scend the chimney, and make egress therefrom, to carry on her instinctive economy in rearing her callow family. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY. MAI S. THE KING V. HUNT,__BAHTORD, JOHNSTON, AND HIALY. Mr. Hunt's motion for a new trial has occupied the Court of King's Bench several days. He concluded all he had to urge in favour of his motion on Saturday last, and then solicited that the Judges would take till the Monday following to cons Per the subject ; they acceded to Isis request, and their Lordships this morning deli vered their judgments seriatim. • The Lord Chief Justice. —Although this matter has occupied a considerable portion of that time and atten tion which is dedicated to the general administration of justice, it has nut presented to my mind any doubt whatever; and I will deliver my opinion upon the everal points with as much brevity as possible. The first objection taken by the defendants was to the rejection of evidence as to the supposed misconduct of the military in the dispersion of the meeting; and, in my opinion, that evidence was perfectly irrelesant to the matter in issue. The matter in issue was the object or purpose of the assembly, and the conduct of the pen. ple prior to the dispersion. If, however, any doubt upon that point could exist, the verdict of the Jury, narrowing the charge to the 4th count, would remove that doubt altogether, because the countdoes not charge the defen dants with any violence at the time of the meeting. The second point of objection is the admission of the resolutions of the Smithfield meeting; and the objec tions to this point of evidence are two-fold ; first, that the best evidence was not produced which the circum stances might have afforded ; and, second, that no evi dence ought to have been admitted upon the subject.— With respect to the first of these objections, the papers which were prodnced were proved to have been received from the hands of one of the defendants at the time of the ineeting,, as the resolutions which were to be passed at the meeting; and therefore, as against that defendant, no better evidence could exist. With 'regard to the latter objection, it was in proof that these resolutiOns hid been recently proposed by that defendant at a very numerous meeting held for the alleged purpose of parlia mentary reform—the avowed purpose of the meeting in question—at which the same defendant, a stranger in Manchester, wjs invited to take the chair; pnd as re. garded the question of intention, I have no doubt that it was competent to show, as against that defendant, that, at a similar meeting, held . for an object professedly similar, such matter bad been proposed under his mediate inspection. Having now disposed of these ob. jections to the law laid down in the case, I shall take no notice of what has been called misdirection as to this or that particular point; I shall only say, generally, that the whole effect of the evidence appears to me to have, been left most properly to the Jury : that the jury were not directed to presume against the defendants any thing which was not well warranted by the evidence ; and that they have not come to any conclusion which the nature of that evidence did not fully justify. I therefore think that this is not a case in which a rule to show cause should be granted. !el r. Justice Bayley said, that as he had tried the cause he would rather postpone his observations until his , learned brothers had delivered their opinion. Mr. Justice Holroyd fully concurred in the opinion delivered by the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Best.—l have never entertained the least doubt upon the subject • and I also agree entirely in what has heed stated by the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Bayley, if he entertained any doubt upon the matter would certainly state that doubt its the strongest language to the Court; but, after giving the closest attention tu,..tbe arguments which had beets used by the defendant, it did appear to hint that there was no foundation for granting the present application With respect to the conduct of the soldiers, it appeared to him, the Learned Judge said, that he should have forgotten his duty if he had permitted any evidence upon that head to ,be admitted at the trial. He conceived, upon that occasion, that the jury were trying, not the demeanour of the soldiers, but the misdemeanour of the crowd. If the soldiers had mi)conductcd themselves, they were liable (or that misconduct to be put upon their trial ; and it would have been most unjust to prejudice the question against them, unless such a course bad been absolutely necessary for the purposes of the defence. That description of evidence did not apply to the charge upon the face of the indictment ; and, as ter as it could ap apply to any evidence given by Mr. Holton, or by Mr. Entwistle, the evidence of those gentlemen had been combated by the most complete admission of evidence, to show non-resistance upon the part of the people.— With respect to the second point of objection—the admission of the Smithfield resolutions•-•-his Lordship had no doubt that those resolutions had been reaularly and properly proved. Not only had those resolutions been really delivered, but a copy of theist had been given to a certain individual by one of the defendants as a transcript of those which were to be proposed at the Smithfield meeting. That individual had compared that printed copy with the resolutions actually propounded to the meeting, and had found it correspond with them. With respect to the other point of objection, he had not been able to bring his niiod to doubt that these resolu tions were most powerful evidence in the case. If a rim was seen similarly circumstanced at two places within a short period of time, was it not to be presumed that his conduct at one of those places would be consist ent with his conduct at the other? If he had at one 'meeting, for the alleged purpose of reform, proposed certain resolutions, was it not prohab' - second meeting, for the sa rime, and quetit, he would e similar been said by the e ants that presumes'. He (Mr. Justice Ba ni that sentiment ; but if it we Jury were not entitled to dray suniption which would be ti evidence, then he entirely die Ai" because at every ordinary Session, Courts were in the habit of acting upon presumption---Arpon presumption drawn either from the presence of evidence on the one side, or from the absence of evidence" on 'the other.--, 'file evidence as to the training and drilling (his Lordship continued) appeared to him to be evidence perfectly ad. tnissible. He.had thought so at the time of the trial, and . he thought so now. With respect to the inscriptions on . the flags, he was of opinion that parole evidence was fit to be received. The production of writings was not in all criminal cases necessary. He had entered into the subject, the Learned Judge added, at greater length than he had originally intended; but he had thought it ne cessary to show that he still maintained the opinions which he had expressed at the trial; and, for the rest. he concurred eatirely In what had been said by the Lord . Chief Justice. The Attorney-General now alluded to the length ' of time which the case had occupied, and proposed . that judgment should be immediately pronounced, unless that measure would be inconvenient to the court, or unless the defendants had any thing to say against the adoption of that course. • ' Mr. Hunt submitted that the pronouncing sentence would occupy as much time now as at any future pe riod. He therefore requested that the defendants might be allowed time to prepare. The Lord Chief-Justice thought the request reason. able, and said it should be complied with. Johnson merely wished for time to send into the conning. Mr.flunt.--The defendants wished to send for affi davits. For his own part, if the Attorney-General would not put in any affidavit in aggravation. he did not wish to pat in any in mitigation. The Lora Chief-Justice said, that the Court was not the place in which that question could be answered. The Atunney-General thought that it was important that ,judgment should pass in the present Term Mr. Hunt would take until this day week. The Lord Chief-Justice said, that Monday next would be the last day of Term, add that the Court would be very fully occupied on that day. The defend ants might take until Saturday ; and. if they then stated upon affidavit that they had been utiableto accomplish their object, the Court would consider whether it could postpone the matter until Monday. THE KING V. SIR FRANCIS mumps. Mr. Denman stated to the Court, that in this case be had certain new matter which he wished to introduce; and requested that the Court would hear that matter before they pronounced upon the application which he • had already made. Mr, Justice Best observed, that Mr. Denman had stated, at the time when he made his first application. .that he was unprepared, except as to the point of the publication in Leicestershire. THE LING V. PAGE. The defendant in this case. was convicted at the last assizes for the county of Hereford bf an assault upon a young lady of the name of Edwards, The circum stances of this case have already been before the public, they were shortly these :—Miss Edwards is a young lady of beauty and fortune residing at Tewkesbury, and the defendant is an attorney resident at the same place.-- Attracted by the charms of the lady's purse, or of her person, Mr. Pace made addresses to 'Miss Edwards; but, after a short time his proposals weredeclined. Mr. Pace, upon this; thought proper to become furious; he loaded his pistols, swore many oaths, pursued Miss Edwards to Aberystwith; and meeting het there, on the Marine Parade, presented a pistol, and struck her with it. A gentleman, Mr. Gittens, who was escorting the lady, interfered; Mr. Pace fired at him, was dis armed and taken into custody. Mr. Pace was tried at Cardigan, under Lord Ellenborough's Act, for shooting at Mr. Gittens, and acquitted. lie was subsequently convicted at Hereford for the assault upon Miss Ed wards • and Mr. Jervis now prayed the judgment of the Court. The sentence of the Conti was, that the defendant should be imprisoned eighteen months in Gloucester gaol ; and that he should at the expiration of that time find security, himself in 2,0001. and four other persons in 5001. each, fortis good behaviour during a period of three years. THE KIWG V. THE MAYOR OF CHESTER. _ Mr. Williams moved for a rule to show cause why a a criminal information should not be filed against the Mayor of Chester, for improper conduct in the exercise of the duties of their offiets. The affidavits upon which the motion was grounded stated, that the Mayor, being attached to the Grosvenor party, had, during the poll at the late election, refused the freedom of the city to certain individuals who were entitled to such ad mission ; and it further stated that, in consequence of that refusal on the part of the Mayor, Sir J. Egerton, one of the candidates, had lost his election. The Court refused the rule for the present, upon the ground that the affidavit did not charge a corrupt mo tive. TUESDAY, MAT 9. Christopher Harris, Robert Shorter, Wm. Watlin,Thomas Whitehorse, Julio Cahuac, James Sainsbury, and Phillip. Francis were - brought up to receive the judgment of the Court, after 4aving been convicted of the publication of certain seditious libels in Carlile's." Republican." Mr. Justice Bayley sentenced Harris to seven weeks im prisonment ; Shorter, six weeks; Watlin, six weeks; W hitehotne, one month; Cahuac, one month; and Francis, one month; and each at the expiration of tint term to God RI , for good behaviour for three years, themselves in SOL and two others in VII. each. Hobert Wedderburn, a m• n of colour, appeared to receive the sentence of the Court, after bring convicted of blaspbe us words, tending to revile the - Chilblain Religion. The sentence was, Two Years imprisonment in Dorchester .01, and wind security fir Oree'yeurs, himself to 501. and •• others in Vsl. each. ibis Osborne sod Geor;,e Rags. printers and publishers tirroingham, were .eotenced to be imprisoned two in the house of correction, Cfoldtisith-Gelds, for puh a blasphemous attack on the Liturgy of the Gburcia