The Statesman. — London, England, 1820-11-17 00:00:00

ivakarLa. Atitt . two: cb c5 ,:.7,..,,.,,,,,,,.. ...,..,.. • (701Alk Vbrt ifrU,4 t 4 '4. ~ .•• • • ~• •._ „ . _ th a LONDON, !RI DAY, NOVEMBER 17, MO. ... . . tip• 4P70. LOOKIMI GLASSES. OEVERAL large SFR:ONO-HAND PLATES,' seiteMe for Chimneys, Piers, and (*bevels. are new on sec, on reasonable• Terms, at Conran, Etxtorr and Coopre't, 98, Bishopstrate-street Within. Nome of the larger sizes are admirably adapted for large dining-rooms so J elegant drawing-rooms. Nate Mats for windows fitted is at a greater relative ad vantage than Crown Glass. , irI, L ITMINATION TRANSPARENCIES, (on salt I or hire at half price) for Country Illuminations, expres sively impropriete for the present Glorious Event. Also • t o w assorUnent of transparent pained Elndoss Blinds, line ifnitttiont of Stained (lints Windows. Le. ott saki together s int several fine specimeis of modern Ornamental Corners, Arsbastpte Ornaments. sot teary Figures. Le. &c. for Rooms. voters, Hatehmeots. Emblematic Des ices, and Ornamental Works of every kind. (The Trade supplied,) by J. F.‘W- LgT. 4, Great Windmill-street. Haymarket, down the Osenray. over Mr. Austin's Livery Stables, Superior Note wanted. especially Portrait(enti Decoration) Painters. %Xeres* variety of large sail small subjects; also appro priate mottos. Ths day was petb:iiitted, In .1 yob. 12mo. price If. ss. /1111 E MUDS OF 1.17 NA AND PEHOLI,O, i or the Fortunes of the House of Pandolfina, an Historic Tale of the ifitit Century. Printed for A. K. NEWM tN & ('o. I.eedenhall-Street The following have appeared this Autumn : Esexton, or the Spectre of St. Michael's, a Romance, by C. D. Haynes. 3 vols. 11. 7t. Rd. loveas AND FRIEND!, or Modern Attachments, by Anne of Swansea. S vols. If. 7s. fkl. VIRT STRANGE, BUT Vier Ties, or History of an Old Man's Young Wife, by Francis Latheut, 4 vols. 2d edition, I*. Cotrrestan Eszrritiv, or a Courtier's Promise, by Miss Ennis. Author of Ireland, fie. 3 volt. Itts. Sr. ILs LLLLL s. or the Rock of Dunnismoy le, by the Anther of Redmond the Rebel. 4 vols. If. 2s. Cnt. •ADIPIS. an Historical Romance of the (4th Ceatary, by Louisa Sidney Stanhope, 3 vols. li. 74. lid. FOGS AND DAMP AIR. 1 ARCLArS ASTHMATIC (' ANDY has, for mazy years, bees proved an effectual preservative trim the ill erects of the Fogs and Damp Air which, in the neater season, are so prevalent In this climate. Its effects see. to expel Wind, to preserve the Stomach from the ad mission of Damps, and to relieve those who suffer from difil salty of breathing. • Prepared only by BARCLAY and So•s, 03. Fieet-msrket, and sold, by their appointment, by most I, enders of Ife•li else in Town and Country. Pries Its. ltd. and Is. lid. per Du, Duty included. •ie Observe, none can be genuine. tittles+ dm names of " Barclay and Sons" are oa the Stamp all:edit. seek Box. TO THE VOTARIES OF BEAUTY: IiBOTANIC TOOTH POWDER, re ticommendedDB°N by many eminent Physicians. is prepared of halsanele vegetables, of mild detersive properties. It Is entirely free of those corroding acids which form the bolds almost Tooth Powders, and which eventually prove so de structive. Where the Teeth are loos", or the F:somal In jered„ it fastens them in the one ease, and revives the ma nna in the other; it removes Tartar. cures the Scurvy, and produces a healthy redness to the Gums, a pearly whiteness ',the Teeth, to the breath a belay fragraisee. and is an to- Mingo preservative against decay and the Tooth-ache.— Price Is, 114.—Also, Hu osos's Huila Muss, recommended by the late Dr. Hunter, preserves and beautifies the Hair, and where it has fallen off fl om illness. perspiration. change of climate, or any causes which deprive the hair of nutrition, and produce premature decay. By using the Mile Divine It assimilates with, or supplies the place of the nutritive fluid. and tit' hair grows as formerly. See further elucidation and testim • Is of Its elicit" - la • Pamphlet entitled An Essay on the esseloted round each Bottle. Price 3s. Od. 7s. OJ. and one guinea. Sold by the Proprietor's Agent, Mr. Atkinson. Perfumer. No. 44. Gerrard-street, Hobo-square; Messrs. Clattie and Pierce, 37. New Bond-street ; Messrs. Howell and James. Regent-street; Messrs. Bayley sod Blew, Cockspnr-sfreet : Mr. Rigge, Cheapside; and most Perfumer/Oleic-dressers. and Medicine Venders. in Tows and Country. BALDNESS or ORS!' HAIRS will not Thousands of Ladies and Gentlemen who hare usec Prince's Russia Oil for years, had a good bead of hair without being the least shaded or grey. But some ladies being persuaded by their heir-dressers to use other Oils, or sold them enunthfeit Russia Oil, they soon found the differ ence, as their hair heron to fall off, or KO Err). In short, Prince's Russia Ott it; the wholesoruest end hest Oil for pre serving and promoting the growth oT hair, and If used con stantly, not a hair will fall off or turn grey ; even if the hair has begun to tnro grey, it is inch it nourisher, that by use it will restore it to the natural colour: clears the scurf, and keeps the bred and hale clean, and by using it regular for a few soothe daily, will restore the hair on the hold part, if the least signs of roots are remaining, which has been proved by hundreds. But observe, to produce die desired effect it most be used regular. Even the Medical Gentlemen at the Medical Hall London, hare published is the Gazette of Draltit, that Prince's Russia Oil is superior to soy Oil for the hair, and will do in cases of baldness and seek hair what can possibly be done. Lsdies will end Prime's Russia Oil preferable to any other Oil for dressing their own, or false hair. as it gives it a Natural gloss, Witens and curls it. Gentlemen wearing powder. ought to use it iostead of poniatum, promotes eye-brows. whiskers, &c. The °rights! Proprietor hes now so improved the Russia Oil that it will always be sweet and pleasant, and sill keep In all climates; sod good allowance to Merchants and Cap tains for exportation. Ask for Prince's Russia Oil, at 4s. the small bottle ; or a bottle containing the quantity of near fire small ones at I is.. which is a greet saving. nowt by the Hole Proprietor, Mr. Prior,. No. 9. Poland street. Oxford-street ; and by Mr. Smyth, Perfemer to the Royal Family, New Bond-street ; and by most respectaNe Performs' and Medicine Vender,. Also Prince's celebrated Russia Dye. being so iniprned. that no doubt now remains of Its being the hest and most inno cent Dye in the universe for immediately chnaging red o. ers7 Moir, Fse-brows, sad Whiskers, to 'Brown or Black with no further trouble than to pour a little of the Dye in h glass, then dip a comb in it. and comb it through the hair, which will have the desired effect. Directions are sealed up with each bottle, en that any oar ran dye their own hair with ease and secrecy In a few minute'. Half-a-guinea per bottle: or two bottles one pound ; or oar dozen bottles the pounds. Proved by allidasit the 24th November, HOC before the Lord Mayor of London, Chet A. Prince is the Original Proprietor in the Universe of the Russia Oil or Russia Dye; therefore if any Perfnmer, Medicine-Tender, Bair d. resser.. or any one else sell Itiissia Oil. or Russia Dye, that 1 , not Prince's, they are impostors. as they sell counterfeits to their Customers. As there are malty in the country who have complained of being taken In by counterfoil Russia Oil, therefore Imeiles tad Gentlemen will hr sure to have the Ursula , by enclosing lie Money in a letter for the Russia Oil, &c, directed to Mr. PAW*, N., 9, Poland-street, Oxford-street, Lemke. when Mr. P. will send them by return of coach to miyport of the Wordage. AM (or Prince's Rnssia Oil, or Printers Dye, said observe a' !rime on the wrappey and seals of each bottle; %Mout, k is not ;canine, and cannot anew cc we ipsurpusr. " The Cause for which HAMPDEN fell is the Field, and SYDNEY died en the Beafold!" LAW IsYTELLIGENCS. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 16. (Continued from 7'ke &stemmas of yesterday.) Tilt ZING P. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, HARI% Mr. Pamirs having referred to the various cases shed by Mr. Denman, proceeded to urge their appli cation to the present argument. In reference to this point, he denied that the case of the King r. Beare was to be regarded as authority. Mr. Justice BATLEY asked, whether it was the in tention of Counsel to maintain that the resale for libel could only be laid in the county where the pub lication took place; and if so, whether, if a person who wrote a libel in Middlesex and sent it to Francel l for publication, he would or not be liable to meat in Middlesex for the writing The Learned Counsel replied to the first question in the affirmative, and to the latter in the negative. The point with respect to the purchase of poison in one county to be administered in another, had, lie cowl tended, no analogy whatever to the present case, ansl lie challenged the Solicitor-tiener.il to state the legal authority upon which he grounded Isis assertion, that if a windmill, stationed upon the borders of tree counties, should happen to kill a horse in one county, it would be indictable as a nuisance in the other county Mr. Justice BATLEY referred to the ease in lib. Ass. IV Flw. 111, pl. IL iu which a presentment was made in Middlesex of a nuisance npun the river Les, occasioned by neglect in another count•. he Learned Counsel maintained, that such a ease had no relevancy to the present, and cited Milner's eae, in which it was laid down, tha. either actions or indictments fur nuisance should be brought it ithin the county in which the nuisance Wii; actually committed. Mr. Justice BEST observed, that the derision in Bulmer's case referrell to local 101(.111'1'S. The Learned Counsel remarked, that the decision iu Bulmer's case was strengthened by that upon a case of usury, in the Court of King's Bench, in which Mr. Justice Ashurst laid it down, that the action should he brought in the county where the account was finally settled, and not in that in whirls the In terest was usually received, although .Mr. Justice Buller dtaintained an opposite opinion. Mr. Justice Banter asked whether, in the case re f•rred to, it did not appear that the offence of usury was committed in the county in which the account wu finally settled Mr. Justice BraT stated, that Mr. Justice Ashurst pronounced the judgment of the Court upon that occa- sion, and, if he recollected rightly, bo.h Justice Bul ler sod Jessica Geese oruessecal is the. opinion epos which tbatjudgmrat was founded. Mr. Justice Astaire' on that occasion too observed, that an action would he in either the county in which the interest was re ceived, or in that in which the account was settled. - - . Mr. Joriee BATLEY observe(' that it was the gene- ral practice to bring an action in that county in which the interest was received; but in the case referred to by the Learned Counsel, he apineliended that the charge of usury took place, or could be made out only in the county in which the account woo settled. The Learned Counsel said, that altliongh the rule of law might have been relaxed in civil actions, it was uniformly observed iu criminal proceedings, namely, that the proceedings should be instituted in the county in which the tratvaction referred to took place. This, indeed, was naturally to he inferred from the provision of our law, that the Jury should be brought from the vicinage in which any offence took place. This principle was so tenaciously maintained as law in other times, that Lord Coke had said, if a man received a blow in one county which produced his death in another, his as s ailant could nut be in dicted in either count•, becau s e the •Jury would not be entitled to inquire into any fact t:iat took place in another county. Mr. Justice BATLEY asked, whether there was net a distinction in the rule between felony and misde meanour ? Mr. in‘tice BIT observed, that a-cording to long eltablisl►ed practice the indictment, in !quell a rase as that referred to by the Learned Counsel, would be brought in the county in which the deatb•tonk place ; and the blow, whicl► was but a misdemeanour in the county where it took place, would naturally merge in the felony. Mr.Jostip BATLEY said, that he recollerted a ease in which a man was indicted for not rep4iring in one county, as he was bound to do by the terms upon which he held Vie land in another county, and there the Jury did inquire into the facts which occurred in the other county. • Mr. Justice tloutyvn observed, that npon a trial for High Treason, the Jury, upon proof of an overt act in the county to which they belonged, were an thorised to inquire into overt acts done in other coutitiea. Mr. Justice lizsv.—Suppose a hill to have been forged in one couuty and uttere,l is anot!tN-, would not the Jury appointed to try the case of tittering be entitled to inquire into the fart of the forgery ? Mr. Primes resumed, and after admitting, as the Learned Judge observed, that the utistlemeanoor merged in the felony in the case referred to, stated, that the law was unquestionably as he hail quoted from Lord Coke, previous to the enactment of Statute providing for the prosecution of any person giving a blow in one county, which blow might prove fatal in another. This the Learned Gentleman shewed by reading a passage from 3 Inst. p. 48. But the Sta tute altering this practice in a particular ease, having no application to a else of the nature of that before the Court, heinaintained tb it the rule of law, as laid down by Lord Coke, prev•nted the Jury from in quiring into any acts not do w by Si: Francis Barden in Leicestenliirr. Mr. Justice BATLIV.—Then reverse the case. If' your client had been tried in Middlesex, the Jury, ac cording to your view, could not have inquired into the meeting in Leicestershire. Mr. Justice Bast.—lf he had been tried in Middle acre he must have been acquitted, because there wen no proof of any act done by him in that county. The Learned Counsel urged the judgment upon the ease of the Seven Bishops as decisive upon the present question. He also referred to the precedent in Judge Johnson's ease, as that which should have regulated ,the course of the prosecutors in this instance. That Judge was tried in England for an essay written in Ireland. It was incontestibly true that the Coort in Huhlin could not, legally take cognisance of what was published here ; and why ? because the pnhlica lion was the gravamen of the offence. But the same rale that prevailed betweet. England and Ireland in this ease applied also to separate counties, because they had separate Jurisdictions, as well as seperate kingdoms. Among other authoritiet, Mr. Serjeant 4lawlsius laid it down that an offence could only be tried in that country where the act was completed. It was stated by Ilawkins and Comyn, that upon any case in which a severe punishment was likely to fol low, such as to affect the life or limb of a subject, the rule which lie had quoted from Lord Coke most be strictly observed, and it was known that sedition or libelling was that description of case, as appeared from the practice of cutting off ears and splitting noses in the reign of Charles the First. According to this rule then he maintained that his client should not have been tried in Leicestershire, where there was no proof whatever that the alleged libel was ever pub lished or seen. The Learned Counsel for the Crown hail said, that the mere delivery of the letter of Sir F. Burdett to any servant, to he conveyed to the post office, or his own putting in of that letter into the post-office, amounted to a tithliration according to law, and those. Learned Gentlemen had put a ease, whether if a man wrote :I letter in Yorkshire and sent it abroad, he could he tried any where in this king dom but in Yorkshire? According to the language of the Solicitor-General he appeared to think, that the point urged in a former instance by his Learned Col leagues in this case, as to the meaning ut publicatitin, , had been abandoned. But the Learned Gentleman was mistaken ; for, un the contrary, he still maintained with his colleagues, that according to the definition of the publication of a libel by Lord Coke, namely, trio• ditin erd iofirmiane, that isublication meant where the contents of the libel were made known. Mr. Justice BALLET—Do you mean that the publi iation means only the communication of the contents? The Learned Counsel replied in the affirmative, and repeated his assertion, that there was nu proof what ever of the publication of the alletlg,ed libel in Leices tershire. All that appeared on the trial was, that Mr. Brooks received front Mr. Itickersteth the paper alluded to; and that Mr. Brooks, finding it to be an Address, thought proper to publish it ; yet, in con sequence of proof that Sir F. Burdett was seen in Leicestershire on the 22d of Aug. upon which day the paper was dated, as well as upon the day following, a presumption was raised that the honourable Baronet wrote this paper in that county. Mr. Justice BAYLET•-••••1111 what part of Leicester shire is the toll-gate where Sir F. Burdett was so seen ? , Mr. DENMAN—CIose to the border of the county, within ten miles of Itittlandshire. Mr. Pilules maintained, that the natural presump tion was, that Mr. Bickersteth first saw this paper in Middlesex, and also that he hail been two or three days at least in Middlesex before he delivered it to Brooks, by whom it was published. Certainly either or both these presumptions were quite as fair and ra tional as that Sir F. Burdett put ,the paper into the post-office in Leicestershire, merely because he was seen ten miles from an adjoining county, into some post-office in which this letter might as probably have been pot. This letter was dektered open to Brooks by Bickersteth, and the first knon ledge which the Court had of it was in Middlesex. Mr. Justice Besy.—lt did not appear at the trial where Bickersteth resided, but merely that he deli vered this paper to Brooks iu Middlesex. Mr. Justice RATLET said, that there was no other ground beside that stated by the Learned Counsel, Se warrant the presumption that this paper was written in Leicestershire, namely, the date of the letter itself at Kirby Hall. Mr. Pitt Lies observed, that the date afforded as ground fur presuming that this paper was ever pub. Robed, or even put into any post-office in Leicester shire. In the evidence, indeed, upon the trial, there' was nothing to shew whether this paper was put into the post-office in Leicestershire or Itutlandshire. But If the Coitnfel fur the prosecution desired to establish A* fact that Sir F. Burdett remained in Leicester shire throngh the whole of the 22d and MI of Aug u st, that was a tlict catmble of proof through some of the Honourable Baronet's servants or inmates. And why did they net adduce such evidence instead of relying 'upon the presumption raised ky the testimony of the toll-gate-keeper—instead of relying upon testimony front which it must puzzle any wan of common sense to f min an opinion whether Sir F. Bartlett remained in Leicestershire throughout the 22d and 23d of jAngust. Yet with such evidence alone a Jury were called upon to pronounce a verdict, on presumption j that the Honeurable Baronet was throughout those I days in Leicestershire, while the adjoining county was but a very few miles from his residence. The fact was, indeed, that the verdict in this case was liable to all the objections urged against the emilict width respect to the seven Bishops, where it was presumed that the petition containing the alleged libel was de livered Itt the King by the Bishops, because it was sect in his Majesty's bands. Mr. Justice Bairev.---There was ao evidence rt , r ('f-ti' .-L i port. .r • 1 1 4 1 a A. 4 4":"/ rvvvarsiffifik _r -...... _,r.. _ PIM. Sorts Pr, that the petition of the Bishops was written in Mid.. dims, or that they delivered it'll) the King. The Cmt sr-Jos rtes.---No, there was So eeidenee of Ruda delivery. For any thing that appeared in evi dence, the petition might ba‘e been privately takes out of the pocket of the Bishops, and conveyed by others to the King. Mr. Justice Briir.—There is this distinction be tween your ease end that of the seven Bishops. There is evidence that yon caused the paper to be published by sending it to Brooks and o addressing it to the Electors of Westminster. Mr. Pnturs.-L-The petition of the Bishops was addressed to the King. The Learned Gentleman await contrasted the presumptions which he Lad raised as to Bickersteth's having been in London two or three da!•s before the delivery of the paper under i-On'ildieration to Brooks, and as to the probability that the fstter might have been put Into a post office in BtNandshi-s, and never seen by any person but the Writer hius,t 2 : until it reached London, with that prestimpiion upta which the verdict was found, that this paper was pat into a post-office it Leicestershiii, of carViid to 114:d -dleses. by Biekersteth, maintaining, that the former presumption neutralised the latter, to neither of would any attention be paid upon a civil rase. Mr. Justice Bssr, adverting to the comparison. drawn between this case and that of the seven Bishops. said, that in the latter the petition complained of wa• not proved to have been written in Middlestit,while i.L the former it was proved that 'the pa, er alluded to wus written in Leicestershire. Mr. Pitt:Ars observed, that as the proceeding against the seven Bishops was for a conspiracy, any act done in furtherance of that conspiracy was legallr admissible in evidence. Here the Learned Gentlmam animadverted upon the :Ms-direction of the Learned Judge, which formed another ands main ground to sustain the rule. The Learned Judge, itt summing u:), thought proper to observe, that " he felt no difficulty as to die publication of this paper in Leicestershire. It was delivered open and unsealed to Brooke, and pro bably travelled with Bickersteth from Leicestershire ; adding, that if the paper were proved to have been either written or published in that country, Inch proof would be quite sufficient to warrant the Jury in find ing a verdict against the defendant ; and also, that if the paper were not written, or rt into. a post-offic.• in Leiceatersitire.it was open to Sir Jittriett toprove that, while the absence of such proof must form a presump tion against him." Such, the Learned Counsel oh served, was the 'abidance of the Learned Judge's direction to the Jury, as he found it in a report of his Lordshipl speech, the accuracy of which would not, he thought, be questioned. In combating the pre sumption raised by the Learned Judge, and communi cated to the Jury, Mr. Phillips observed, that his Lord ship called upon Sir Francis Burdett to prove a ne gative which might be utterly incapable of proof. For instance, if the Honourable Baronet himself alone knew where this paper was written, or into what posi office it was put, to be forwarded to London, what evi dence could he adduce to negative the Learned Judge's presumption ? lie could not help saving, that the presultiptions raised by the Learned Judge were quite unwarranted by any evidence—and particularly that id which he spoke of the paper travelling with Mr. Biek• ersteth from Leicestershire to London, and of its hav ing been delivered to that gentleman at Kirby !fall. There was not a single particle of evidence to sustain such presumptions, and therefore, the Learned Judge was gibing an impression to the Jnry which was nut sustained by any proof whatever. Quite the ?ontrarv, indeed, of airy such delivery to Bickersteth Was the natural conclusion from the evidence. When then it was recollected with what peculiar deference a Jury generally looked to the opinion of a Judge, especially in doubtful cases, he submitted to the judgment of their Lordship, that such misdirectien as he had quoted, formed the strongest ground for setting aside this ver dict, and granting a new trial. There were Teri, ns considerations belonging to this particular case, wi. rh he need not detail, but which powerfully called for the most diligent and impartial investigation of its merits, before a final decision was pronounced upon the sub ject by their Lordships. He should only add, that it was of the highest importance that the adtslaistration of public justice in this country Shoal& be Stet only pure but utisuspeeted. Mr. litatuntes set out with stating, that one of three things must be established in this case, ttr the verdict could not possibly Stand ; either that the mere writing of the paper alluded to was an offence, or that the writing and publishing it was an offence: or that the writing it in Leicestershire, red putting it into a postmffice in that county, to be forwarded to London, was a publication. In either of the latter cases he would admit that Ms client had committed an offence, and that the verdict should not he disturb ed. But against the first case he should enter his protest. The Learned flentleman quoted the authorltv of Hale's Pleas of the Crown, lierjeant Hawkins, a tt .! Lord Mansfield, to shew that as to the rule of law for laying the restore for any offence in the conittv ice which it was committed, tier* was as tween cases of trimly and miaileenesuare. Mr. Justice BAYLET assented serving that he recollected a tried for a misdemeanour in Surrey, an assault committed in one of the 'south side of London Bridge. • Jntige's directiun npon its heinj houses alluded to were in the Cit . Mr. Justice Bus r observed, that doubt of the lA•arned Counsel's Mr. BLACIIIII2IO4 expressed a would ever be entertained on the cootie/ to enforce the arguments . intim/ authorities, the doctrine Learned predecessors. Among declaration of Lord Coke, that could be taken cognizance of onl, , .> 1 ) 1: 1‘; 1 t 1 11 1 11 \ • i i 1 1 . - 1 I" was mo difference b,• weelguer. I is this propesi lino. ob- eli"e in whrit k matt trey, in contequence of the fuer honors on the was acquitted by the g proved that t►e fuer :its of Loudest. that then could be no position. a hope that no doubt to subject, aid he pro- s and to support, by ad- rise laid down by Isis others, he stated the merely writing a lib►l sly in the Star Cbaas- on !e-