The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-11-10 00:00:00

CORNISH BOROUGHS.

A rule aisi liarisig been obtained by Mr. Gaselee
in a former term, for • quo toarranto to inquire into
the constitution of the Borough of H-iston, in
Cornwall. on the alleged ground of misuse and
misapplication of the public finances,
Mr. WARREN now showed cause against it. He
said, he should refrain from troubling the Court
with any of the circumstances of this case, as they
were already in possession of them. This was the
fourth time it had been before the Court, and it was
nut immaterial to inquire who was the real applicant
on this occasion. Sir Christopher Hawkins, in
three different shapes, appeared in this business.—
It was a little curious. that in affairs connected with
the borough, not of individual grievance, but of
public money, as the King was here the Prose-
cutor, the worthy Baronet, who was neither •
burgess 110 f a householder, should he so prominent;
wheat, however, it would he recollected, that his
brother-in-law, Mr. C. T. Breretou, had failed
in his elect. for the borough, and the Baronet's
consequent threat that he would destroy the
constitution of the borough, if he was inter-
fered with, it was plain he was the real applicant.—
If their motives for this inquiry by the Crown into
the constitution of the borough were as pure as they
affected to be, namely, an ewer non of their rights as
Burgesses, tin one would quarrel with them; but
the Learned Counsel tru►ted when the Court saw it
was dune through electioutering pique, they would
not hastily consent to the issuing this infortuattoo.
He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would dis-
charge the rule.
Mr. GASELS:E supported the rule. He referred
to the affidavits on which he had moved it, and in
answer to the insinuation of Sir Christopher Haw-
krus's gratuitous interference, lie observed that the
Court had made it incumbent on hem to make an•
swer from time to time by affidavit.
The CHIEF JUITICII asked, whether the Learned
Counsel Inert ally passage in these affidavits that
distinctly denied soy exprctatiuu of remuneration
from Sir Christopher Hawkins ?
Mr. GASEI.CE midi that the deponents strongly
denied they had had any remuneration from him.
Toe COURT held, that this was not explicit
enough, anal as there dal not appear sufficient
grounds for the writ, they would out make them-
sclera parties to any electioneetirig
!tole discharged.

INQUEST AT OLDHAM.
Mr. SCARIXIT lituved for al rule to show cause,
why a cr I information should not be filed
alpinist J.ehu Eisen.liaw, a surgeon. and Joseph
aylur, fug 111 iVnirly delivering nu the 'lath of Sep-
tember last, at Oldham, a certain paper, nut under

touring or corrupt 11.,
ministration • of justice.
Wad • Lordship*,
et .
would
Every

so .
public
pitulate
uf
holdi
jog
the
ell i
led
to _
which
affected.
and
were
by
by,
tic*.
,picoou•,

\

--.:::.--" ' - -,...-.--...._ ....._ . ' dr .-.,.. •
r'
• ,
. • •.r •••• . r .. ! •.. •. • • •
~
the sanctionof en oath, in'a Jorf, thirrhy . hl: : I 1,. .
touring to corrupt the sources, and pi wart the oil. . t
,
Rlinittrlttiert •of justice. 11l Wwas steesercessary to Cr. :
IMAM their Lordship*, thrt-the i ccasiou on whit', ; ii
the Jury abet, was in emilegaewee at the trseesactionis I 1 4 4
at Manchester, in August Ism, upon which he i ,'1
would scrupulously refrain frotnglving soy opinion.
Every thing connected with that affair, hail been ,:i
so frequently and attentively disco/ova, hash in 4 •
public and privase, that it was weenrcemary to rico-
I
Vitolote them here; suffice it to say, that WI the body
of John Lees, one of those killed, an inquest wits . .
holding at Oldham. sod justice was loudly call. ,
ing that a strict iuquiry should be made Iwo ,;;. I,
,
the causes of his death. In doing we, the strict. .
1
est impartiality was desirable, as the events who 11 , I
led to the death cf Lees were, ur were tomsobett
to arise from a collision of party feeling. in
'
which the interests of individual" were largely
affected. That course, however, was not fottoesed;
• 1 4.
and it now only remained to impeach those *hie
were moat forward in making breaches in it, either , •
by clandestinely communicating with -the Jury, or (.? .1
it
by any other means impeding the progress of jos. it .
tic*. Of their, the two Defendants were very coo.
spicuoo., rs the affidavits of the enroner, and of +1 1 .
constable and another person, sti which he found.
ed his motion. would testify. The Defenelasit, biro. 11.
thaw, was the medical attendant oat the tirerasrli
l'
Lees. sod was 'prevent the first day of the iiirpn..t,
but declined to be sworn, av lie wax our of the S..- ..i
ciety of Friends, yet he afterwards made a senile-is le : I
,
statement of his opinion, which lie got privately ' I
conveyed to the Jury. The other De-frodietit was
the person who distributed this to the Jur!. four
of whom actually received copies of it. Ile con. r I
&vied there Was some difficulty in bringing the .1 .'
matter home to Earoshaw as the writer, brit an ;1 •
affidavit which he held in his hand, with regent
I
t
to Taylor, was made by a person, to whom he
admitted he. had served these C01)44.44 on for Jury.
He then read these affidavits, sonnely, that of Mr.
Ferrand, the Coroner, mad another, *nearing to the
fact of tampering with the J ury. but tlnclostine tin 'll
l' i• new fact, not already known, the littler depsiseil io 1 A
the admission of Taylor. The affidavit re geiriliiig Sir. i' I
Emmett's! was lea decisive. Tlw dei;ouent swore
1 f
that he had a conversation with the Defendant; and,
upon questioning him as to h;s outlitirship of this
paper, Mr. Earnshaw did not give a direct answer, i
.
He admitted he had seen papers which were eop,es i
of it, but denied that be was a party to disteilmt. i '''ll
ing them amongst the Jurors. Upon this bifida% it f
1
an the Learned Counsel observed, that it WHO not a
i 11
absolute denial of the Defendant's being the aii hoe ' ` ; 1
of the paper, and us one of them ass iu hi. head. i it
writing, it was a strong presumption against hen,. Ii li
Mr. Justice BA TI.ET—Aud you have out the ! i 1
testimony of any other person acquainted with his
I tl' •I
hand-writing ? 4,
Mr. Sc A asEre—Ves, my Lord, I have the affi. al 1
davit of a person who knows his hated.wtiting, iii,,l 1,
who states that he believes it to be his hand.wriiiiig. ;
The CHIEF JUSTICE—He positively states bins, If a • .
1'
that he neither directly nor indirectly circulated the 1t
• 1
papers amongst the Jury.
Mr. SCARLETT—He does so, and tl P question is,
whether the circumstances I have stated are tab.
cient to induce the Court to cill upon him to "hew
cause why the information should nut go sgsiti•t
him. I take the case to be quite clear against Tay- I
tor, The paper written by Ear sil .ii..law laufelars to
I
give his opinion as to the cause of the death of Jolt, 0 '
Lees. The paper is addressed thus—"To all whom IV
this may concern."
Mr. Jur ice BAYLET—I presume it was tendered
to the Jury by way of evideoce, laving the only
sanction which a Quaker can give to its truth,
timely, his affirmation, which 'auction does nut
entitle it to be received in evidence. 14,
Mr. Justice BEST—His ofim rution had bre n
previously refused ?
Mr. SCARLETT—Yes, My Lord. The paper slits
not point eit any individual.
The CHIEF JUSTICIt—Ii understand the paper to
have been clandestinely delivered by Taylor to the
Jury. If the Court grants the rule against. Inni,
it is on this ground—that here is something deli.
vered to the Jury not upon oath, touching tier mat.
ter
ter which was the subject of inquiry. It is tie ir ,
...
that nothing should be delivered to the Jury except li
upon oath.
Mr. SC•RLETT—I need not make any observe.
tious on this part of the case, for I take it, that no
rule can be more clearly established than that
during the administration of justice the tail al of 1
justice should not be tampered with iu any way
whatever.
Mr. Justice BEST—There is this objection to the
proceeding, that the paper was not delivered open.
ly, or when the Coroner was present—but secretly,
when the Coroner was absent.
Mr. Scatmerr —Whatever the effect of the pa.
per might be. it was clearly not evidence. Haring
HOw stated the whole of the facts, the Court will
dispose of the motion as it thinks proper.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The foundation of my
present opinion, that the rule ought to go awnstot
'Fajita, is. that isothiug is to be delivered to a Jury
other than upon oath, touching the matter uf their
inquiry. It does not appear that you have suffi-
cient proof in this case to criminate the writer oi
the paper.
1:1
Rule to shew cause granted against Taylor.
LORD MAYOR'S DAY. 1 t
1
At half-past two o'clock, the civic procession, con.. I
'listing of the new and old Lord Mayor. Mr. Alder- lit
moo Wood, Mr. Recorder, Mr. Sheriff Roiliest!.
Mr. Sheriff Parkios.&c. entered the Court accordi; 4 i
to custom. The Recorder delivered iu the ei.e. I ..1
warrant of the new Lord Mayor appointing Mr. Ler. e 11
Blanc, Master of the Pleas Side of the King's
Bench, to be his Lordship's attorney, to appear t- r
him in all matters and thieigs touching the rights of
the City, &v. On the motion of the Recorder, U. .1'
(warrant of attorney was recorded.
Mr. GRAHAM, who has resigieed his command in 1.
the Yorkshire Hussars, on account of the relate! el
il
•f Lord FITZWILLIAM, is one of the Represeuta.
lives for Hull in the House of Conienous. 'll
There is a peculiarity about the magisterial up. i i
pointuseuts in the county of Lancaster, which: is out
generally knits., t—Lord Dummy, though he is Loral
Lieutenant of Lancaster, it slot the Castes kote4,- ..
rotas of that county. The appointment of Magee- , I
trate* is not, therefore, in him, but its the Mitigates*
of the Crusrue•-(k resit% Pieper./

''',