The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-29 00:00:00

(f - d,6

NUMBER 93371

VICTUe ILL ING-OFFIC E, July 23, 1822.
,HE COMMISSIONERS for VICTUAL-
et. LLVG His AtzIJESTrS NA ,for
do hereby give' Arc.
I") That on Tuesday, the 30th Instant, they will be ready
6 Tenders in Writing. (sealed up), and treat for
One Hundred Tons of MUSCOVADO SUGAR; to be
en4werable to samples of not less than two pounds weight
„.,each, to be produced with the Tenders;
rjfly Thousand Gallons of WEST INDIA RUNT;
0 Hundred Quarters of 'NEW_ENGLISH PEASE ;

Thirty Tons of -VIRGINIA LEAF TOBACCO;
Twenty Tons of OATMEAL;
. One Thousand Sacks of BISCUIT MEAL;
'lnd Thirty Tons or MOTTLED SOAP;
half within a Month, and the remainder' in a night For
afterwards.
The Conditions of the Contracts may be seen at this Office.
4.,Mach 7'ender must specify the Price in words at length,
• and 4e delivered to the Board before One o'Clock on the
ap aPpointed, and the Person who makes the Tender, or
Person on hie behalf, attend to answer when called for.'
111/IT7IIEW WALLER CLIFTON.
TIESII most respectfully_ informs his best
Friends the Public, that the

TWO ~FittZES of keo,ooo
Must both•be drama in the First Five Minutes,
111:144.ORRO W.
And the Wheel. independent of the-abure, contains

46104
•
•
4 ,u)
o ,
1
//,

MONDAY, JULY 29, 1822.

Learned Friends wish. Gentlemen, what sort of evidence will
be given to support this ? I apprehend. my Learned Friend
will rely upon this aslkeing. the earlier part of what the testi-
tixnony will refer to, that there have:been many persons ap-
pointed to the office of .Mayor who resided in the Borough of
Petersfield, but for the last 20 or 30- years, I shall shew you
there have been as many persons chosen who did not reside in
the- Borough; as those who did reside; consequently, my
Learned Friend's argument must be this:--that inasmuch as
some time ago that appears to have -been the usual course with
persons appointed to the office of Mayor, therefore, you are to
conclude, that' they had their most usual domicile and places
of residlnce-there. I shall submit that that is a mere circum-
stance, chewing that persons have been chosen who resided in
the town. Unless it was the , undeviating, unvaried, and .un-
broken course, the evidence would not establish the general
proposition for which my Learned Friend must contend. I
apprehend that the only conclusion you could come to, from see-
ing that persons have been chosen Who were resident. in the Bo-
rough,.would be this, that persons resident iu the Borough may
be yhosen, not that they must be resident; because the in-
stant I sheW that any individual has been chosen as' Mayor,
who did not reside in tl4 'Borough (unless it could be shewn
to be a fraudulent appointment, and that would alter any state
of circumstances), 1 apprehend the proof that any one person
has been chosen to rill the office of Mayor who did not reside
within, the limits of the Bofough, would destrdy the conclusion•
iriy Learned Friend asks you to come to—that the persons
chosen must be residentin the town ; because all that ,you can
infer 'from the fact of residence, unless it is unbroken in this,
that persons may be chosen who have resided. Now, on the
other hand it would be impossible ,that non-residents could be
chosen, unless the custom of the porough permitted it.
Gentlemen, although I haVe said; pressing the argument to
its fullest extent, that any one instance of a non-resident being
elected would destroy my Learned Friend's conclusion [shall
be able to shew you, hat by much the greater number who
have been chosen within the last thirty years, have been chosen.
from persons who did not reside in the Borough. if Ido that,
I ask how is it possible for my Learned Friend to establish the
conclosion he contends for, that it is a necessary qualification
for a person to fill the office, to have his most usual place of
residence there.

Gentlemen, I have now stated very generally what the nature
Of this case is, but before I leave this part of the case, I will
state the particular quality of the Mayorof Petersfield. Peters-
field is no Corporation. 'lf ever there was one, it is now abso-
lutely gone. There remains nothing but the name of Mayor.
The Mayor is no Magistrate, he exercises no official auty as
an officer of the peace—the only public duty he discharges, and
I suppose that is the one that has brought Mr. Atcheson here,
is to return Members to Parliament. Gentlemen, I hear my
Learned Friend say the secret is out at last ; if I had thought
there had been any secret in it, I should have stated it
in the first instance, but nobody could have supposed
that an eminent Attorney, as Mr. Atcheson is, could have
come down from, London: and investigated these matters,
except for an electioneering purpose. Gentlemen, I really did
not think. it could be' considered a secret—if it is so, you
have my full consent to the disclosure—l did not con-
ceive it was necessary to state it in the outset—l should have
thought there was no human being in this County who can be
unacquainted with the politics of that-place. Nobody can
doubt that if Mr. Atcheson thought it proper to spend his time
and his money to unship the old interest of Peterstield, he was
perfectly at liberty to do so—l thought it so notorious that ,I
did not think it necessary to mention it.
Gentlemen, tn-lake the points in order having stated gene-
rally the nature of thia case, I shall be obliged in order to esta-
blish the election of -.111-Y,lolliffe, to shew in the terms of the
issue, that a Court Leet has- been accustomed to be holden ; I
must then shew' You that the Jury at that Court Leet have
been accustomed to present the Mayas, and that the person so
presented has executed the office; then 1-must shew you, that
that particular right has been held accordiss to the usage ;
I must then chew you that the Jurors of the t:ourt Leet in
the month of January, 1822, were duly sworn in ; I net chew
you that the Jury consisted of as many as the usage of the place
required ; I must shew you that the Jury were duly nominated,
which will depend upon that question, namely, whether the
usage justifies the nomination by the Steward, or whether it
was required by the usage that the Bailiff should nominate the
Jury ? Gentlemen, it is necessary to inform you, .that the
Bailiff was not accustomed to nominate the Jury, but that.'
the Steward was—that I shall be- able to shew • you. - It
has been said, that upon this occasion Mr. Hylton Jolliffe,
the brother of the defendant, and Mr. Hector, who fills
the office of Steward, colluded for the purpose of procur:
ing the nomination of Mr. Jolliffe as Mayor. The allega
tion is, that. whatever may be the course of proceeding
pointed out by usage, and justified by Law, on this occasion,
Mr. .Hylton Jolliffe and Mr. Hector combined together, and
improperly procured the nomination of the defendant. I shall
be curious to hear the course my Learned Friend will . take to
establish that fact ; but I may venture to say, thus early in the
discussion, that that is a point in which he must totally fail.—
I must then shew you, that the Bailiff in question who executed
that precept of the Steward was properly appointed. I do not.
state the mode in which. that appointment took place ; I will
not occupy your time by stating it. After this,. 1 am to shew
you that though Mr. Hector remained with the Jury, he was
justified in so doing. lam also to satisfy you, that Mr. Jolliffe
is qualified for the office of Mayor. I shall shew -you that Mr.
Joliffe was possessed of all the qualifications which . the others
had, except that of residence, which I apprehend is not neces-
sary at all. _ _

6entlemen, I have now enumerated all the issues necessary
for us to prove, and .I have stated the questions you 'will have
to determine. I shall abstain from those observations I should
otherwise have thought it my duty to make, as to how the no-
mination of the :fury would effect the legality of Mr. Jolliffe's
election, in consequence of the observation which has fallen
from his Lordship. if it be necessary for me to advert to it
again in consequence of the proof my Learned Friend may
offer, I shall have an opportunity of doing then, what I • was
about to do in• the first instance. Ihave stated the nature of
the points you are to try, and, I will now proceetito.prove them.
Mr. Justice Bunnoucx.—Will not this .ultimately turn
upon some points knoWn to you both ? .• •
Mr. Serjeant do not know what facts they will
adduce in support of their case. When they have proved the
facts, I shall submit a question of law to your Lordship. • ,
Mr. Justice BURRO UGH.—The point of law will go up to
be decided:

Mr. Serjcant PELL.—I have a little sort of curiosity to hear
how they will prove their facts.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT.

Mr. James Cannon sworn.—Examined by Mr. C. F. Wm-

LIAIIIS.

Q. You were formerly Clerk to Mr. Andrews, the late
steward of the manor of Petersfield ?—A. I was for four or
five years. •
(A Paper waa handed to Witness.)
Is that presentment in your hand writing Yes.
Look at the Jurymen who have subscribed it, and tell me if
you know the hand-writing of the majority of these Jury-
men ?—I do.
I believe the date of that is 1802 PL-Yes it is.

Mr. Justice Bunnouou.—What day of the month was it?
Mr. ADAM.-January, 1802.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—What is the date of it ?—The
18th of January, 1802. • .
Mr. ADAm.—What is it ?—The presentment of the Jury
at the Cuurt Leet. , .

Mr. Serjt. PELL.—What it is will appear upon the face of it.
Mr. ADAM.—Yes, certainly.
111 r. Justice BURROUGH.—The date is the 18th of January,
1802 ?-- Y es.

Mr. C..F. WiLLiArns.—You were with Mr. Andrews as
Clerk for four or five years when he was Steward, how far back
is that ?--It was in 1798.

What was the custom at that time of selecting the jury ? by
whom was it done ?—lt was generally done by Mr. Andrews,
the Steward.

'Was it so during the course of the time that you were with
Mr. Andrews ?--Always.
You say, Mr. Andrews was Steward of the Court. When
the Jury retired to make their presentment, did Mr. Andrews
retire with them or not ?=-Always.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—After they were sworn ?--Yes.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS. —You stated 'Just now that, during
the time you were with Mr. Andrews, he selected the Jury, in
what way did the selection appear on the precept ?—lie gave
the precept with the names on it to the Bailiff.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Scrjeant
Q. I am about to ask you, whether 1 was correct in suppos-
ing you came to Mr. Andrews in 1798 ?—A. yes.
When did Mr. Andrews die ?—ln 1802.

You continued with him four years ?--Let me correct myself,
I left him in 1802, he lived five or six yearn afterwards.