The Sun.
London, England, 1807-02-20 00:00:00

ENCEI, Fxse-tt.-

Mr. • Latouche, and gate such positive and Cir-
cumstantial informatiwi tenting to show that Mr..
Greville and his wits' had received bribes to a
large amount, that he„ for the sole purpose of
endeavouring to ascertain • the...fad, called at G-re-
. ville's ,lodings, -and left .his address: After this
Greville repeatedly called upon him, and represent-
ing the distresS and poveNy in which he and his fa-
Inilywere,-requested pecuniary assistance. Mr:James
then asked him ii he Mich applied to Mr. .Shaw
assistance? to which be replied, that he had applied,
but that Mr. Shaw could do nothing fOr him tilt the
Petition which watt threatened to be lodged against,
him should be decided. Mr. James then: acknow-
ledges, that. when Mr.' Greville complained of the
distress of his wife and faMily, he might have an-
swered, he was sorry for it, 'but positively denies he
ever said, if Mr. Greville would come forward and•
be a witness against Mr. Shaw he would be a friend
to him, or any words tb that effect. He further says, •
that he told Mr. GreVille tO•coMmit -to writing any
information he hatito give; but that Greville answer 7
ed, he:could. not give it in•writing,as ir_might injure
him With Mr. Shacv: He then, my Lords, deniits:
positively.that he ever solicited Mr. Greville to be a
witness against Mr. Shaw, but merely required him
to tell the truth with respect to what passed.between-.
him and 'Mr. ShaW orthis'Agent, prior to his voting,
:and Says that Mr: Greville repeatedly intiniated to
him, that he had 'heard of bribery on the part of Mr.
'ShaW, besides the circumstances before mentioned
. . He denies that he did importuneor entlea7
your to prevail on the said Greville to swear bribery
against Mr. Shaw., or promise to procure him any
situation whatever for so-doing, and :says he had no
influebce to procure any place whatever under the
Paving Board, but that he merely recommended him
to tell'the truth fairly and honestly with tesped to
any thing that might have taken place between.him
and Mr. .Shaw, Mr. James then denies that he ever
• beard 'Mr. Greville say, he could not swear -bribery.
against Mr. Shaw, but admits be did mention: that,
he believed Mr. Sliaw was a very worthy man. The
Affidavit concludes by stating, that on the late eledion
he, Mr.-James, gave Mr. Latouche his advice and
assistance .as a friend; but positively denies that he
Was•atany time the hired Agent of Mr:'`Latouche..
The learned Counsel here concluded a very' clear,
statetuent of the two Affidavits, and begged leave to
call the attention of the Court to a• quantity of new
matter which had been introduced in the Affidavit
of Mr. James. This, he said, had 'been completely •
answered by two supplemental Affidavits filed'since
the Conditional, Rule was obtained ;- and 'he hoped
their Lordships would beOf Opinion that he Wasper-
fecaiy corred• in proceeding to state them to the
Court. . The learned Counsel here proceeded to
state the supplemental Affidavits ; to the reading of
which very strong objedions, were made on the_part
of Mr. James's-Counsel. The Court, after hearing
arguments, decided,,that the Counsel for Mr. Shaw,
should proceed on the original Affidavit.
- Mr.- Serieant BALL, as Counsel. for Mr. James,
hoped the Court would not permit Sochi a pradice to
be obtained, it was one,. he: said, the Most,dangerous
in its tendency, and heretofore &scountenaticed by
every Court.
Mr.' Serjeant MooffE, on behalf of Mr. James,
objected to .the want of an Affidavit ofkAhe.part GI
Mr. Shaw 'of his innocence of the charg.
The LORD CHIEF JusTicg bere'bebged to be in-
formed ~vheter this motion had
,been made on the
part of Mr. Shaw; and being answered in the 'affir-
mative, said, he did nor nor was it his into„_
tiers; to preclude discussion on a subject•which
do
doubt ought- to be examined- into, most minutt,ik.
Re,' however,. was of opinion that,, under e!itylirig
circumstances, it was impossible to proceed further
in the matter at .present. The similitude it bore to
the Duke of Richmand's case, tried in the Court of
King's Bench in England, was very great, so great
that the Court could not, with such a precedent
befoi•e them, proceed any farther in , the ,busines's
.without an Affidavit trona Mr. Shaw. rihe'Clse ae
alluded to was. an application for leave to- file
criminal information against' some persons-fora libel.
In the libel complained Of, the Duke had 'been-ac-
cused of carrying on' a traitorous civrespondence
with the enemy.; the. Conditional Rule having been
obtained on his part, after 'much argument, it was
,-tikcharge with costs, 'rib affidavit being filed by the
Duke „denying the- -charges made against
HciweVeri.an 'Affidavit to that effect was afterwards .
tiled, and the motion was made a second time and
granted. • -
The SOLiCITOR-GW,4ERAL acknowledged that
the general principle of the 'rule was extremely 'cot- •
red, but the application of ,it, to the present case
was,' lie Conceived, improper, The 4itfernOe be-
tween this case and the case of a libel was-great.
Mr. Shaw here did not charge, Mr. James. with
slandering 11. n, the offence' was -of a much higher
and more beinons nature, it was the offence of en-
deavouring to suborn a man to swear that he, Mr.
Shaw, had given bribes to procure votes at the late
elect ion:

The •Souctron-GESTERAL abs said, he was in-
structed by Mr. WHISTLER, Solicitor for Mr. Shaw
to state that Mr. Shaw was wiling : and. ready to
Make the Affidavit required—alit he bad not bribed
or promised-a-bribe to any voter for his vote at the
lasteleaion, anti that he had not diredly or indi-
:ltaly authorised at per Son so to do, and that no
agent or other person,• to his knowledge•or• belief,
had bribed on•.biS behalf.

Mr. SANKgY added, that he -had had repeated
conhAvitial conversations with'Mr. Shaw on tliesub-
jeet or the elet..:tin, and he Would undertake that
the Affidavit required should be made before the sit-
ting of the COurt the next day.
Mr. HA:irr.,row+lid, that he also lead had the ho-
nour or participtlting very considerably. in
ShaW'sOnfidence,aS COULI6eI, at the lale
and Vie` Would join in di:: undertaking of Mr. Sankey
and the Solicitor,-General.

Serjearlt Muotti, said, his objetaion to that
course of proceeding was extremely simple, naaiely,
that. the'personon whose behalf the .application was
made hot being before the Court, he Was 'not called
on to go into a.defenee, and, therefore, the most re-
gular method .would be to discharge the Rule:
The LORD CH lEF JUSTICE said, he. Was fay per,.
suaded that this business ought not to end here ; it
was incumbent on_ the to bring it forward
and have cohip4;tely estigated 5 .116
tretnely happy to find .that no •objeaion'was made