The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-28 00:00:00

TAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. ?6.
The proceedings of this day were so extremely uninteresting
that we cannot select a *ingle case worthy of being presented
to the public.'

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,-Nov. 26,
, THE KING ABLAPID.

The Loup CIIIEF:jusTIct, as soon as he had taken his
seat, proceeded to deliver, from a written paper, a very elabo::
ratejudgment in this case. The question simply was, whether
the defendant, who occupies premises in the parish of St.
Bartholomew the Great, where he carries on the business of
printing, but neither himself nor any of his servants sleep in
them, be liable to serve the office of constable. The Court,
from a view of the circumstances under which these premises
were held, and the mode of electing the constable in ancient
times, held that the occupancy of_ the premises in question
did not entail a personal service, bat only pecuniary liabilities
to •the rates of the parish in which they are situated.. Mr.
Adlard, therefore, Is not liable to serve the office of constable.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
I - DUNN versus COMMON 3EN'SE (NEWSPAPER.)
Mr. J, WlLLiaars appeared for the defendaants in this case,
to show cause why a criminal information should not be grant-
ed against them at the suit of the plaintiff. The grounds upon
which he was prepared to resist the rule were grounds of recri-
mination against the plaintiff. He was aware that as a lawyer
he could not ask the Court to set of One libel against another,
when an application of this nature was made for their inter-
-ferenct• but when it was sought to do that by the strong hand
of the Court, which could be done by another process of law,
he thought the Court would be disposed to require that the
party applying should come before them with clean hands.
Now he was prepared with an affidavit to prove that Mr. Bunn
was himself a libeller, and had in fact, by his unwarrantable
attacks, provoked tit resentment of Common Sense in the
manner in which he low complained to the Court. This affi-
davit stated that the plaintiff, Mr.-Bunn, was proprietor, or
conductor, of a Sunday Paper called the Age. OC this paper
he (Mr. Williams) professed to
.know nothing, never having
read one line of its or even so much as heard of it before the
present application ; but he understood it was established upon
very singular principles. He was -informed that this print
was set up as a sort of recompence to the reading
public of the Iletropolix, during Church hours upon the Sabbath
day, for the filling off and tameness ofJohn Bull.—(A laugh.)
John Bull was considered as having greatly degenerand from
his former bildness and violence ; and whether it was true or
not that thee was any remarkable difference between John Bull
" as he was" and John Bull" as lie is," of this there could
be no doubt. that he was very far behind The Age in the spirit
of virulenceand invective. Indeed, the extreme heat of John.
Bull was nu more than the temperate medium of this new
Journal. John Bull having lost all his fire, and being now,
in a manne., completely burnt out, The Age, as a new light,
had burst forth from his almost expiring embers, and was des-
tined sutireiy to eclipse him. The affidavit-he possessed went
on to recite certain passages from Tire Age,chiefly in notices to
Correspondents of a most offensive and libellous character.—
These could be submitted to' the Court, if their Lordships
thought necessary. This affidavit also stated that Mr. Bunn
descried himself as the respectable Stage Manager of Drury-
lane 'Theatre, whereas there was good ground for believing that
hs was no more than the manager of a band of strolling players
appearing upon dm boards of a country playhouse. So far his
affidavit went ; and 'upon this he was prepared to shew cause
why the rule should not be made absolute against his client.—
He did think their Lordships might leave the plaintiff to his
remedy by the ordinary course of law, viz.—a bill of indictment
before* Grand Jury, seeing that he was himself a libeller.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the affidavit of the
Learnet Counsel did not go further than to stateahe knowledge
and belief of the deponent, that the plaintiff was connected with
the Age newspaper. No direct evidence of the fact was pro-
duced, and it was impossible the Court could act upon any
thing sc vague its a case of this kind. Neither was he prepared
to say that if direct evidence were tendered it would be tie-
, cepted. In obtaining the rule to phew cause Mr. Bunn had
distinctly negatived the-truth of the libels; and if it were per-
mitted to oppose that rule by a new statement of this descrip-
tion,
the judgment of the Court must be further postponed until
.31r. Bunn had time to answer that statement, and so on ad in-
finitum, new matter being upon each occasion introduced. Ile
knew of no precedent for such a course, and he had no hesita-
tion in saying it would be a very dangerous one to establish.
The other Judges concurring, it was then ordered that the
rule be made absolute.

IN THE *ATTER, OF T. JONATHAN WOOLLEE.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE addressed the Bar, and said,
that as Mr. Wader had been waiting several days for an op-
portunity of being heard .upon a motion of some importance, if
the Bar bad
.ncrobjection, the Court would now hear him. No
objection being offered,
Mr. Wooller came from the Jury Box, where he had been
sitting, to the floor, for the purpose of 'making his motion,
Mr. Wooller stated, that the application hehad to make was
for a rule to shew cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not
issue, directed to the Treasurer and Masters of the Bench of
the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn, commanding then: to admit
-the individual who had the honour of addressing the Court, as a
member of their Society, for the purpose of qualifying himself
to be called to the degree_ofa Barrister-at-law. This applica-
tion arose out of circumstances, which being verified by atildae
vit, he would state to the Court.. He then stated the follow-
ing facts, from the affidavits which he held in his hand: In
Michaelmas Term, 1824, he made application at the Steward's
office of the Society, to have his name enrolled as a member of
the` Society, and he left a paper containing his name, &e., con-
formably to the regulations of the Society. He was told to call
in a few days, when he would be informed of the result. When
he called again, lie was told at the office that the Benchers had
postponed the consideration of his application till the last
day of the Term. In a few days after the end of Term he
called again, and was informed that the subject was further
postponed until the first council day in the then ensuing
and now last Hilary Term, for the purpose of inquiring
into the particulars of a similar application which had been
made. at Gray's Inn. On the second day of Hilary Term
he called again, and was then informed by the Steward that
his application had been rejected, but he, the Steward, was ig-
norant of the reasons for such rejection. On the 27th January,
however, he received an official letter from Mr. Lane, the
Steward, informing him that he, the Steward, had been
rected by the Treasurer and Masters of the Bench of the
Society to transmit him the Copy of Order, which was as
follows :—" Lincoln's Inn. At a Council held on the 24th
January, 1824, upon a further consideration of the applica-
tion of Mr. Thomas Jonathan Wooller, to be admitted a
member of this Society, it is ordered that a letter be written
by the Steward, to the said Mr. Wooller, informing bin: that his
application to the Society is rejected by the Treasurer, Mas-
ters, and Benchers." No reason being assigned for this rejec-
tion, and not being aware of any sufficient reason, and he (Mr.
Wooller) being anxious to afford every information to the
Benchers respecting his character and conduct, as well as to re-
move any imputation upon his character which such refusal was
calculated to cast upon it, on the 27th. January,. presented a
petition to the Society, praying to be heard upon the subject on
his own behalf. In consequence of being unable to procure Ay
answer to his petition, although he was informed by the Steward
that it had been duly presented, and deponent despairing of a
hearing on the part of the Benchers, he, on the 9th 'April, 'ad-
dressed a petition to the Lord Chief ustice of the King's Bench,
the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief
Baron of the Court of Exchequer, and the remainder of the 12
Judges, setting forth the circumstances of his case, and praying
their Lordships, as visitor* of the said Inn of Court; to afford
him such redress in the premises, as to their wisdom should
seem meet. On the 20th of April last, he received a letter
signed "J. Waters," to the following effect :—" The Lord
Chief-Justice of the Binch .has desired me to inform
you, that the Judges have no power to interfere on the pre-
sent occasion." It appearing from this note that the twelve
Judges had no power to interfere in his case, he, on the 17th
May, addressed another petition to the Benchers collectively,
and 'addressed a copy of it to each, individually, praying
an opportunity of being heard upon the matter of his former
application,: so, that the Society would assign their reasons for
the refusal to admit him a member. He was subsequently in- ,
formed, verbally, by the steward, that his second petition bad
been rejected by the Council, without any reason for such ob-
jection being assigned. Under these circumstances, deponent
having sustained serious injury, and likely to suffer still more
grievously in his future prospects in life, from the rejection of
his application in the manner stated, he felt that the only legal •
mode of redress left him was to apply to this Hon. Court for a
mandamus.

Mr. WOo ller having thus stated the facts of his case, observed,
that in consequence of the intimation of some doubts suggested on
a former day, whether this Court had jurisdiction to interfere in
the matter, lie had applied his mind to that point, and was now
prepared, lie trusted, to satisfy the Court that they had jurisdic.
tion. He admitted that he had not been able to find any prece-
dent precisely in point, but the authorities he had to produce
were extremely analogous to his case, and went to establish the
general proposition that the writ of mandamus was now the only
mode of redress applicable to his case. The writ of mandamus
being a prerogative writ, was calculated to afford a remedy for
injuries where there was no other prescribed mode of redress
pointed out by law. The case of the King a. the Benchers of
Gray's Inn, on the prosecution of William Hart, in Douglas'
Reports, 339, established that this Court had jurisdiction to in-
terfere where au Inn of Court refused-to admit a gentleman to the

. .
degree of a Barrister after he had conformed to the reguiattOng
of the Society. That case went to impugn a contrary doctrine
previously laid down in a case reported in March's Reports.—
Lord Mansfield, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said he
had consulted with all the other Judges upon the origin and
constitution of the Inns of Court, and found that they were
" voluntry Societies submitting to Government," but that all
their powers were delegated to them by the Judges, to whose
controul they were subjected as visitors. In the case cited, how-
ever, though the mandamus was refused, yet it was not on the
ground of want of jurisdiction, but because the Judges, as a do-
-14
mestie forum, w•lsthe prop tribunal foiredress, by way of ap-
peal from the decNon of t i cliches. If, however, as he h4d
been informed by th6note wri en:by the Lord Chief Justiceis-'
order, the Judges had no jurisdiction in his case, the situation
of a large portion of his Majesty's subjects would be extremely
grievous. The Benchers might arbitrarily refuse that which
appeared to be the right of every subject of the Crown, to
whom no personal disability could be objected, without any ap-
peal. Such a right was contrary to every analogy. It would
be even at variance with the proceedings of the Inquisition,
which, though an institution founded upon principles the most
abhorrent and odious to the first principles of natural justice,
yet gave its victims the opportunity of being heard, and went
through the forms at least of judicial inquiry. 'Here, however,
he had to complain not merely of a refusal to grant that which
appeared to be his right as a British subject, but that the
Benchers declined giving any reason whatever for the refusal.
Such conduct implied some objection, which, if well founded,
as applied to him personally, at least ought to be stated, in order
that he might be heard in vindication of his character which was
thus hnpliedly impeached. As, therefore, the 12 Judges bad no
power to interfere as visitors, then his only remedy was the pre-
rogative writ of mandamus, to which he submitted he was esti-
tled. He referred to the King v. the University of Cambridge.
Strange Pm, a. c. 1 Lord Raymond 1334, and Rex v. St. John's
College, Cambridge, 4 Mod. 233, as authorities analogous
in principle to his case. Before he had applied to the
Society for admission, he had conformed to the regula-
tions prescribed in a work called The Student': Guide,
published by Mr. Lane, the Steward, under the sanction of
the Benchers. No disability bad been pointed out as affectinc,
him personally, and therefore, unless some was suggested,'
he contended, that as a British subject, he had a right to be ad-
mitted. Porsibly the Benchers might have very good reasons
for rejecting his application, but until those reasons were as-
signed, he apprehended that he was entitled to admission.—
Under these circumstances he submitted his case to this lion.
Court, being quite convinced that they would afford him that
redress which law and justice demanded.
As soon as Mr..Wooler had concluded, the Lord Chief Jus-
tice told him, that he had addressed the Court with great pro-
priety, and in a manner which was highly creditable to him.
- - .

- -
After remaining in deliberation for a few minutes, the Judfes
delivered their opinions seriatim, that they had no jurisdiction
to grant a Mandamus. As the reasons given by all the Judges
were the same, it is unnecessary to give them in detail. The
Judges were all of opinion, that the Society being, in the lan-
gua,ee of Lord Mansfield, " a voluntary Society," this Court
had no jurisdiction to compel them to admit members against
their own inclination, even supposing their refusal should be
perverse. The very character of 4 voluntary," implied a
negation of the right of this tribunal to interfere in the
proceedings of such a Society. It was true that the twelve
Judges were the visitors of the Inns of Court, but that was only
in matters relating to actually admitted members. The words
" submission to government," as used by Lord Mansfield,
meant .submission to such rules and regulations as were or-
dained for the internal government of the Society; but did not
mean a submission to any ordinances of a foreign jurisdiction.
If, indeed, a person had an incohate right to be admitted a
member, that might be perfected by twelve Judges as visitors.
But Mr. Wooler had no inchoate abstract right to be ad-
mitted a member of a voluntary association, and therefore,
he had no loot' standi to insist upon being admitted. The
same rule applied to corporations. A stranger, wishing to be-
come a member of a corporation, had no inchoate right to be
admitted to trade, or lor any other parposes. The cases cited
had no tmalogy to the present, for in all of them the persons
applying to the Court were actually members of the Society,
and sought something to which, as members, they were en-
titled. But it was never heard of, that a mere stranger had a
right, abstractedly, to be admitted a member of an Inn of
Court, of an University, or of a Corporation. If, indeed, the
applicant had been admitted a member of the Society for a par-
ticular purpose, and had conformed to its government, then he
would have an inchoate right, which, in the absence of any sa-
tisfactory reason to the contrary, might be perfected; but here
no ground of that kind had been laid before the Court, and
therefore a Mandamus would not lie.—Rule refused.

THE MARQUIS OF HERTFORD AND HON. AUG, STANHOPE.
At half-past five o'clock Mr. Brougham rose in the matter of
the Hon. Augustus Stanhope.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The Gentleman is, I suppose,.
Mr. Brougham, in attendance to give sureties ?
Mr. BRUIT GHAM.--fie is in attendance, my Lord, but I
am instructed to apply for his discharge from the articles.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Upon what grounds? We
are not here to hear the case over again.
Mr. BROUGHAM—There is an ambiguity in, the articles
as well as omissions in the statement of the facts ; and these
we mean to supply from Mr. Stanhope's own affidavit.
The, Loan CHIEF JUSTICE--I never knew anything of
such a nature, in articles of the peace, to be supplied by the
affidavit of the adverse party.
31r. BRouGnAm—l mean to show the omissions on the face
of the articles themselves.
• The Lottn CHIEF JUSTICE—But what objection have you
to give sureties ?
Mr. BRouGHAar—I have mach to say, both as to their time
and amount ?
The LORD CHIEF JusTlCE.—Yes, but how object, before
both are named ?
Mr. BROUGHAM begged to be allowed to proceed. He said
that, in the first place, he was quite aware he could negative at
this time, what was sworn on the front of the articles; but he
had a good deal to say in mitigation of the course pursued by
Mr. Stanhope.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—But it cannot be done, we
tell you.
Mr. lluouGHAm—Suppose, my Lords, that Lord Hertford
had, since the occurrences had taken place which led to these
articles, given what amounted to a pardon, for previously alle-
ged transgressions ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—What reason have we to sup..
pose any such thing, in direct contradiction to the Noble Lord's
affidavit before us.
Alr. BROUGHAM—Then I won't suppose, but must directly
state that he has entered into negociation with Mr. Stanhope
since the affair.
Mr. Justice I3AYLEY—What, since this application !
Mr. BaotionAm—Not since the application to this Court,
but subsequent to the occurrence.
The COURT said they could not listen to such a statement.
Mr. BnouG HAM said he was only anxious to explain, that
all the propositions for money, interest, &c. alleged to have
been made by Mr. Stanhope, were so far from having been
made by him, actually made to him, in his conversations to Sir
Richard Birnie, as well as by letters to the latter. There were
five letters and six interviews to establish that fact, since the
24th of last August.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for Lord Hertford, unqua-'
lifiedly disclaimed that he had been a party to any such nego-
ciation.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE inquired, how it could be
shewn that Lord Hertford was privy to any such negociation ?
Mr. BROUGHAM—By Sir Richard Birnie's constant use of
Lord Hertford's name, in his interviews with Mr. Stanhope,
and goieg backwards and forwards, professing to take and re-
turn statements.
The COURT decided that Mr. Stanhope's affidavit could not
be received, to convey mere hearsay impressions.
The Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE—But why all this objection to
give sureties ? If Mr. Stanhope really means to keep the peace,
why hesitate to give them ? They can do him no harm. If he
does not intend to keep the peace, it is right he should give
them—even for his own good.
Mr. BuOAIGHAM—AIany irrelevant things were displayed in
the statement in the articles. These have gone forth to the
public, and created an unfavourable influence against Mr.
Stanhope.
The LORD CHIEF JUsTicE—What have we to do with
that ?—we cannot be influenced by these statements.
Mr. BROUGHAM said it was hard that Mr. Stanhope should
not have the power of repelling these unjust imputations.—
Then, as to the time of the application to the Court, Lord
Hertford had allowed two Sessions of the Peace to elapse since
last August.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—But be has come here at the
first Term which was open to him, and that is sutEcient.
Mr. BnouGHAst said, that he had not come until ten days
after the Term had commenced. The Learned Counsel then
called the attention of the Court to the facts on the faCe of the
articles ; and insisted that up to this hour Lord Hertford had
not sworn that he was in such bodily fear as entitled him, ac-
cording to all previous precedents, to the interference of the
Court in the form prayed for. He quoted Hawkins and other
law authorities to shew that the exhibitant of such articles was
not only bound to swear that he was in actual bodily fear, but
also set forth just and probable reasons for a rational and not a
far-fetched apprehension. Now, Lord Hertford had not only
avoided making such an affidavit, but he had since the 24th of
August, the day of 'the last occurrence between him and Mr.
Stanhope, employed Sir R. Birnie to negociate with him.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL again disclaimed on the part
of Lord Hertford, that he.had employed Sir Richard Birnie for

any such Purpose; he had merely
to
terial capacity.
Mr. Bnouounx reiterated his remark, and t
ttc
General his disclaimer, when th
The COURT interfered, and said that on the fare°flt
tides, no such term as " employed " had been 1000
as the Attorney General had said, an application to,Ellief.e;
to act in his magisterial capacity. The Lord tic nee
eAtist:Bbliitsohmethiait:tu:actdbnyi
ft :elide
again interdicted Mr. prougham from imputing any
tion upon the business to Lord Hertford, unless ar'd 111
to
whose name he used, as !kering been party to theNo fa
'Tian Mr. StaiNsope's affidavit of his conversatioes, with, en
applied to hit: his
letters from Sir Richard Birnie. He then proceedenethst
his former position, that Lord Hertford had not givelulich
rive deposition of his having bodily apprehension °cm,
bound to do according to the imperative course of
xace
apprehension must, he contended, he received 11red!'ele
positive averment, and not caught up by inference. e
atlid
tion. The Learned Counsel recited the words of tn elie
which he insisted were insufficient to maintain tnissa
The Court interfered and said,'that Lord Bertfari age
viva awe oath before them, deposed to his pvl°6llolol
sion, which, coupled with the character of Mr. Stant yr.
as set forth in the articles of the peace was suifiifiene;iferd
of
tire Bayley had the oath taken in Court by Lord P'
in which there was a positiveahffiaatvdlea' rev ni it
averment of Socifrararl:P'ii"crtl'e3e7'tebill
bodily harm." rid stir
contended, 3lr.lt°tDh that it
lc':
foundation of applications like this must unequir°cB„. real
all that has occurred convinced the exhibitant lie to'
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—So the Nobleci
actual fear or danger. swell
pforlelcoewdeethltsonwtehree same side, A dill
viva voce. tot clei,
Mr. BRODERICIE-4t is not on the face of • the
nothing.can, viva voce, be superadded. aernifli
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Yes, tbere can here, by. _ ja t
ing the usual form of viva voce oath, which cont.:llP
the expression of his apprehension. e „ n
Mr. BRODERICK insisted that the apprei,e,asio the]
expressed on the face of, the articles; according' WI 3, heal
tice of ancient times, the exhibit:lnt must swear tie-
bends this danger.
The COURT said that he had expressly Wan 10. tab"
Mr. BRODERICK—But these articles must JO
upon their own insufficiency, and not by any Coll ant'
ence. This case must stand or fall like all others.; !eau)/
dealt with as the commonest case, when'the glare el Brea
are got rid of- to (1?e,
' The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We have no. 10,101"
with the glare of great names ; we have only t° . -
law and the fact. 411 e
to sjl
11Ir. BRODERICE still persisted in his objection ost
ciency of these articles, and repeated his argument,. so Of
tii,oiterduililia.fsorolily be,
precedents rendered it imperative for the exhibitalli dyDR
terms to swear, in the articles, that he was in brieeell
nay more—that he has good and just grounds I°,,r rtfo ,
self in apprehension of danger. Here Lord Pe, not
swears that on the 22d of July, he was insulted
.00 es,
how) by a gentleman, who afterwards turned oUat.neilo
Stanhope..` He never pretends to say he was thre.`tioili!s
saulted—and in August again,_ all he states is, 12°I'vos
struck, not that he assaulted, but that a stick acco,v,
against his carriage window, and that Mr. Stanhope'iflotsY.
to Sir
soHR e.irtßt rrundsi slt
e bl
esataftttaeekrmetnehn,et merely,edveeanti
teh of his
nsh,a id he Old -IV'
tLoonr;d
assault
ton
should be heaped upon a gentleman in Court, lc'
denied the privilege of answering. This would, ee_x1110!
der it incumbent upon that Court to compel thee:adel;,
adhere The tcootuhenprrehseclrdibtethal
that the
aipnptrheehefohrmsioantiwonsfoliciellt4
pressed, and overruled the objections. r plf, tt I
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended, u• ye
pressed,
articles were on -the tgce of them amplY 'll ious
Hertford had, indeed, shown the most scrullegnn,
throughout the whole of these proceedings. Ile hostilitio'
articles, by spewing the cause of Mr. Stanhope's fared t,
trial, and dismissal the army. ere also red ejecel
averment in the articles, which he said fully' ano, prey
sustained this application. , Here was a gentleVetest
rt
by his own admission, too all lengths, short a gertfok,
during his father's lifetime, merely because 14rd, eitd,tsQ
his capaCity as parent and guardian of his cla el •isr'es.
particular course, in consequence of the conduetie Doter t
hope. It was quite clear, when the passion his (Ili
far committed him, that he could not answer win via
per (whatever his intentions might be) in his futue
intcrE
Surely this was exactly the case which required
lion of the Court. A ia' 'd 113 A!
ren'
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, an- ein Peie
Court had determined to bind-11 Ir.• Stanhope elYe iptD
keep the pea Ce. It was quite Clear; without geqreere'
t „,
ticulars of the transactions between these e-lif thee.; a(
state of irritation prevailed in the mind of one° unlikely
from from a knowledge of hiiinen nature, it was very "satfsiere
be confined within legal limits. The facts vier the Co% y
forth, and as guardiansorthe peace of Society,'
fer
bind Mr. Stanhope in sureties to keep the Pelicteiee IPoe
towards Igird Hertford, himself' in a bond o'd Fifty
Pounds, and two sureties of Two Hunt* all
each. . ,0 bf
These sureties were immediately entered fore 10(),
hope, and the Court rose at half-past six o'cl?c ;,,ed,'t ,0141
The COURT, in the tottrse'of the day nu,,s,en'riel t
was unlikely the business which stood let et t°
finished on that •day,-.'three of the Judges rine:h ease°
adjoining room on Tuesday, to dispose of su
parties consented to refer to them.

OF
REPRESENTAVICiSibttiIE-COUN.: •

.. • I
(From the Leede Mercury.) eispeCI
JI
On Friday a numerous and high •dingr
poi
meeting of theprincipal Freeholders of the East in islO
County of Yorpk took place at' the Tiger lan, ofd
RALPH CREYEE, Esq. in the chair, for the P1,93501:40:.
into consideration the propriety of inviting I'l tberlijrl
Esq., of Rise, to offer himself as a candidate for the
of ;or
tation of this county at the approaching dissal?t„ss 14,0,
ment. The Chairman having opened the basl%a conAb
propriate speech, William Beverley, Esq. tyse;,:luti°'
an eloquent speech by moving the following re off'
was seconded by the Rev. Charles Constable :—". hitjor.`Mco
Resolved—That as it is now certain that a Constable:-"
liament will take place at no very distant pert istios,P
of Richard Bethel, Esq., of Rise, justly aPP,ienee "hie'
character, his inflexible integrity, his indefell_.„o,, floc?,
and fortune, and his talents and habits of "%lOW i 0
eminently qualify him to uphold the credit an 4 °st
this county, as well in the scale of public opt%t, tliao tot
great Council of the Nation, do earnestly req?,`ea oeoir.,
the time arrives at which the County will be cat,ill sVot
turn two additional Members to Parliament, he " tee
self to be put in nomination as a candidate t° AjO.
County of York. e Char'lcS•
(Signed) RALPH CREYJCr' DeVer
11 • don
Charles Constable e
P, 0120 e,
John Bell, cbris•
John Lockwood, govt. ,e,
vavasour, e!'
O'
W. OshaldeSton, Tbos.
Philip Saltmarshe, , jl. , 00+
Charles Frost,' Ar • patitt
PS' Li- CO' el
John Courtney, bit nse2, jot',
(And about twenty other equally respecta, one 00-.0
This resolution having been carried with owl_ opl7lA
voice (the Rev. William Hilciyard), a dcputatio".l, of 000
wait on Mr. Bethel, who was in town, with B,lll'o/jog ,
dress, to which that gentleman returned the I° 111
before the Meeting broke ,
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING .4-55
DAY AT BEVERLEY• of te3p,
bG
Sir—l have received, with the depest feelings _ge yleo
time arrives at which this county
resolution adopted at a meeting held this daY Et} real!,
numerous body of freeholders, requesting 11upon1u/f to
two additional. embers to Parliament, to all°.
the co
will be calk upon-elf
pyr
ut in nomination as a candidate to represent ,A
„er-c0
pions,i
to complianceofi,er myselfwith youras a
York. oar
ee
ref
,ion of ito
So honourable and flattering a testimony ofl_,,
confidence demands from me a declaration of 'Pito' 3v_ 01r in e
county at the ensuing election, if, at the dissl" d twoo..sosill
sent Parliament, when the county will be calie
ra cog
two additional representatives, the same WO
thas rob
should be evinced toward me. been .he ~o
The circumstances under which I have And ""Ase
upon by those to whom I must be best known!, beep a4111(101
city which I have reason .to believe has alresal.dorsaifo,.,
to re": fool eto
my opinions and principles, may aPPear feel 4,,ifirlt„vallJ
distinct avowal of them unnecessary; Yet 1 the Theo'
upon me to declare, that 1 could only snlict two, , ,0
the freeholders as an independent country gents.
cilioc,toi
no promises, pledges, or previous engag,ell in thi°,,dait;
iasnhdeistiaatTlfoirntidiceferen_cesotatio:,,i,
If I should be so fortunate as to be Place` the -trePtorl
in the high and respectable situation of II trcAe:oo6tiool
representatives of this great county, itshl"t assuseieabcll
deavour to express my gratitude by a Patlea-n'd Ito Jade thl
impartial attention.to all its local interests, gel ce
support of those public measures which TO apd Pe" dif
calculated to promote the welfare, seell"l'
British empire and its extensive dependenciel'p psi
Beverley, Nov. P. AIWA