Star.
London, England, 1802-09-04 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR,

Sir—Having had occafirai to go to about
two years ago, and having (ince very frequently
remarked, that molt of my Acquaintance were al-
ma as ignorant of that country as they were of
Japan, where we are told, by grave hiftorians, that
the Dutch are the only Chriftians permitted to
trade, becaufe they trample on the Crofs—l (hall
thank you to give a place in your Paper for
the few following remarks on a country fo little
known here, and fo much mifreprefented : I con.
fefs, that I went there With strong prejudices
againit the lower clafs of Irith, from having heard,
it fo often aliened, that Nature had done more,
and Man had done lefs for that country than for
any other country in this part of Europe. I there-
fore expected to fee a great part of it uncultivated,
and little produftive :—lnftead of this, after hav-
ing travelled feveral hundred miles through va-
nous parts of it, I am ttrongly inclined to think,
that (exclufive of their, turf bogs, which are as ne-
ceffary to them as our coal mines are to us) I have
Peen more uncultivated ground, in the fame (pace,
in many parts of England. I do not mean to fay,
that their ground was as well cultivated as ours.
That, indeed, would be little fhort of a miracle,
confidering how very inadequate their means of
cultivating it are, from an almoft want of capital.
That they are not fparing of their own labour,
there cannot be a ftronger proof than that their
common method of railing potatoes requires, if I
am rightly informed, at -leap five times the ma.
nual labour that our method of railing them does.
It is true, that the price of country labour is not,
in thofe parts I have Peen, much more than one
half of the price here ; but I found the wages of
artificers and tradefmen to be full as high there,
and in Tome inftances higher, than they are with
us. The Englifh language, I believe, is pretty
generally underftood, if not fpoken there ; for I
met in my ramble with not more than two or three
people to whom I could not make myfelf under-
Rood. Very different was the cafe in Wales, where
not one in twenty of thofe to whom I addreffed
myfelf, fpoke one word of Englifh. The Ira
are indebted to an Englifhman tor !hewing, as I
was informed there, that their language has a
much greater affinity to the antient Celtic than
any of our modern languages. The high roads of
that country are very good, and the by-roads
that I law, far better than ours. I law no wag.
gons, but their cars anfwer the purpofe of con-
veying goods, and have one great advantage over
our waggons, that they do not break up the roads
nearly fo much. Their Inns were far better than
I expelled, and probably as good as ours were a
century ago. At one of the firft inns I (topped at
there, I found they were a good deal furpriled on
my calling for half a pint of port wine ; I fuppofe
becaufe the travellers who call for wine generally
take, at leak every man his bottle. They have
very few coal mines, and if I was to form an opi-
nion from the Irith coals 1 law, they are of a ve-
ry indifferent quality, and little adapted for mull ma-
nufactures ; they anfwer, however, very well for
burning lime, of which they make great ufe as ma.
nure, wherever it is to be had. I was Aimed by feve•
ral, that Ireland abounded with coals, if they
could difcover the places where they lay. Mines
of copper and lead were worked in Ireland near
a century ago, and I can fee no reafon for their
having been difcontinued, except that they found
they did not anfwer. I faw nothing amongit the
lower clafs that could juftify, at prefent, the epi-
thet given them by Mr. Hume and other hi Elm tans.
That there is great room far reformation among ft
them, there is no doubt, but to one who faw as I
did, their poor, but hofpitable, little farmers flar-
ing their food with the common beggars, who
mutt have ftarired, but for the relief afforded them
by thoufands whcrwere very far from being them-
felves in a comfortable fituation, they mutt ap-
pear in a more favourable light than they are re-
prefented by many. Left it (hould be thought
that the means made ufe of here to relieve our
poor were neglected in Ireland, it is but juilice to
fay, that I faw the Soup. Boiler fully employed in
every little town I paled through ; unfortunately
thofe.towns are fcattered very thinly over Ireland,
where Poor Rates are unknown. In the belt
peopled and molt indultrious part of that colon-
, try, the North, even villages are rare ; for their
weavers have all fmall farms, and in this they
;differ from the manufiidurers of every grim. 5040-

rORK ASSIZES; AUGUST iBoz.

1:11.7KE Or NORFOLK V. HILI.I4ESQ:.

This was an ejearnent brought by the Duke of
Norfolk, as trultee to the elates of the late Lord
Petre, for about 200 acres of ground inclofed by
the defendant as common belonging to his manor
of Birkin, which the plaintiff contended did in
fad belong to Lord Petre's manor of Hilham.
Mr. PARK, the leading Counfel for the plaintiff,
flated,that although there appeared to be two ver-
diets in favour of the defendant, yet, as the late
Lord Petre had been no party in thofe fuits, the
prefent plaintiff did not conceive that his rights
could be barred by any verdict given in them ; he
therefore brought the prefent ejectment to try di•
r_ 'fly the right of property and of foil in the land
in queltion, to try whether it belonged to Birkin
manor or to Hilham manor ? Although he had a
great mafs of evidence to bring forward to prove
that this part of the common which had been in-
clnfcd by the &Su:dant had always been reputed
to form part of Lord Petre's manor of Hilham,
yet as he was aware that the defendant would alfo
produce evidence on the other fide, he Ihould par-
malady dire& the attention of the Jury to what
his Lordfhip had the other day held decifive in a
fanilar carafe, namely, to the :Os of ownerfhip ex-
erciCed by the alham people over the common in
qnettion. The firlt aa of ownerfhip he fhould !late
. was this, that the people of Hilham had very he;
queotly and for a great number of years been ac-
cuftomed to drive off the common, and impound
all the cattle they found upon it, except thofe be-
longing to their township ; to thofe owners who
( without claiming a rightof foil or of commonage)
requelled their cattle to be reftored, they gave
them back ; but every perfon who claimed the re-
delivery of his cattle, as a matter of right, was
obliged to pay poundage : the other ads of own.
erfhip exercifed by the people of Hilham over the
whole common for a great number of years, far
beyond the memory of the (+idea man living, were
repairing the roads, digging and carrying away
the foil, cutting whenns (nr furze), for their own
life, and not permitting the people of Birkin, or
of any neighbouring township, to do the like. He
Mould prove a great number of initances of thole
general acts of ownerthip which were as along as
*mild be (hewn over a common, where there were
no mines or quarries to afford opportunities (,f
more fubllantial and beneficial ads of ownerfhip.
He fhould prove alfo fome particular affumptions
of ownerfhip that were rather biking. About 36
years ago the people of Birkin put up a guide poll
-on the ground now in difpute, and the fate of this
guide poll (hewed very wrongly the opinion which
then prevailed of the property of the foil of the
land in queftion. A cobler of Birkin, who fome-
times ilepped beyond his 447, andfii.-bed up a few
lines of miferable poetry, immediately preditcd
the fate of this unfortunate guide poll, and on the
day of its erection wrote upon it the following

" If the landlord doe) not you bail,
" Yon% lie and rat in Hilbam

Although he could fay nothing of the poetical ta-
rents of the cobkr, yet, if he was content with the
fame of a prophet, he MIR declare no oracle ha.i
ever uttered a greater truth. The people of Hil.
barn did not Puffer it to remain there three days,
flit cut it down and carried it in triumph to the
Mound at Hilham ; there this unfortunate guide
poll lay for many a year an ()Ned of companion.
a monument of fallen pretenfions, till at length
thme of the Hilham per;ple deemed it worthy of
Arving the porpole of
~Sre wood, and this alone pre-
Vented the Cobler's Prophecy from being fulfilled to
the very letter. Another remarkable aet of owner-
Ship was, that at a later period a man was found
dead on the Common near where this guide poll
bad been, and was buried at the expence of the
parill of Hilham, who certainly‘conceived them-
iblves bound to pay that expence. The ftrongeft
evidence, however, which he had to produce, had
been dircovered by accident fince the laft trials
an illiterate ploughman, in turning upthe ground,
,felt his plough alike againfl a large (lone, which,
upon being dug up, was found to have the infcrip-
tion H. M. 1641, and, upon examination at a
very fbort difiance, was found a fimilar (lone,
having upon it G. M. 164.1. Thefe (tones could
be nothing elle but the boundary (tones between
the Manors of Hilham and Gaytford, which,
tonfequently excluded all pretenfions of the people
Of Birkin to claim this ground, as part. of Birkin
Manor.

The WI evidence which was produced in flip-
port of the plaintiff's title was,the depotitions taken
in the year r 768 of a number of old witneffes, in
confequence of a bill filed in Chancery by the La-
dy of the Manor of Hilham, for the exprefs pur-
pole of perpetuating their tellimony ; they had
known for a confiderable time, fome for above 6o
years, the common known by the name of Hilham
Common, or Mafpin Moor (which included the
/and now in qiie(lion). It was always reputed to
belong to Hallam Manor. The people of Hilham
had been in the cullers of exercifing every aCt of
ownerfhip on this common ever fince their recol-
leCtion, and in particular they had always held an
annual feaß upon it, on fome day in the month of
July, upon which kali day they always drove the
entire common, and impounded at Hallam pound
all the cattle which they found upon it, that did
not belong to their townthip. Whenever the
owners of cattle of the neighbouiing townfhips
pretended to any right of con.imonage, their cattle
were not releafed without paying poundage.
. A coafiderable number ofold witneffes proved
the different efts of ownerfhip Rated by the learn-
ed Counfel in his opening fpesch.
On their crofs examination, they denied that
they had ever heard, till within there few years,
the land in difpute called Birkin Piece, or that it
was claimed as part of the Manor of Birkin. They
admitted, however, that there were bridges to it
from the enclofures of the townfhip of Birkin, but
explained this .-ireetnflince by raying thefe bridges
were permitted in order to give the people of Bir-
&ilia carriage. isaigarrafaihe Idear.to shawl 021111 C

they had heard of a clofe called Dirkin Little
Moor. The boundary (tones were alfo produced
in Court, which a mafon declared, from his judg-
ment, both as to the appearance of the atones
themfelves, and from the charaCters of the letters
and figures upon them, mull have been of confide-
rable antiquity.
Serjeant Coc Kee, on the part of the defendant,
made a very animated addrefs to the Jury ; he
faid, that agairat the weight of thole two ponde-
rous (tones which had been produced in evidence,
and relied upon by the plaintiff as decifive ; he
had, to oppofe, what he trulted would have equal
weight in their minds, two verdids already given
in favour of his client by Special Juries of that
county, after a long and weary trial and invefli-
gation, which extended to eighteen hours upon
each occafion ; he afked, what would be the value
of landed property, or at what time could it be
faid to be secure, if after folemn verdias, and con-
fiderable firms of money expended on the faith of
thole verdias, it was dill competent to the plain-
tiff to purfue his claim, and involve thole &dates
in endlefs litigation ? He fhould then (late to the
Jury the grounds upon which his client had already
obtained two verdias, and on which he confidently
expe&ed a third.
The Common, called Mafpin Moor (which the
plaintiff's witneffes to belong altogether to
Hilham Manor, and to ire known alfo by the name
of Hallam Common), is the.remaining part of a
much more extenfive Moor, which was a Common
to the feveral Manors of Hilham, Birkin, Gayt-
ford, and Hambledon: the witneffes all allow, that
the people of Gaytford and Hambledon, enclofed
pieces of the Common which next adjoined them,
and were known by the names of Gaytf)rd Piece
and Hambledon Piece. After they had made thofe
enclofures, neither Gaytford nor Hambledon pre-
tended to any right over the remainder ; but his
client infided that the remainder of Mafpin Moor
did not belong excluneely to Hilham Manor, as
pretended by the plaintiff, but that it belonged to
the two Manors of Hilham and kin, and that
the part adjoining Bit kin (which had been en-
cloled by the defendant, and was the matter now
in dirpiiie) had always been km yen by the name
of Birkin Piece, as the tett of it was by that of Hil-
ham Piece. In fur port of this claim, he (hould
not only bring a tirc.at number (if witnelies, but
the (irongeli arguments that pri.bahrtity or analo-
gy could furnish. It had been confelfed, that
Birkin had ()I the c.!in,: interett in the Moor
as the other adj:,ining itlatur .-; but the people of
Gaytford have melt led a pat: of it, known by the
name of Gaytf lid Piece ; the people of Hamble-
don had alit) encloted a piece, which had been
known by the name ot llambleden Piece : what
then had become of Bit kin PL ce, unlefs it was the
land in quettion? . The plaintiff's witneffes, al-
though they i.nitted that they never heard till
lately the land in qualm) called Birkin Piece, con-
fefrd that they knew the dole called Birkin Little
Moor; did not that name evidently refer to a
larger moor ? The Learned Serjeant then dated,
with much force, the differents ails of ownerfhip
he thouid be able to prove, dwelt at length on that
Itrovg at of mire, fhip, admitted by the plaintiff,
that Midges had been built and fuffered to conti-
nue for a more really cf‘lign.•AnicatiOn between the
enclufures of Birkin and th- C rermon, which they ,
claimed by the name otiliirkie Piece, and had now
incloted : but what he ctquide•ed the ftrongell
and molt decifive pool* of the title of the defen-
dant, was that a high bank had been railed by the
people of Bit kin above one hundred years on this
moor, which (lid otitis, and which the people 4:11
Hilham never pretended to &Goy: this bank, he
thould intlit upon as the boundary, as dividing
Mafpin Moor into two portions; one of which
(the piece inclofed by the defendant) was always
known by the name of Birkin Fiecf : hank,
acknowledged to have been railA by the Birkin
, people, he confidered as a flat:din m,nunseqt, re-
cording through ages the title of the del.-nd
The Learned Seijeant having dated Ile! cafe of
his client, fubmitted to the opinion of hie le.ed-
thip, that the following records and verdi (ts,t
which he fhould produce, were concluf:Ye evidence,
and flopped the plaintiff:
The firft record was dated 1319, and written it.
the °ldea charaaers of Norman French ; by this
it appeared, that there had been then an aflize be-
tween the Lords of the Manor of Birkin and Hil.
ham, about that Common : this ditpute, however,
having been terminated by a non-fuit, and a 11th.
fequent agreefnent, and not by verdict, and a
judgment upon that verdid, his Lordthip was of
opinion, that that record could not be given in
evidence. Another record, of nearly the fame
date, in the reign of Edward 11. was alio produced ;
but it appeared upon infpeaion that this was not I
an affize between the Lords of the Manor of Bir-
kin and of Hilham, but an attempt on the part of
the Abbot of Itielby, then Lord of Hilham, itt
conjunction with the Lords of Birkin and of Ham-
bledon, to exclude the Manor of Gaytford front
its (bare in this moor or common. His Lordthip
was of opinion, that this record was inadmiflible
as evidence, as the parties and the ()Ned of that
fuit were totally different from the pretent.
Serjeant Coca EL then offered, as conchrfive evi-
dence, the two verdias lately obtained at York
affizes by tht defendant; but his Lordlhief was of
opinion, that the firliverdid being in replevin,
merely on the queflion of right of commonage,
could not be given in evidence in this caufe, which
had a very different objea, namely, the property
of the foil ; but that the fecond verdict, being on
the fame ilfue, that they were now trying, might
be given in evidence, if it appeared that the late
Lord Petre was connected with that caufe, and de-
fended it as his own: to this point the Yorklhire
agent of the late Lord Petre was examined, who
pofitively denied that he ever attended thole trials,
on the part of Lord Petre; that he had ever given
any iralruCtions to any perfon on the part of Lord
Petre; or that Lord Petre ever (to the belt of his
belief), contributed to the expence or fupport of
either of thofe trials 3 he admitted that he had
been at York .during thole trials, but laid lie at-

. ,
to evidence, as Lord Petre's rightc:ennlil nn't fie
learned by tranfaCtions of other perfons, to which
he was not a party directly or indirectly.
The Learned Setjeant then brought forward a
great body of evidence, both from the depotitions
in Chancery in the year 1768, and from living
witneffes, to prove that this piece of ground now
in difpute had always been known by the name of
Birkin Piece, and reputed to belong to the manor
of Birkin ; they alfo confirmed his ftatement re-
fpdling the bridges from the Birkin inclolures to
this part of the common, as alio refpeaing the
mound or bank which they always confidcred as
the boundary between Birkin and Hilham. On
their Crofs-examination, however, they admitted,
that the Hilham people very frequently and regu-
larly, on the day of -their feaft, drove thz whole
common, and impounded all the cattle they found
upon it, not belonging to their townfhip, but that
the Birkin people never did fo ; they alfo admitted
other ads of ownerlhip, as ftated in the plaintiff's
cafe.
Mr. PAR K made a very able and animated reply.
Lord ELLENBOROUG/1 confidered that thole'
ads of ownerlhip, conftantly exercifed by the
Hilham people, without any fimilar acts of owner-
lhip attempted on the part of Birkin, turned the
fcale fo completely in favour of the plaintiff, that
there appeased to him to he hardly any balance of
evidence between the parties. The circumaance
of bridges being fuffered to exift from Birkin in-
clofures to the common had been explained. The
Birkin people bought lime at Hilham, and wanted
a carriage road to draw it home. As for that
bank or mound, which the defendant's counfel fo
much relied on, there was not a fhadow of proof
for what purpofc it had been erected, and the de-
•fendant had a right to jiippofe it to be for that fur-
pole which belt ferved his intereft.—But the
hones which had been found with antient infcrip-
tions, having on them H. M. G. M. 1641, could
not be conceived to be placed there for any other
object, than as boundary (tones. The defendant's
witneffes had certainly proved a cuftom of com-
monage on this ground ; but that was very dif-
feient from proving a right to the foil ; it {bine-
times happened, that one man has a right of foil,
another that of commonage ; it oftener happens,
that from vicinity and good neighbourhood, a
cultom of commonage is permitted, even when
there is no right of commonage ; but right of
common is one thing, and the right of the foil it-
f,:lf a very different thing. As for thofe ads of
ownerlhip which mark the claimed and acknow-
ledged right of the foil, they were fo entirely on the
part of the plaintiff's Manor of Hilham, that the
evidence as refpeding the if appeared to be all
of one fide. However, if the jury had any doubts
upon the fubjea he fbould read to them that great
and voluminous mars of evidence that they had
-heard in this caufe.

The Jury, after a very fhort converfation, told
his Lordaiip that they were f.ttisfied, and gave
their Verdict -for the llaintifF.

SPILSBURY'S ANTISCORBUTIC DROPS.—This
well known excellent Medicine, having been ap-
proved by the public near 3o years, hardly needs
any further recommendation : but as a Gentle
man of refpeaability, refiding in the neighbour-
hood of Spilfby, in the county of Linc.,ln, and
whofe cafe was novel, had the goodnefs to call on
the Proprietnrs, at the Difpenfat y, No. tc, Soho-
-Iquare, to -acquaint them of the cure he had .re-
cently experienced from the ufe of their Medicine.
Meifrs. SPILSBURY and Co. beg leave to acquaint
the public, that by applying to Mr. .HoFF, of
Spilfby,they will receive every fatistadory accouut
relatve to the cafe and cure alluded to, which for
many realhns would be unpleafant to the Gentle-
man to have publicly advertifed.—Aug. 9, 1802.-