Star.
London, England, 1828-04-11 00:00:00

. .
~. . . •
tenant. Such rights Were always Bible to invasiotf.
Take the Case of the manor of Wakefield, for in-
stance. Ttie place had become wealthy and populous,
and several townships were now included
_within the
range of the sake. In the same proportion as the wealth
and population h .d increased, had the facility of eroding
the obligation to grind at the soke-mills increased-also:
for it was quite imp, ssible for the proprietor of the mills
to keep such a watch as would prevent every violation
of the rights of the soke. The questions raised on,
the present issue were two, both embracing the general'
question of the right, but one raising a question ' Whe
ther the defendadts lived within the district of the soke?
Both these questions had been tried at the spring assizes
far Ins. and a verdict foond for the plaintiffs; but in
the course of that inquiry a question. not contemplated
by either patty, had arisen on the part of the Learned
Judge—ris. whether one of the four mills within the
soke, viz. the mill called Sandal Mill, had been origi-
nally a soke mill, or whether it had been erected by the
Lord of the Manor, in modern times, as an auxiliary
mill to the others? The consequence had been that a
new trial pad been directed, and two issues sent down
for their decision. As he had already adverted to it,
he would tae the second issue first. That issue was to
determine whether the mill at 'Sandal Magna was an
ancient mill? In his opinion it was of little importance
whether the mill was of ancient date, or merely an au xi.
Nary; because, if an auxiliary, it was still within the
soke, and had merely been erected by the Lord foi the
convenience of those persons who might live at a great
distance from the other mills. The custom of the soke
to grind at the Lord's mill applied to any milt that
the Lord might erect, and still took its form from
ancient immemorial prescription. The other issue was
to determine-whether, although it was adMitted that
thioinhabitants of the soke were bound to grind all corn
used and consumed within their houses at :the Lord's
mill. they might not purchase for doinestic use flour
that had not been ground at the Lord's mill ? That was
an important question, for the very existence of the mills
depended upon it. The plaintiffs contended, that thotigh
the persons resident within the soke might,it they Pleased,
prefer buying flour to buying cord, still they were bound
to buy to oar that had been ground at the Lord's mill.
Indeed, if it were not so, the right of the plaintiff
was toeless; for there were mills all round the
stake, and it would be easy for the tenants_ to hairs
their corn ground there, and thus defeat the right
altogether. He had no doubt that his Learned Friend
on the whir side would show them that 'on many
occasions the inhabitants had ground their ecru out
of the soke; but such proof would amount to „nothing
unless he showed that the miller knew of it. ;The eel;
.1 deuce which he (Sir J. Scarlett) should often would
show, that. whenever an infraction of the right had
been discovered, proceedings bad invariably been taken
against the•offenders, and they had elwayi submitted
vird paid a' fine. He would show afso that a ie*
years ago, when in consequence of a failure of. the
harvest it became necessary to mix Ainetican flour
with the flour ground at the mills within the soke. a
compromise had been entered into by the inhabitants.
and a Wm 'of money bad been paid on their part, as an
acknowledgment that the permission to use foreign
flour was an indulgence on'the part of the proprietor of
the mill. Another description of evidence would be the
manner in which evasions of the right had been carried
on. He should show. that whenever corn had been
ground out of the soke, it had been furtively, and with-
out the knowledge of the proprietors of the mills. This
he trusted would satisfy the Jury that the right for
which he contended was an immemorial right.
A great deal of documentary evidence was then read.
it consisted of the records of suits instituted in the
Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, against persons who
had violated the right of soke, and decrees in favour
of the custom. •
A large body of witnesses was also called, who de.
posed to the invariable custom within their memory,
of .the inhabitants of the manor of Wakefield using
the mills within the soke. They also sr ke to instances
of the violation of that custom, but described those
instances to have been effected privately, and by stealth.
The examination of the witnesses laded nearly the
whole of the day. . _ . -
Mr. Baocon.sic addf.essed the Jury for the defen-
dants. He said that be 'felt glad to see his Learned
Friend On James Scarlett) once more amongst them,
for never did a case require more the aid and'suppoit
. of his great talents and learning is an advocate and a
`lawyer than the piesent..-it case in which such a great
assumption of,right was set up and claimed by the pro-
prietors of these mills. The right that'd ay claimed by
.the plaintiffs was one which was to have the effect of
restraining and tying up the hands of every man within
the soke, whether he was wealthy or poor. from par-
Chasing the very first accessory of life any where except
at the shop, the mills. or of Sir W. Pilkington, and
where he sold his flour at any price he chose to
value it at. and that without any restriction ohat-
ever. If such a custom was to be allowed, no in•
habitant of the soke could purchase one ounce of
dour for his consumption, unless it was ground at the
, soke-mills ; nay,' Ire could not purchase even a loaf of
bread, a cake, or a glass. of beer. unless the fl •ur and
malt were ground at these mills. Surely this WAS what
his Learned Friend reluctantly called a monopoly—a
common monopoly, be would say, of the very worst
description, and which the plaintiffs now sought to
. perpetuate. His Learned Friend said, that in times of
scarcity, the inhabitants of the soke would leap /the
benefit of the scle-inilis—that they would be always
sure of a supply of corn, as the custom would then bend
. to the necessity, said toreign flow would be permitted to
be intrittliced into the soke, and that they would be sup-
plied on reasonable terms. But he (Mr. B.) would con-
tend that a period of scarcity was the moment when the
agile! ii. this soke-monopoly would raise the price of
tour tb:the very 'highest, and that was 'the moment
'when the'poriter inhabitants of the state would'be at the
rug of the monopolists_. By the custom as claimed,
aft tntabitint c f the soke could oat receive a, present of
a ba;rel of flour from a blend sitiolivetreit Of the soke,
nor could he make a present io 4lty'lblialiltliet of the
sake of flour, unless it had been stand at 'dick said
mills. The very sources of charity, filen 'here put a'
stop to by this 'custom. A perspn
,livtiig :ores of the'
. ._ 'eke could cot give a barrel of floin or a loaf Of bread,!,
Ri stbatrel of beer, to 4 poor inhatrititit of the jolts!,
opless'ihe flout and the malt had beets.voioa idthesi
mills. Before that charity retil4'lis'ettlied- inter-effettl,:
the indisidu-1 she uld first 'go thlserO-Dikatiar,t *sir
. Which charity loved not, and ban thir'ebin isoithil
at the soke mills, before he could 'On It to iJ '4) ' '
.
tact of his relief. He submitted to their that tiny • •
trfote was there heard of such a 'coatis, 'al irks'. • .
. sought to be put upon the inhabitants'a Ai Me,"
miki Ile could easily. conceive that a custon7W, 1;h1CO:
hinhabieants of all te, the soke.'who were coib-giottert;
. .reef found towagtail the corn intended for igen-died
copuissiptire AO ' * . ogre mills to be Aroci"..s,A.*
st--,- rye;a • 0' - --
id cast.; buftha
sf
. . !ants el the sae,

be they cotn•geosters or not, gave up the right of '
buying their own ':bread and beer at the place they'
thole, and where they were sure to get them best
and cheapest, and bound themselves to buy it at no
othei place than at that whets they were sure to
get the worst and dearest, was a custom so monstrous.
that no reasonable man in his senses could for a
moment believe that any set of men could ever have
agreed to surrender a right so dear to every man, as
the liberty of buying his bread and beer where he
thought he should procure them best and cheapest.'
They would, he was confident, never give their sanction
to so ridiculous a custom. It was not in human nature
that a man would give up his chief right, and fight and
stipulate for the lesser. He had heard of a birthright
being sold for a mess of porridge, but the plaintiffs would
have them here believe that the 'defendants had given up
their birthright, and did not even snptrlate for a single
spoonful of porridge. Could any one conceive what could
be the motive of men who agreed to such a custom ? No
one could ; and they would be told by the Cony t that no
custom could be maintained which had not some sufficient
motive or object for its institution. He contended, that
under all the circumstances of the case, it would be a
gross improbability and absurdity to suppose that any
set of men could have ever agreed to subject them-
selves to such a custom—one which imposed so much
hardship upon them, and entailed so much injury upon
the poorer part of their community. The Learned
Counsel, in conclusion. addressed himself to the docu-
mentary evidence, and contended that the plaintiffs bad
altoget er faded in showing this to be an immemor jai
right, but much less to be a right at all.
The Learned Counsel having concluded his speech at
a quarter to ten o'clock. the Court then adjourned until
this morning at eight o'clock.
Mr; Justice BAYLEY took his seat on the bench at that
hour, and • summed up .the case most minutely. At
twelve the Jury retired, and after an absence of eight
hours and a half, they returned into Court, finding a
verdict for the defendants in this form: they found that
there was a custom within the Joke to prevent the
inhabitants of the sae from selting flour within the
soke which had not been ground at the soke mills ; and
they also found that there was no custom within the
soke. to prevent the onoabitants from purchasing flour
which had sot been ground at tl e soke mills, for their
consumption within the soke. •
This latter finding of the Jury establishes the right
the defendants contended for—namely, the liberty of
buying the flour they consumed within the Joke where
ever they' pleased.

ex i~ and Tjc;aatj~itted thiLit here dit
a ohlgri, iliattcd by which tin inhabit
ti
1111111111111.1.11