Newspaper History of Petersfield


Morning Post
  The Earl of Sefton, from Arlington-street, on a visit to Sir Harry Featherstonehaugh, at Up-park, near Petersfield, in Sussex;

Bristol Mercury

Extraordinary Attack.—The following reminds us of the extraordinary attack made by the lioness on the leaders in the Salisbury mail-coach, a few years ago:—
  The Portsmouth mail-coach, on its way to London, on Thursday night, when it came by the side of the Devil’s Punch-Bowl, between Petersfield and Mousehill, had its leaders suddenly seized by three bull-dogs belonging to two men with a fish-cart. The leaders, by their violent struggles, broke their harness, and disengaged themselves from the coach; one of them fell over the bank, and the ferocious dogs with him. One of the men succeeded in getting the horse up. The horses are both very much injured; one of them so much that it is feared he cannot recover; and the harness is broken all to pieces. The guard was obliged to drive the coach, with a pair only, to Mousehill, and the coachman to walk with the injured leaders. Whoever has travelled this road, and knows the place called the Devil’s Punch-Bowl, which is by all travellers thought a great natural curiosity, must consider the passengers and the coach to have had a most providential escape. It was a fortunate circumstance, that the horses had, by the violence of their struggles, cleared themselves of their harness; as the coach must otherwise have inevitably been precipitated by an almost perpendicular descent into an immense depth. It is surprising that this place, so near the road-side, which has for years been at once the admiration and terror of travellers, has never been fenced by a wall, and it is seriously to be wished that those whose duty it is will not suffer it to remain longer than is absolutely necessary in this dangerous state.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  SEDITIOUS MEETINGS ACT.—The town of Petersfield was thrown into great confusion on Sunday last, by the appearance of a number of persons marching in military array; armed with muskets and sticks; and who, after parading the town, and exciting universal dismay, attacked a house occupied by a cooper, of which they took forcible possession. We understand, the authors of this outrage, which is said to have been committed under the direction of a celebrated Radical Reformer, in Hampshire, are known; and that an information, under the Seditious Meetings Act, has been laid against them. This will be the first instance of prosecution under this Act.

Hampshire Telegraph
To the Printers of the Hampshire Telegraph


  AS a mis-statement reflecting on my conduct in a transaction connected with the Borough of Petersfield, appeared in two of the London Newspapers on the 16th, and as it may be sent to you for insertion, it is right you should be informed, that if the Patron’s Agent for that Borough has acted illegally or improperly, as therein represented, it was without my assent or knowledge.
  I was distinctly advised by him that all I did was correct and necessary, to recover what had been considered my property forty years.—As the case will come before a Jury, it would be improper now to say more on the subject. As I am designated not by name, but as Member for Wells, I take leave to say, that I have Represented that Independent City twenty-three years, returned by nearly the unanimous voice of a considerable body of voters belonging to all classes of life, over not one of which have I any control, nor have they ever biased my vote in Parliament.
  I am an advocate for Rational Reform, and should rejoice to have such Boroughs as Petersfield thrown open.
  I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant,

Morning Post
  As the following letter refers to an article which appeared in this Paper on the 16th instant, under the above title, containing and account of a most illegal and outrageous forcible entry which had been made under circumstances of great tyranny and aggravation, by order of the Agent of the Patron of this Borough, on a freehold tenement, occupied by Mr. JONES, a cooper, in that town, we most readily insert it, from our respect for the worthy Representative of the City of Wells; but as we are satisfied it was correct, and did not reflect on the conduct of the Gentleman, we are at a loss to know in what consisted the mis-statement he refers to. It was most unequivocally stated that it was impossible for Mr. TAYLOR to have directed the Lawyer alluded to have done any thing so illegal as to take by force possession of the tenement in question, without resorting to the ordinary and usual process by ejectment; or to have directed the trespassers to fire on the unoffending tenant and his friends, who were desirous of reinstating him in his house. We however regret to say, that notwithstanding the illegality of the conduct pursued in this affair, we are informed that the trespassers still retain the possession of this tenement, and that the late unfortunate occupier, Mr. JONES, has not yet been able to obtain another house to reside in. We hope there is not any truth in this report, but that Mr. TAYLOR has reinstated this industrious individual in his tenement, and directed his Solicitors to try his right, by ejectment, in a due course of law, to the possession of it. We shall always deprecate such “a vigour beyond the law;” especially in case like this, where the individuals aggrieved are not in a condition to contend on equal terms with their more opulent and powerful opponents.

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by JOHN CAWLEY, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, in the County of Southampton, on Thursday the 30th day of March, 1820, between the hours of three and five o’clock in the afternoon,—4695 OAK TREES, 211 ASH TREES, and four BEECH TREES, standing in the Parish of Harting, in the County of Sussex; in 13 lots.
  The Timber may be viewed on application to Thos. Pink, the Woodman, at Harting; and particulars may be had at the Place of Sale; Swan, Chichester; Black Dog, Emsworth; Ship and Bell, Horndean; George, Portsmouth; Red Lion, Fareham; Swan, Alresford and Alton; Half-moon, Godalming; Half-moon, Petworth; of Richard Pink, of Hambledon; and of Mess. Hector and Mitchell, Solicitors, Petersfield.
Hampshire Telegraph

  The Election for Petersfield will take place on Thursday next.—Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. and Lord Hotham are the Candidates, with N. Atcheson, Esq. and Colonel Camac.

Hampshire Telegraph

 Lieutenant-Colonel Camac, of the Life Guards, and N. Atcheson, Esq. are candidates for the Borough of Petersfield, in opposition to the present Members. In this page will be found a spirited address from those gentlemen to the Electors.

To the Independent Electors of the Borough of Petersfield.
  WE have had the honour of soliciting individually the favour of your Suffrages at the ensuing election of Members of Parliament for your ancient borough, and the kind and friendly assurances of Support which we have received, have been such that we should feel ourselves wanting in gratitude were we not to address you jointly, and to declare unequivocally, that it is our intention to proceed to a Poll, and afford every voter the opportunity of exercising freely and independently his elective franchise at this interesting period, in order that we may be enabled to adopt such ulterior measures as may be necessary to restore you to the uninterrupted enjoyment in future of those rights, privileges, and immunities, of which many of you have been so long and so unjustly deprived.
  We are sensible that we have embarked in an arduous contest, but animated by the assurances of your support, we look forward with confidence to the result, and should our hopes be realised, we trust that we shall discharge the important duties which will then devolve upon us, with satisfaction to you, and honour to ourselves. We do not hesitate to declare our determination to support the Constitution of the country, as established at the glorious revolution in 1688; and that actuated by an ardent desire to secure to our fellow citizens the unrestrained enjoyment of religious freedom and toleration, we shall at all times stand forward as the warm and steady advocates of those principles; which placed, and we trust will ever maintain, the illustrious House of Brunswick on the throne of these realms.
  To the local interests of this town and the surrounding districts we shall esteem it a pleasing and gratifying duty to pay particular attention, and we hope that we shall ever be found the zealous promoters of every measure tending to advance their prosperity and welfare.
  We are, Gentlemen, with esteem and respect, your obliged and faithful servants,
JOHN CAMAC, Lieut.-Col. of the 1st Life Guards

Evening Mail

  Petersfield, which has been a close borough for nearly half a century, will be contested at the ensuing election.

Windsor & Eton Express
  Petersfield—Hilton Jolliffe, Esq. Lord Hotham

Hampshire Chronicle
MARCH 10, 1820
  YESTERDAY being the day appointed for the Election of Members for this Borough, a vast concourse of people from the surrounding neighbourhood were collected together, who, with a great majority of the town supported the popular candidates, Mr. Atcheson and Colonel Camac. At ten o’clock the Court was opened in a small miserable tenement, which since the Town Hall was been taken down, has been used for the purposes of the Election here. Great inconvenience was felt from the pressure of the people who wished to be admitted, and throughout the day it was with difficulty the persons claiming a right to vote could get to the table to tender their votes.
  On the opening of the Court, and after the usual proclamations were made, and the Bribery Act read, the Rev. W. JOLLIFFE proposed his brother Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. stating, that as he had been returned for six successive Parliaments, he did not feel it to be necessary to urge any thing to insure him the suffrages of the Freeholders of Petersfield.
  The Rev. JAMES COOKSON, of Colemore, having seconded the nomination of Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, then proposed as the other candidate in that influence, Lord Hotham, which was seconded by the Rev. W. JOLLIFFE.
  HENRY CLIFTON ATKINSON, Esq. proposed Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq. which was seconded by Mr. J. A. MINCHIN.
  Mr. ATCHESON then proposed Lieut.-Col. CAMAC, which was seconded by Mr. JOHN ATKINSON.
  Mr. JOLLIFFE addressed the Freeholders, stating that his political opinions were well known, and therefore he should not enter upon them; that a paper had been circulated, proposing questions, reflecting upon him in relation to Churcher’s College; that those respecting the money implied that which was false; that he courted investigation, and was sorry, that by the proceedings in Chancery, the matter had been prevented undergoing the more speedy investigation of the Commissioners under Mr. Brougham’s Bill; that he was responsible in case anything should be found to have been wrong, and, if necessary, even to the extent of his whole fortune; that having been questioned with respect to the Corn Laws, he begged to say, that though he had not made long speeches he used every means to support the agricultural interest. That votes were not procured by long speeches, and he had rather in the back parlour of a voter, hear him say “I will attend,” than all the parade and shouting in the streets. That he had heard it insinuated that some parties in the town imagined they had discovered rights of which they had been deprived; he did not know what might have been discovered in some old band box, but he did not think there was anything in it. That Lord Hotham, who was gone to give his vote in another place, he had no doubt would be at Petersfield in time, if the poll continued open.
  Mr. ATCHESON, in his address to the burgesses and freeholders, thanked them for their friendly and disinterested support. He denied that any delay had taken place on the part of the relators in the suit in Chancery respecting the College; but that great indulgence had been granted to the defendants in order to allow them time to put in a sufficient answer to the original information, and that he had no doubt the result of the suit would be most advantageous to the interests of the College and the town, and that the facts which had been alluded to would all be substantiated and proved. That he was not responsible for what had been printed in hand-bills and chalked on walls, and he denied anything personally disrespectful on his part towards his opponents in this contest. That he trusted his acquaintance with the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country qualified him for the discharge of the duties which would devolve upon him, should he, by their suffrages, be returned top represent them in Parliament, and that he would always watch over the agricultural interests with the greatest anxiety; and that in his hands the rights and privileges of the electors of Petersfield would be cherished and maintained.
  Col. CAMAC then addressed the meeting to the following effect:—For many centuries the Burgesses and Freeholders of Petersfield united in electing their representatives in Parliament, but the powers of both denominations of electors have been long monopolized by the family of the gentleman who condescends to call himself your patron. And it is with the hope of recovering for you and your descendants the long established rights of your forefathers, that I now, in conjunction with my estimable friend Mr. Atcheson, solicit the honour of your suffrages. Our opponent has been pleased to rest his pretensions to your support of him and his invisible nominee on the present occasion, upon the fact that he has already done you the honour of representing you in six successive Parliaments. Allow me to add, that if in the long period in which he has so long represented you, he had ever manifested a single instance of that attention to your interests which he has so carefully bestowed upon his own, he would not this day have to dread the issue of an appeal to the honest and unbiased electors of this borough,—and if he finds, that on this appeal you reject him, he will at least have the satisfaction of knowing, that you have not done it for want of a sufficient trial of his merits. Indeed, the Honourable Gentleman himself has intimated with sufficient clearness his apprehensions of the issues of such an appeal, when he frankly confessed to you, that he would be much better pleased if you would allow him to take care of your interests, as he has hitherto done, in a snug little conference, in a back parlour, or a smoking-room,—But the object of my friend and of myself requiring no concealment and no clandestine arrangement, it is our pride to make our appeal to you, with all possible publicity, in the face of day. With respect to the Hon. Gentleman’s voluntary undertaking, to be responsible to the Trustees for the deficiencies that may appear in the accounts of the Charitable Institution, in this town; as the Courts of Law will compel him to do this, we can feel no obligation for this generous offer, so vauntingly proposed. The Honourable Gentleman has been pleased to treat with derision the elective rights of the burgesses of this borough, saying that he supposes these rights have been recently discovered in some band-box—but I trust that we shall shew him that the records, charters, and other muniments, of those rights, have fortunately been preserved in a box, too strong for all the craft that has been exercised for their destruction. And I have little doubt, that these records will yet enable us to place those rights on a ground so incontestible in all future time, as effectually to relieve the Honourable Gentleman for ever, from the laborious duty he has so long imposed upon himself, of superintending your interests. I am at the same time well aware, that it would be vain to expect, from the decision of this day, that restoration of your rights, which we do confidently anticipate will be the ultimate result of our exertions, which exertions, be well assured, shall not terminate in this place, but be transferred to another and higher tribunal, where your franchises shall not find the judgement-seat pre-occupied by the systematic hostility of your patron’s baneful influence. And should the expected victory crown our labours, it is but fair to admit that the honour of this glorious result will be pre-eminently due to my excellent colleague Mr. Atcheson, whose zeal, professional research, and legal talents, have been so indefatigably devoted to this honourable object. And I am well aware that it is to the just and acknowledged claims which these honourable labours, together with his many excellent personal qualities have given him to the confidence and esteem of you all, that I am indebted for the generous and zealous promises of support which I have received, as well from the burgesses as my brother freeholders.”
  A poll was then demanded, which lasted until past seven o’clock. Mr. Harrison was the Counsel for Mr. Atcheson and Colonel Camac, and Mr. Merewether for Mr. Jolliffe and his absent friend Lord Hotham; the Assessor of the Mayor was S. Twyford, jun. Esq,. In the course of the poll many questions arose on the votes offered on both sides, and the result of the poll shews the spirit and influence under which the election was managed and conducted. At the request of some of the Freeholders, the Bribery Act was administered to all the voters.
  At the close of the poll the numbers were as follows;

  After the poll closed, and the numbers had been declared by the returning officer, Mr. JOLLIFFE returned thanks to the electors, stating, that he was extremely proud to have overcome an attempt to overpower the rights of the Freeholders of ancient sites of shambles in the Market-place, and assuring them that he should devote his time to the promotion of their interests and those of the country.
  Mr. ATCHESON returned thanks to the freeholders and burgesses who had supported him and his gallant friend, and assured them, that in his opinion, the triumph of his opponents would be of short duration—that he had introduced no novelty, for, if the patron referred back to the time when his ancestors became connected with the borough, he would find the burgesses then voted, and that the acknowledgement of their right was more ancient than that of the freeholders—that he was attached to the Constitution of his country, and favoured not innovation, and never had or would pervert the franchises of his fellow-citizens to his own advantage—that it was owing to the practices which had been resorted to, in order to render boroughs private property, that the schemes of professed reformers had been at all received—that all he had desired was to see rights, which had been usurped, restored; and, in the attainment of that object for this borough, he would persevere—that he did not so much blame Mr. Jolliffe as his predecessors; for he had not rendered it a close borough, but found it so, though it appeared he was determined to continue it in that state; he did not, however, envy him his feelings in retaining that which had been thus acquired, and which he could retain only by bringing down occasional voters from distant counties, to over-rule the sense of the inhabitants of the borough, and render nugatory their rights—that he should proceed to the investigation of the question, arising out of this contest, before a Committee of the House of Commons, conducting it in that temper in which great Constitutional questions should be met; and trusted, that within three or four months he should have the honour of being one of their Representatives.
  Colonel CAMAC then addressed the Meeting to the following purport…—“Gentlemen, Freeholders, and Burgesses, I have already apprised you that I was so fully prepared for such decisions as you have this day witnessed, as to the respective rights of numerous individuals who have presented themselves to vote at this election, that I am not surprised at the result that has been just announced to you. I have also apprised you, and I now solemnly repeat my pledge to you, that the struggle for the recovery of your rights shall be renewed before another tribunal, where, it is to be hoped, that a more impartial judgement will reverse the sentence that has been pronounced against you. I do assure you, that there is not any reason whatever to doubt the ultimate attainment of our common and honourable object—the liberation of this ancient borough. For surely, Gentlemen, I see no ground for despair in the gratifying fact, that at least the inhabitants of Petersfield are not liable to the imputation of servilely lending themselves to the degrading domination that has been so long exercised over them; to their honour be it ever known that the names of only seven of them are to be found among the enemies of their independence. It remains for me now only to say, that some few of our honest and generous supporters may possibly be in situations that may expose them to the resentment of our opponent. I now, in the name of every humane and liberal sentiment, appeal to all his better feelings, with the earnest hope that, if such is the case, he will forbear from visiting with that resentment a conduct which, however displeasing it may have been to him, he must well know, was dictated as little by personal hostility to him as by attachment to an individual as little known to them as myself. Gentlemen, I have in conclusion to repeat my most grateful acknowledgement, for the kind and liberal support I have received from you, and to assure you that I hold myself indissidubly??? bound to you and your best interests by every obligation dear to an honourable mind.”
  The peculiar circumstances attending this election have excited a very strong and lively interest in this part of the country, and it must have been very gratifying to Mr. Atcheson and Colonel Camac, to find themselves supported by so many respectable individuals of this town and neighbourhood.

Sussex Advertiser

  The result of the Election at Petersfield, though a subject of peculiar importance to that place, is generally interesting to the whole constituent bodies throughout the United Kingdom. It appears that many inhabitants of that town have been deprived of their rights of voting, and that the two disappointed Candidates, or rather one of them, according to the liberal acknowledgement of Colonel Comac, who gave to Mr. Atcheson, the entire credit, had discovered such documents as were likely to restore those rights and release Petersfield from the disgrace of being a vassal, or close Borough. These documents Mr. Jolliffe affected to treat with contempt, as having been “discovered in some old band-box, but he did not think there was any thing in it.” This is the true Radical language used by “JACK LEE,” as he was called, the Barrister, when Mr. Fox, during his short but memorable Coalition with Lord North (with whom he said he would not trust himself in a room alone) attempted to trample the Charter of the East India Company under foot. This attempt against Chartered Rights, apparently leading to the annihilation of Chartered Rights throughout the British Empire, raised, as might well be expected, an universal alarm. But what was said in defence of this measure by the Opposition Counsel, and, professedly, Constitutional Lawyer, Mr. Lee? Why, that a Charter was but “a piece of parchment, with a seal dangling to it by a string!” This treatment of the most sacred rights, next to those of religion, in a country upon which the rights, liberties, and property of a community may depend, occasioned the overthrow of Mr. Fox and his Coalition Ministry; and, perhaps, the contempt with which Mr. Jolliffe affected to treat the documents “discovered in some old band-box,” may rouse the people of Petersfield into a strenuous assertion of their ancient claims and usages, and supported by the Gentlemen who have pledged themselves to bring forward the subject in Parliament, entail similar consequences upon Mr. Jolliffe, and seat those in the Representation of the Borough who are not so indifferent to the rights of the Inhabitants.—IBID

Hampshire Telegraph

  TO COVER, this Season, at Petersfield, at Two Guineas a Mare, and 2s. 6d. the Groom,—That very fine BROWN HORSE, “ROYAL,” rising five years old, 15 hands three inches high, with immense Bone and Power.—He was got by Orville: dam, Gramarie, by Sorcerer; grandma by Sir Peter Teazle; great grandam Druit, sister to the famous Yellow Mare, by Tandem.
Orville, sire of Royal, now covers at Twenty Guineas a Mare.—Gramarie, his dam, was the dam of Prince Leopold, who won the great Derby Stakes, in 1816.
Royal is allowed to be as well bred as any Horse in England; and is very likely from his great size and power, to get capital Hunters.
  ☞ The Money to be paid at the time of covering.
Royal can be seen by application to Mr. Osborne, Saddler, Petersfield; and he will attend at Fareham, Cosham, Havant, and Emsworth.
  **** Good Grass for Mares at 4s. 6d. per week.

Tyne Mercury; Northumberland and Durham and Cumberland Gazette

  It has lately been discovered, that the original right of voting at Petersfield, was in the burgesses paying scot and lot—as well as the freeholders, who were afterwards admitted. It is a singular fact, that it should have remained a rotten borough for nearly a century—the popular candidates having now pledged themselves to petition against the return and try the right in question—the inhabitants will therefore have the benefit of the decision of a committee of the House of Commons.

Morning Post
  ****Those printed in Italics were not in the last Parliament.—Those marked thus ( * ), are new for the respective places, all the rest are Re-elected.—Those marked thus ( ¶ ), are returned for more than one place.
  Petersfield ………………Hylton Jolliffe, Lord Hotham, ¶
  **** The Scots and Irish Returns are not yet complete.
Hampshire Chronicle
  FOR SALE by AUCTION, by Mr. WELLER, on the Premises, on Thursday, the 11th of May, at twelve o’clock,—A HOT-HOUSE, and upwards of 1100 tine PLANTS, in the highest preservation; among which are three Orange Trees, one of them of the Burgamot Seville, two Lemon Trees, two fine Mimosa, the Aretotis, Linum, Xeranthium, Maxium, Carmille Warratah, Geraniums of almost every class; Myrtles, and a variety of other Plants; a collection of Auriculas; and Octagon Summer House, with glazed doors and shutters; a water-barrow, melon frames, five Bacchanalian lights, two square, two round, and ten small glass lights, elevated flower stands; a boat-house and boat; a marquee and a bell tent, &c. the property of W. Blunt, Esq. at Buriton, near Petersfield.
  The plants, &c. may be viewed on Wednesday preceding the Sale; catalogues may be had in due time, at the principal inns of the adjacent market towns, at the place of sale, and of Mr. Weller, Chichester.

Morning Chronicle
  On Monday, at Petersfield, Hants, after one day’s illness, Mr. James Andrew Minchin.
Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  On Monday last died at Petersfield, after one day’s illness, Mr. James Andrews Minchin, an old and most respectable inhabitant of that borough. He was universally esteemed for the integrity of his conduct, the kindness of his disposition, and for his honourable and independent principles; and his loss will long be deeply lamented by his friends and relatives.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  ELECTION PETITIONS.—Petitions against the Returns from the following places, will be presented within 14 days from this day:— … Petersfield, … and it is understood that the whole of them will not exceed 20. It is thought, that two days in each week will be appointed for the ballots of Election Committees, and that the Parliament will not terminate its Sittings until the beginning of August.

Hampshire Chronicle

  A petition against the return of Mr. Jolliffe and Lord Hotham, for Petersfield, is about to be presented. We understand that Lord Hotham, having been elected for Leominster, has made his election for that place. We perceive, however, amongst the list of places to be petitioned against, Leominster itself is mentioned; but whether against his Lordship o the other member, we have not ascertained.

Hampshire Chronicle
  W. MINCHIN returns his sincere thanks to the friends of his late father for the very liberal support which he experienced upwards of 40 years, and begs to inform them that he intends carrying on the BUILDING and IRONMONGERY BUSINESS for his Mother; and that his brother JAMES and Mr. THOMAS JARMAN, of Sheet, propose carrying on the Timber Surveying jointly; he also most respectfully solicits the patronage of the public in general, and of those friends in particular who honoured the deceased with their favours.
  N.B. The Auctioneering, Printing Business, &c. will be carried on as usual by W. M.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  Mr. WROTTESLEY presented a Petition, complaining of an undue return for Petersfield; the Petition was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 25th of May.
Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  Mr. WROTTESLEY presented a Petition from Nath. Atcheson and —— Cormack, Esqrs., complaining of an undue return for the Borough of Petersfield. Ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday, 25th May.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  Petitions were also presented against the returns for the following places, and appointed to be taken into consideration on the days mentioned. … Petersfield, June 6; …

Saunders's News-Letter
  Several Election Petitions were presented by various Members, who, appearing at the table in a body, occasioned considerable merriment. The places respecting which undue returns were complained of, were …Petersfield (against a member returned for two places), June 6th; …

Hampshire Telegraph

  A few nights since, a soldier of the 48th Regt. Who had been accommodated in a detached building of the Anchor Inn, at Liphook, (appropriated to billeted military), broke into the Inn, after the family had retired for the night, by breaking through a fan-light over the door. He proceeded immediately to the bedroom of a Commercial Traveller, who was asleep, and stole his portmanteau, clothes, and almost 200l. in notes.—He was apprehended a few hours afterwards at Petersfield, with all the property upon him.

Bury & Norwich Post

  The Petition against the return of both members for Petersfield was fixed for June 6.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  A Petition was presented from New Church, in Lancashire, praying a Repeal of the Duties on Wool. One from the Occupiers of Land in the neighbourhood of Petersfield, praying relief;

Yorkshire Gazette

  ELECTION PETITIONS.—In our last we gave a correct list of the petitions (37 in number) presented against the return of Members to serve in the present Parliament, for the information of our political friends; we now insert a few more particulars concerning them; which we shall continue weekly. The petitions against the return for Portsmouth and Petersfield were appointed to be heard on Thursday last.
Portsmouth—Petitioner, Sir George Cockburn; Sitting Member, John Markham; to be heard Thursday, May 25. Petersfield—Petitioners, Nathaniel Atcheson, John Caman, and Freeholders; Sitting Members, Hylton Jolliffe and Lord Hotham; to be heard Thursday, May 25.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  A petition, complaining of distress, was presented from some owners and occupiers of land at Petersfield.
Hampshire Chronicle

  AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—Mr. Jolliffe presented a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land at Petersfield, complaining of the distress felt by them.

Morning Post
  The House met about two o’clock, and being summoned to the House of Lords, attended to hear the Royal Assent given to certain Bills, for an account of which see the Lords’ Report.
  A short adjournment then took place, and at four o’clock the SPEAKER resumed the Chair, to proceed with the Ballot for a Committee to try the merits of the Petersfield Election. The following Members were balloted :—
  Mr. Duncan    Mr. Chetwynd   Mr. J. Courtenay
  Mr. R. Smith   Lord F. Osborne   Lord Graves
  Mr. Gipps     Lord Belfast    Mr. W. Courtenay
  Mr. Greville    Mr. Anson     Lord Compton
  Sir Hussey Vivian Mr. A’Court    Mr. H. Caulfield.
Morning Chronicle
  Leave was given to the Earl of Sheffield (his Lordship consenting thereto) to attend the Petersfield Election Committee, if his Lordship should think fit.

Morning Post
  Sir J. STEWART brought up the Report of the Committee on the Petersfield Election, which declared Lord Hotham and the other sitting Member to be duly returned.
Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  PETERSFIELD ELECTION.—The Committee appointed to try this Election having sat six days, came to a determination by which the Resolution of 1727 is restricted to the freeholders of lands and houses, “being entire ancient tenements;” but as these words are for the first time engrafted on the former Resolution of the House, which this Committee had previously decided was the last determination on the right of voting in this Borough, and are to be considered as contrary to it, the Electors, we hear, intend to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded them by the Act of Parliament, and to appeal from this decision, that the former right of voting in the Borough may be restored.

Morning Post
Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE brought up the Report of the Petersfield Election Committee, which stated, that the sitting Members, Lord Hotham and Mr. Jolliffe, were duly elected: but that the Petition complaining of their return did not appear to be frivolous and vexatious.
Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  New Writs were ordered for Petersfield and Dundalk.

Lancaster Gazette
Monday, June 19.
  A new Writ was ordered for the borough of Petersfield, in the room of Lord Hotham, who has made his election for another place.
Hampshire Chronicle

Lord Hotham, one of the representatives of Petersfield, having been also returned for Leominster, has made his election for the latter place. We observe Mr. Atcheson has publically announced that, for the present, he declines offering himself to fill the vacancy; but has expressed his intention to come forward at a future period.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  PETERSFIELD, JUNE 26.—The Election of a Representative in Parliament for this borough, in the room of Lord Hotham, who sits for Leominster, took place this day before the Rev. J. Whicher, the Mayor of the Borough. Great anxiety had been manifested for several days previous to know who was the intended Candidate, Mr. Atcheson having addressed the Electors, stating it to be his intention not to offer himself at the present moment, and it being generally understood that Colonel Camac also declined offering himself; and it was not till the evening of yesterday that it was whispered that Sir P. Musgrave, the unsuccessful Candidate for Carlisle, was to be proposed on Mr. Jolliffe’s influence for the Borough.
  The Mayor proceeded to the Town Hall at 11 o’clock, attended by his Assessor, S. Twyford, jun. Esq. whither he was soon followed by H. Jolliffe, Esq. and Sir P. Musgrave, with their Counsel, Mr. Merewether; Col. Camac, and a large body of Freeholders and inhabitants, having already assembled. After the usual formalities had been gone through, and proclamation made for the nomination of Candidates, Mr. J. Meeres, an ancient Freeholder, came forward and proposed Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. and Sir Philip Musgrave, as Candidates for the vacant seat; but, on its being intimated to him that Mr. Jolliffe was already one of the Members for the Borough, he withdrew his nomination, and Mr. Jolliffe then proposed his friend, Sir Philip Musgrave, assuring the Meeting, that when he had last the honour of seeing them in the Hall, he had not the most distant idea that it would so soon be necessary to call them together; that he should not revert to what had passed in the Committee of the House of Commons, except to say, that he had used every exertion to repel the attempt made to encroach upon the rights and franchises of the ancient Freeholders, by extending the right of voting to the inhabitants, and that he would again stand forward to protect them, if any appeal was made, as he understood was intended, to another Committee, on the subject; and he concluded by entreating their support in favour of Sir P. Musgrave.
  The Rev. Mr. Cookson, of Colemore, seconded the nomination, stating that he was sure the Electors would find the worthy Gentleman an honest and a loyal man, and in every way entitled to their countenance.
  Sir P. Musgrave then addressed the Meeting, expressing his pleasure in appearing before a Meeting of enlightened Electors, who could appreciate the loyalty and independence of his principles, and pledging himself to support, if he should have the honour of being returned one of the Representatives in Parliament for the Borough.
  Col. Camac was afterwards proposed by a Freeholder, but, upon being requested to offer himself as a Candidate, he rose and stated, that on the part of his colleague, Mr. Atcheson, and for himself, he declined offering any present opposition to the Gentleman proposed by Mr. Jolliffe to be the Representative of the Borough. That he did not hesitate to own his hopes were greatly disappointed by the decision of the late Committee against the rights of the Burgesses, who were anciently the legal Electors in the Borough; but that he was happy in assuring the Meeting, that though he felt the highest respect for the Committee, which he knew was for the most part composed of some of the ablest and most independent Members of the House of Commons, he entertained sanguine, and, he trusted, well-founded hopes, that their decision would be reversed, on the appeal which it was intended to prosecute on the part of the real and independent Electors of the Borough, under the sanction of the highest legal opinions. That Mr. Atcheson and himself, though it was impossible for them to enjoy the high honour of representing Petersfield in Parliament at present, were determined steadily and firmly to adhere to the cause of the Burgesses and Freeholders in general, and to omit nothing which might be necessary to enable them to establish their claims to that influence in the Elections which they once enjoyed, and that it would be the highest gratification they (Mr. Atcheson and himself) could feel, to see their efforts crowned with success. That he thought it right thus publicly to state the intentions of the Electors, who were disfranchised by the late decision on their rights, to appeal, that no party might have the opportunity of alleging that he was taken by surprise, or that he was not in so good a situation to defend the right established by the late Committee as he might have been. That for the support with which he had been honoured he felt truly grateful; that he had entered the town a few months since a stranger, but that he had been favoured instantly with the countenance of many most respectable persons, whom he hoped he might now call truly valued friends; and that, animated by the recollection of that support, he should ever adhere to their cause, and feel the deepest interest in their welfare.
  Col. Camac then left the Hall, attended by the greater part of the Meeting, and Sir Philip Musgrave was returned without further opposition; and a dinner was given in the afternoon to the voters, who had been collected from “the neighbouring counties” to support his Election.

Carlisle Patriot

  Sir PHILIP MUSGRAVE, Baronet, was on Tuesday last, returned to Parliament for the Borough of Petersfield, in Hampshire, vacant by Lord Hotham having chosen to sit for Leominster. The interest upon which the Hon. Baronet thus goes into the House, is somewhat connected with the Musgrave family, and has generally, if we mistake not, stood in moderate opposition to the present administration. We rejoice at this event, because, as we have said before, we consider Sir Philip a young man of sound talent and sterling principles. He is a man, indeed, not to be kept down by common circumstance and will one day, without doubt, assume that station nearer home, which his merits, no less than his birth and fortune, render him worthy to fill.

Cumberland Pacquet and Ware’s Whitehaven Advertiser
Petersfield, (Hampshire) June 28, 1820.— …
  A dispute subsists in the borough of Petersfield with regard to the qualification of voters. This was the subject of a late petition, when Colonel Camac and Mr. Atcheson were the petitioners. The decision of the House of Commons was against the petition, and the late petitioners, in consequence, offered no opposition to Sir Philip’s election, but will proceed to petition against it, upon their former grounds.

Hampshire Telegraph

  EMSWORTH CRICKET MATCH.—On Monday and Tuesday last a Match of Cricket was played on Cold Harbour Lawn, Emsworth, between Emsworth, and Petersfield and adjoin parishes. After much good play on both sides, it was decided in favour of Petersfield, having two wickets to go down. The following is a state of the game:—
  Emsworth …

T. White, Murrant,Hatch, Smith, Beagley, Parrot, Carter, Stallard, Port, Wheatley, Purchase
Hampshire Chronicle

  A cricket match was played on Monday and Tuesday last, on Cold Harbour Common, close to Emsworth, Hants, between that place, and eight parishes in the neighbourhood of Petersfield and Hambledon, which was decided in favour of the latter by two wickets. It was considered, by the thousands that witnessed it, one of the most interesting matches ever seen in the country, in consequence of the best batter in England (Beagley) being brought to play against the swiftest bowler (Brown), from whose bowling so many runs were never known to be got before wicket, as on this occasion. Beagley was in five hours, and not out when the game was won. Betting was 5 to 2 against the winners, till five o’clock the last day.

Hampshire Telegraph
   PETERSFIELD.—The important case respecting the right of the Steward of a Court Leet to nominate the Jury, which was expected to be tried at the ensuing Assizes at Winchester, it is understood will not come on in consequence of the defendant, Mr. Meeres, the late Mayor of Petersfield, against whom a Quo Warranto information was filed, having entered a disclaimer, thereby admitting the principle, that the Bailiff of the Leet must return a Pannell of Jurors without any denomination of them to him by the Steward, who is the Judge of that Court.—This is the second disclaimer of the Mayor of Petersfield, under the present system in that Borough.—Sun.
Hampshire Chronicle
   Yesterday afternoon a melancholy accident occurred at Petersfield. Mrs. Ashford, of the Crown, had put her child (an infant about 3 months old) to sleep, and not waking at its usual time, she was induced to look at it, when, to her surprise, she found it lifeless. It is supposed its death was occasioned by a fit.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal
   On Thursday a young man, named Croker, of Petersfield, drank cold water whilst in a state of heat, and died instantly.
Hampshire Chronicle


   Wm. Gilbert, for stealing wearing apparel, a watch, &c. belonging to Samuel Clark, at Petersfield, which were found upon the prisoner, and stated by him to be taken with the view of getting transported.

Hampshire Chronicle


   TO LET,—A convenient roomy DWELLING-HOUSE, with Out-houses, extensive Garden, well stocked with fruit trees, &c.—Inquire of John Richardson.

Hampshire Telegraph
   The Return Match of Cricket between the Emsworth and Petersfield Clubs, was played yesterday and this morning, on Petersfield Heath, and was decided in favour of the Emsworth Players:—Petersfield first innings, 57; second ditto, 39-96.—Emsworth, first innings, 84; second ditto, 13-97—and five wickets to go down.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal


   Imprisonment.—Wm. Gilbert, for stealing goods, the property of Samuel Clark, of Petersfield. 18 mos. Hard labour.

Morning Post
  Mr. P. LAWES stated, that this was an indictment against John Cornthwaite Hector, John Cawley, Edward Shoyer, William Spratt, and William Ware, for forcibly entering and keeping possession of a certain messuage in Petersfield, the property of Mr. Bower, and in the occupation of John Jones.
  Mr. GARELEE—“I am sorry to be under the painful necessity of stating to your Lordship and the Gentlemen of the Jury, circumstances of extremely violent and outrageous conduct on the part of persons, whose situation, the one in the profession of the law, the other a constable, would have led one to expect that they would have obeyed the laws rather than have infringed them. The two principal Defendants in this indictment are Mr. Hector, an Attorney, living at Petersfield, many years in the profession, who acts as the Steward of Mr. Jolliffe, at Petersfield, who has considerable influence in returning members to Parliament for that Borough, and John Cawley, a Constable. These persons were both bound to know the law, and ought to have warned the other Defendants of the consequences which would result from their illegal conduct, and to have exerted themselves to prevent it. So far, however, from giving that good advice, it will be seen by the evidence which I shall call, that these persons themselves were the active promoters of the outrage which gives rise to the present proceedings. I will now state the circumstances of the case. Mr. Bower, the Prosecutor, is known to many of you; he has long been the mathematical teacher at Winchester College. This Gentleman has a house at Petersfield, which he purchased of a person of the name of Newland in 1818. The premises were in want of considerable repair, which Mr. Bower caused to be effected, and in the autumn of last year, he agreed to let the house to Jones for 8l. 8s. a year; and on the 8th of December last, Jones took possession of the premises, though the repairs were not then in such a state of forwardness as to allow him to reside in them. In January last, that national calamity which then happened. (the death of his late Majesty,) made it evident that a General Election would soon take place. The right of Election in Petersfield, is vested in the owners of houses. It had long been known that there would be a contest for Petersfield, and that Mr. Jolliffe would be one of the Candidates; now it suggested itself to these Defendants, if they could by any means obtain possession of this house, they then might secure another vote for Mr. Jolliffe. Accordingly on the evening of the 12th of last February, the house having been locked up by Jones, was broken open by the Defendants, who took possession of it with fire-arms and swords, and mounted a regular guard. Mr. Bower had an agent at Petersfield, whose name is Minchin, and who paid the rates, and superintended the repairs for Mr. Bower. Jones, discovering in the course of the next day what had happened, informed this person of it, and they went together to the house, where they found Cawley, the constable, a man bound to keep the peace, in possession of it. Jones demanded the possession of Cawley, who immediately told him “not to come near, that he (Cawley) was in possession, and he would blow any man’s brains out who came in the house.” During this conversation, Mr. Hector came, and observed, that he had directed it to be done, saying, “This is Mr. Taylor’s house—I have seen his writings—Mr. Taylor is in possession—the men are armed, and I have authorised them to fire and blow a hole through any one who attempts to enter, and I will indemnify and save them harmless.” This was the language used by the Defendant, Hector; but it would have been well if the other Defendants had first inquired into the nature of the indemnity so to be given before they engaged in this affair. I say, without fear of contradiction, that if any man had been rash enough to fire, his Lordship would have pronounced it murder. What then would have become of Mr. Hector’s indemnity? Why, instead of this proceeding, a very different one would have been instituted, and Mr. Hector himself would have been indicted as aiding and assisting in murder. Men (especially those in the situation of the Defendants) should be very careful how they lay down doctrines to mislead the people, and which may terminate in the loss of lives. Gentlemen, you will perceive that this is a most violent outrage, though I dare say my Learned Friends on the other side may call it a mere election squabble. It is high time, however, that these persons should be taught that there is no excuse for a violation of the laws. You will observe, that the house is left secure on the Saturday night, and that on the SUNDAY three or four persons, one of them the apprentice of Mr. Cawley, the gentleman, who not only breaks the law himself, but induces his apprentices also to do so, and others, labourers, are found in possession; and that these men, to throw the semblance of legal sanction over their conduct, employ two peace officers to assist in maintaining that possession which they had forcibly and illegally taken; but this, I am sure, you will consider an aggravation of their offence. I shall now proceed to call my witnesses, deferring any further observations to the opportunity when I or my Learned Friend (Mr. Casberd), shall have the opportunity of addressing you, in answer to the case of the other side.
  William Minchin, of Petersfield, printer and auctioneer, was examined by Mr. CASBERD. He stated, that he was the agent of Mr. Bower, and that he let the house in question for Mr. Bower to John Jones, from the 8th of December last, to John Jones, who then took possession; and the key was delivered to him. He proved that Mr. Bower had paid rates for the house, and had ordered considerable repairs to be effected. That he (Minchin) went to the house with Jones, about seven o’clock in the evening of SUNDAY, the 12th of February, in consequence of what they had heard, and that in about a quarter of an hour, they saw Hector and Cawley standing near the house. That Jones then went up to the house, and Cawley said “he (Jones) must not go there; the house was his castle, and if he attempted to enter, he would blow his brains out,” Mr. Hector said, “the house was Mr. Taylor’s; that he had seen his writings, and that he had given orders to fire if any one attempted to enter, and he would indemnify them.” That two panes of glass were broke, one in the kitchen window, the other in the chamber above; the glass was completely out; the shutters of the lower windows were closed; there were none to the other. That when they first went up to the house, they heard voices in the house, upon which Jones asked them how they got there several times, and ordered them out. That several days afterwards, he heard Jones again demand possession of the premises from Cawley, who said “the house was his,” and that he had “taken it of Mr. Taylor.” Jones then said, “the men in possession had entered by force, and that he (Minchin) and Mr. Lee, would witness that he had demanded possession;” upon which Cawley said, “he did not care a d—n for fifty witnesses.” That Jones then demanded possession of the other Defendants in the house, who said they should keep possession till they had orders to retire.
  On his cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant PELL, he stated that he was not one of Mr. Hector’s political party. That he had known the house for a number of years. That his father had never, to his knowledge, been ordered by Mr. Taylor to sell the house for him. That he had never heard that Mr. Taylor claimed the house till the 12th of February, except by report. That he had never heard that this house was advertised for sale with Mr. Taylor’s Purbrook Estate; that he had heard Mr. Taylor had a sale at Purbrook, with some property in Petersfield, but he did not know where it was. That Mr. Bower was not put in possession by his (witness) father as against Mr. Taylor. That when he and Jones saw Cawley and Hector on the Sunday evening, there were a number of persons with them. That they had not hedge-stakes with them, as he saw, only some of them walking-sticks. That Jones had not a crow-bar with him, only a lantern.
  Re-examined by Mr. CASBERD.—He believed the people were about the place accidentally, and that they were not brought there by Jones. That a meeting-house in the neighbourhood was just breaking up when this occurred. That Newland during his life occupied the premises, and that after the sale to Mr. Bower, a man of the name of Aburrow was put in possession, and occupied them upwards of twelve months. That he never recollected Taylor in possession. That he (Minchin) had paid land-tax rates for Mr. Bower to Mr. Hector’s clerk.
  John Jones, the tenant, was then examined by Mr. E. Lawes, and corroborated the testimony of the preceding witnesses; and on his cross-examination by Mr. ADAIR he said Mr. Hector had never told him that it was improper to make a forcible entry, and that he (Jones) had never encouraged the people to commit any violence, or attempt to regain possession.
  Mr. Sergeant PELL rose before the examination of this witness was closed, and stated that as he was anxious to save the time of the Court, he would take his Lordship’ judgement on the case as it now stood. He must admit the facts, though he could perhaps meet by evidence part of the statement of the statement Counsel on the other side. He admitted that if a man had ever so clear a title to the possession of any premises, he could not gain that possession by force.
  Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—That is as clear as day-light.
  Mr. Sergeant PELL resumed.—He was satisfied his Lordship would perceive the situation in which Mr. Hector stood with regard to Mr. Taylor—that he was merely acting for him (Taylor). The Learned Sergeant then took several objections to the form of the indictment, urging that Jones being only a tenant from year to year, was not in possession for a term of years, as alleged in the indictment. Mr. Justice BURROUGH over-ruled the objection, stating that had been held over and over again that a tenant from year to year was a tenant for a term of years.
  Mr. Sergeant PELL then contended that there must be an actual personal expulsion by force from the premises.
  Mr. Justice BURROUGH said he had tried a case of this sort at Oxford, where the owner had never been near the house, and his servants were got out by a trick and contrivance; that the Legislature had in view, no doubt, the manner of entry, and that if present was not a forcible entry, he did not know what was.
  Mr. Sergeant PELL.—The term is expel, &c.
  Mr Justice BURROUGH.—So they have here—for what else were the pistols and swords brought out? His Lordship then addressed himself to the Counsel for the defendants, and said if they had no means of rebutting the testimony adduced in support of the prosecution, there was an end of the case; and after some consultation, it was signified they had not.
  Mr. Justice BURROUGH then addressed the Jury, stating that there was no evidence in the case on the part of the Defendants; and that as the prosecutors had clearly proved their possession, and a forcible detainer by the Defendants, there could be no doubt that they must find a Verdict of Guilty. That supposing Mr. Taylor to have had the clearest title to these premises, his going with violence to take possession was not to be justified, for the law pointed out a regular way, by ejectment. No one can justify these violent means, and here is ample evidence to prove that the Defendants must have got in with the intention of holding possession by force. His Lordship then directed the Jury to find all the Defendants Guilty, which they did accordingly. His Lordship then said he should respite his judgement till the next Assizes, and intimated that he should, in the mean time, expect the Defendants to restore the premises to the Prosecutors, and pay their costs. But Mr. Hector informing his Lordship that he could not without Mr. Taylor’s authority give up the premises, and Mr. Taylor’s Agent refusing to consent to it, his Lordship said he would do without Mr. Taylor’s consent, and pass judgement pro forma, and order immediate restitution; and he concluded by emphatically remarking that he wished it to be understood in the county, that the law would not endure proceedings of this sort.

Hampshire Chronicle
In the Press, and speedily will be Published,
  A REPORT of the CAUSE of the KING v. C. J. HECTOR and OTHERS, indicted for a Misdemeanor and Forcible Entry and Detainer of a Freehold Tenement in the Borough of PETERSFIELD, which was tried before Mr. Justice BURROUGH, at Winchester, at the late Summer Assizes for the county of Southampton; with Introductory Observations on the circumstances of the Case, and on the necessity of repressing, by legal proceedings, every breach of the law which tends to infringe the Freedom of Election and the Purity of Parliament.
Hampshire Telegraph

  CRICKET.—The return match of Cricket between eleven of Emsworth, and eleven of Petersfield and seven adjoining parishes, was played on Friday and Saturday last, on Petersfield Heath, and decided in favour of Emsworth, with nine wickets to go down :—

Purchase, Carter, Wheatley, Beagley, Smith, Hatch, Parrot, Port, Holland, Stallard, White

Hampshire Telegraph
Members returned to serve in Parliament.
  Borough of Petersfield—Sir Philip Musgrave.

Hampshire Telegraph
  A Capital South-Down FLOCK of SHEEP, excellent HUSBANDRY HORSES, a BULL, COWS, PIGS, an excellent Assortment of AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, of every denomination, modern HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, CHINA, GLASS, BOOKS, &c. TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by Mr. Weller, on the Premises, on Saturday the 16th September, and three following days (Sunday excepted), at 12 o’clock,—The genuine and entire valuable LIVE and DEAD STOCK, together with the neat modern HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, of Wm. Blunt, Esq. at Buriton Place, near Petersfield; comprising 1090 South-down sheep, rams and ewes, ram lambs, ewes and wethers; twelve clever active cart horses; a handsome Norman bull, three excellent milch cows; a fine boar, two sows, 24 store pigs; waggons, carts, stone and wood rollers, a hull-cutting and sowing machines, ploughs, harrows, &c.
  The FURNITURE consists of neat bedsteads and furnitures, prime bedding, with the general articles of cabinet work; a square piano forte, by Clementi; a patent mangle, polished steel and cast register stoves, a kitchen range, with the usual culinary, dairy, brewing and washing utensils.—The Effects may be viewed on Friday preceding the Sale.
  ☞ Mr. Weller begs leave to direct the attention of the intelligent and skilful Breeders to a select South Down Flock, bred wholly for many years from the Stock of Mr. ELLMAN, of Glynde, whose celebrity has so justly merited and gained him from the scientific, a decided preference over every other in the kingdom, both for symmetry, size, and the superior quality of their wool.—Nothing would have induced Mr. Blunt to part with his valuable Flock, after so many years exertion, and being at so great an expence and care in obtaining a purity of blood not to be surpassed, but that of quitting entirely his agricultural pursuits; it is fairly presumed there has been for many years so estimable a South Down Flock submitted to the Public; the Sheep having gained the first Prizes at Winchester and Petersfield Shews, but the Proprietor, with that liberality which has ever marked his character, declined exhibiting for the Premiums; having so universally borne away the palm, he was fearful the ardour of other Competitors might be damped; he therefore continued his shew, but would not accept of a Prize.
  Catalogues may be had, at 1s. each, at the Place of Sale; Dolphin, Petersfield; …

Hampshire Chronicle

  Died suddenly, at Plymouth, where he accompanied the Commissioners, R. A. Nelson, Esq. Secretary to the Navy Board, which situation he has honourably filled for above 47 years. His remains were ordered to be sent by water to London, Mr. Nelson was accompanied by Mrs. Nelson, and died in a boat in a fit of apoplexy by the side of her. Mrs. Nelson is sister to C. J. Hector, Esq. of Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle
To Graziers, Cattle Dealers, &c.
  A FAIR or SHEW of CATTLE, will be held on Saturday, the 7th of October next, on Petersfield Heath.
  N.B. The principal Dealers from Devonshire, and the different counties in Wales, will attend with Cattle.

Salisbury & WInchester Journal
  MESSRS. EVANS, COLLYER, and FITZWILLIAM, most respectfully beg to announce to the Nobility, Gentry, and Public in general of the counties of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, and Devonshire, that during their present Musical Tour the CONCERTS are fixed for the following places, and will be performed on the undermentioned days, viz.—
  Wednesday ……………….Oct. 11……………at Petersfield …
  PART 1.—Introductory Glee, “Music’s the language of the blest above.”—S. Webbe. Song. Mr. COLLYER, “The Anchor’s weigh’d.”—Braham. Song, Mr. FITZWILLIAM, “London now is out of Town.” New Glee (M.S.), “Greenland Hunter.” Dr. Chard. Recitative and Song, Mr. COLLYER, (M.S.), “The Plains of Waterloo.”—C. S. Evans. Song, Mr. FITZWILLIAM, “The Origin of Old Bachelor’s.”—J. Ashley. Glee, “Blow, blow, thou Winter’s Wind.,” arranged for three voices by Evans
Hampshire Chronicle
Red Lion Inn, Petersfield
  ON TUESDAY, the 10th of October next, the friends of Mr. Holdaway intend to dine together on the opening of the large Room which has been lately erected at the above Inn, and the following gentlemen have undertaken to act as Stewards on the occasion :—
   Mr. Blunt      Mr. Mellish
   Mr. Patrick     Mr. Atcheson
   Mr. Greetham   Mr. S. Andrews, Jun.
   Mr. Windes    Mr. J. Atkinson.
  Tickets, 16s. each, to be had at the Bar of the Inn. Dinner to be on the table at three o’clock precisely.

Liverpool Mercury
A List of the Members Returned to serve in the New Parliament for the several Counties, Cities, and Boroughs in England and Wales, alphabetically arranged.
  **** Those printed in Italics were not in the last Parliament. Those marked thus ( * ) are new for the respective places, all the rest are re-elected. Those marked thus ( § ) are returned for more than one place.
  Petersfield—Hylton Jolliffe, Lord Hotham§
Hampshire Chronicle
GAME DUTY (List 5).
  LIST of Persons who have obtained GENERAL CERTIFICATES, at the rate of Three Pounds Thirteen Shillings and Sixpence each, for the year 1820.
  …; Atcheson, R S Petersfield;... Bonham, Thos. Esq Petersfield;… Cathery, T Petersfield;… Greetham, Charles,  Petersfield;… Hector, C Petersfield;… Leer, Geo Petersfield;… Whicher, Rev John, Petersfield...; Wells, Rev Wm Petersfield.

Morning Chronicle

  The King, it is said, has lately made a considerable addition to his fine flock of Southdown sheep. Most of the prime lots at Mr. Blunt’s late sale, near Petersfield, were purchased for his MAJESTY.

Morning Post
  Yesterday being the day appointed for the Meeting of the Friends of Mr. HOLDAWAY to dine in the Large Room, which has lately been erected at the Red Lion Inn, a numerous party attended on the occasion—NATHANIEL ATCHESON, Esq. in the Chair. A most excellent dinner, with plenty of game, and every other article in season, was liberally provided, and the wines were excellent. The following are some of the toasts which were given on this occasion :—
  The King, Queen and the Royal Family.
  The Duke of York and the Army.
  The Duke of Clarence and the Navy.
  The Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese.
  The Members for the County.
  The Magistrates of the County, and may they always be supported by an intelligent and independent Yeomanry.
  The Landed and Agricultural Interests.
  The Borough of Petersfield and success to the Trade of its inhabitants.
  The Memory of Mr. Churcher, and the Founders of the other Schools within the County, for the gratuitous education of the poor classes.
  The Lord Lieutenant of the County of Sussex, and may his Lordship’s example in promoting the interests of Agriculture, and in improving the interior communications of his County, be followed by the Nobility and Gentry in general.
  The Agricultural Society of Petersfield, and success to it, and all other similar institutions.
  Ships, Colonies, and Commerce.
  The Wooden Walls of Old England.

Hampshire Telegraph

ALL Persons indebted to the Estate of the late Mr. JAMES ANDREWS MINCHIN, of Petersfield, deceased, are requested forthwith to pay such their respective Debts, to Mr. Thomas Andrews Minchin, of Gosport, and at St. George’s-square, Portsea, Solicitor, or to the Executor, Mr. William Minchin, of Petersfield, who is authorized by the Executor, to receive and give discharges for the same; and in default, they will be sued for the recovery thereof; and all Persons having any demand on the Estate of Mr. James Andrews Minchin, are requested also forthwith to send in the same to the said Mr. T. A. Minchin , or Mr. Wm. Minchin, in order to their being liquidated.
  PETERSFIELD,12th October,1820

Hampshire Telegraph

  As Mr. W. Stallard, who kept the Five Bells public-house at Buriton, near Petersfield, was returning home on Friday evening, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse and killed on the spot; an inquest was taken on the body by Mr. Longcroft. Verdict—Accidental Death.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  The Hampshire Sessions commenced on Monday last with the civil business of the county, Sir Thomas Baring, Bart. in the chair. Lord Fitzharris, as Deputy Lord Lieutenant, read a letter from Lord Sidmouth respecting the present inadequate salaries paid to the inspectors of corn returns, and the irregularity with which such returns are made, but as it appeared probable that some legislative enactment might take place on the subject during the next session of Parliament, it was resolved to defer the consideration of it till the next Midsummer sessions. The Chairman then read the report of the Visiting Justices, from which it appeared that the improvements in the gaol and Bridewell were nearly completed.—There are at present 72 prisoners confined in the gaol; 41 debtors, 21 felons for trial, and 10 fines. In the bridewell for trial: 19 felons, 6 for assaults, 4 for misdemeanors, 5 for bastardy, and 11 vagrants.—The number committed for different offences since the last sessions is 119, and 71 remain for limited periods of imprisonment. Sir Lucius Curtis, Bart. reported that the mill ordered to be erected in Gosport Bridewell was nearly finished.
  On Tuesday, in the absence of the Right Hon. W. Sturges Bourne (Chairman), the Hon. and Rev. George Herbert presided.
  At these sessions, Sir Peter Pole, Bart. qualified as a Magistrate for this county.
  The following prisoners were tried at our sessions, and sentenced as under:
Imprisonment.— …; 9 months.—Richard Blakeman, for stealing wearing apparel belonging to John Putman, of Petersfield; …
Hampshire Chronicle

Petersfield and Bramshott.—This was an appeal against the order of removal of John Harriman, from Liphook, in the parish of Bramshott to Petersfield.—To establish the case, the pauper was called, who deposed that in the year 1810, he rented a house of a Mr. Wheatley, at Petersfield, for which he paid at the rate of £10 a year. Being a stranger in the place, his landlord required a quarter’s rent (which was 50s.), always in advance; he took possession in August, 1810 and staid till the Christmas following; he also rented another apartment to sleep in, for which he paid 2s. 6d. weekly. In his cross-examination he said that he was a schoolmaster, and took the house in question at the rental of £10, in the understanding that Mr. Wheatley was to recommend him scholars; it had formerly been used as a school, and was fitted up with desks and benches. The Chairman observed, that from the pauper’s testimony he took the premises at that rental solely on account of the school, but under other circumstances would not have given so much. The settlement in Petersfield was not made out, and the order must be quashed.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  The inhabitants of Petersfield have sent 14l. 12s. to Alderman Wood, in aid of the subscription to purchase a service of plate for her Majesty, together with a list of 292 subscribers.

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Saturday evening last, as Mr. Shallard was returning from Petersfield to Buriton, it is supposed his horse became restive, as his son found him lying in the road dead the next morning, with his neck dislocated, and otherwise severely injured.

Sussex Advertiser
  Whereas the several Persons hereunder named and described, did on the assembling of the said Regiment of Militia, at Chichester, on the Twelfth day of September last, for training and exercise for the space of Twenty eight days, wholly absent themselves therefrom, by which default they are by an Act of Parliament, passed in the 42nd Year of the Reign of His late Majesty, King George the Third, intituled “An Act for amending the Laws relating to the Militia in England, and for augmenting the Militia,” deemed DESERTERS, and have thereby incurred the Pains and Penalties prescribed by the said Act.

Name of defaulter

John Whitehead

Age in

Usual place of

Petersfield, Hants
Trade or

For whom

Joseph Skinner
For what
Parish enrolled


  N.B. The afore recited Act of Parliament, sec. 119, directs a reward of Twenty Shillings, to be paid to the Person apprehending any of the before described Deserters; and any Person harbouring, concealing, or assisting any Deserter (knowing him to be such) forfeits for every such offence the Sum of Five Pounds.

Lewes, 1st Nov. 1820    Clerk of the General Meetings of Lieutenancy

Hampshire Chronicle

  The abandonment of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty has greatly excited the popular feeling, and demonstrations of joy have been general throughout the kingdom.
  The news of acquittal of the Queen was received at Petersfield early on Saturday morning. A white flag was immediately hoisted on the tower, and the bells began ringing a merry peal about half past five o’clock, and continual discharges of guns were heard from the tower and other parts of the town throughout the day. On Monday evening a splendid illumination took place, and numerous transparencies were displayed. In the High street, a well executed painting of a male and female suspended from a gallows, over which was written “Conspiracy—False Witnesses;” underneath “Non mi Ricordo.” Over the entrance of the house of J. E. Shackleford, Esq. were the letters “C. R.” with a star in the centre, of variegated lamps; underneath, “Vivat Regina.” Miss Parr’s academy attracted a vast number of spectators; a transparent painting, with the words “If God be for us, who can be against us.—He has pleaded the cause of the innocent;” had a very beautiful effect, and conveyed to the mind of the beholder the words of the Poet,—
   “If Powers divine
   “Behold our human actions, as they do,
   “False accusation blush, and Tyranny,
   “Tremble at Patience.”
  At another part of the town, was exhibited in transparent letters, the following curious text of Scripture: “If a Ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.” It would be tedious to describe the numerous devices and tasteful decorations of the various houses. About eight o’clock the martial sound of the trumpet was heard from a herald, who proclaimed through the different streets, that the destruction of the green bag, with its contents, was about to take place in the Market-square, when a vast concourse of spectators assembled to witness so novel a scene; the bag exploded, and threw out an immense number of serpents and other combustibles, amidst shouts which rent the air.

Hampshire Chronicle
  Married, Mr. Murrough, grocer, of this city, to Miss Patrick, of Petersfield.

Morning Post


  Lady Elizabeth Bronck, from Fair Oak, Petersfield, on a tour; …

Hampshire Chronicle

  Married, at Petersfield, on the 23d ult. By the Rev. J. Whicher, Mr. Murrough, of Chichester, merchant, to Lucy, third daughter of Edward Patrick, Esq. of the former place.

Hampshire Chronicle

  There was a much greater shew of cattle, sheep, &c. at Petersfield annual Fair, on Monday last, than was ever known before, the numbers being nearly double what they generally averaged, and a material improvement in prices was observable, from the late fairs at Weyhill, Apppleshaw, and Andover.

Hampshire Chronicle

  TO be SOLD,—A Brace of superior well-bred GREYHOUNDS, from the stock of Lord Rivers. They are by Rector, out of Renown, both late in the possession of Sir H. Featherstone; also an excellent SPANIEL DOG. For particulars apply to James Osborne, saddler, Petersfield.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  A letter from Petersfield, of the 21st inst. says, “The Address, set on foot by the Clergy, Tax-gatherers, Placemen, and Excisemen, in and near Winchester, was sent over to the Rev. Mr. Whicher, Mayor and Returning Officer of this rotten Borough, to get signatures, and has been laying three days at the Town Hall; but, much to the credit of the inhabitants, not one name has been obtained. This morning, when the Bailiff went to take it away, to his astonishment the Address and contents were lost, some unlucky fellow having entered during the night, and stole it!”

Oxford Journal

  A loyal address, after lying for signature at Petersfield, Hants, was stolen by some radical pilferer—a requisition sent to the Sheriff for a county meeting to petition both Houses of Parliament on the proceedings against the Queen.


Hampshire Chronicle
Froxfield Academy, near Petersfield, Hants
  J. BIGNELL respectfully informs his friends, and the Parents and Guardians of Youth, that the business of this Establishment will recommence on the 22d of January
Worcester Journal

An Address stolen.—The Hampshire Loyal Address was stolen a few nights since from the Town Hall, Petersfield.

Morning Post
  The inconvenience of carrying on Petersfield Market in the Square of that Borough, having been long felt and complained of by the Country Gentlemen and Farmers who attended it, Mr. HOLDAWAY, late of the Dolphin Inn, built a large and elegant room at the Red Lion Inn, which he now occupies in that town, for the accommodation of the Market, and which was opened in October last. Since then, in the fair spirit of rivalry, and disinterested and independent competition, another large room has been built at the Dolphin Inn, which was opened a few days since, and every possible interest has been used to obtain amongst the Farmers a preference of it. Thus this town can now boast of more extensive public accommodation than is met with in any other Close Borough in the Kingdom.

Hampshire Chronicle

Greetham v. Binstead.—The plaintiff in this case is an attorney, and the defendant a young gentleman, both residing at Petersfield, and this action was for an assault. From the statement of Mr. Serjeant Pell, the plaintiff was an elderly man, and the defendant a stout robust youth, of about 18 years of age. The assault was described to be of a most aggravated nature, the defendant having severely horsewhipped the plaintiff, without provocation on his part. Witnesses were called, who proved the assault, which Mr. A. Moore, for the defence, admitted; but contended, that under the circumstances which led to it, no more than nominal damage ought to be given. It happened that Mr. Patrick had a vicious jackass, which he wished his ward, the defendant, to kill, which he did. The plaintiff had circulated a false report, that this had been done with cruelty; that the defendant had first of all shot the animal, which ran wounded over Petersfield Common, and afterwards pursued it with a carving knife, and stabbed it. This gave rise to the assault. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £40.

Hampshire Telegraph
  WANTED immediately,—An ASSISTANT in the above Profession.—Enquire of Mr. Crassweller, Market-square, Petersfield, Hants.
  N.B.—All applications must be post-paid, or they will receive no attention.
Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  Petersfield, J. Small, jun.

Hampshire Chronicle

  Petersfield Market was numerously attended last Wednesday, and the prices noted in the New market room, at the Red Lion Inn, were as under: …

Morning Post
  ORDER OF THE DAY.—Petersfield Borough, Right of Election, Petition; Ballot for Committee at three.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  SINGULAR FACT.—A wheelwright, residing at Petersfield, in Hampshire, in cutting up some oak timber lately, found a large quantity of hair in the very centre of the tree, which was of considerable dimensions. The hair was in the most perfect state of preservation, although, from the depth at which it was embedded in the wood, there can be no doubt that it had been there upwards of 60 years. It is conjectured, that a cavity had originally been made in the tree, and that after it had been deposited, part of the wood was immediately replace; but that in process of time the bark grew over it, and re-united it to the parent trunk, and thus caused this singular phenomenon.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  The Hampshire Quarter Sessions commenced at the Castle of Winchester with the civil business of the county on Monday last, Sir T. Baring, Bart. in the chair. No subject calculated to excite public interest was brought forward.—It appeared by the report of the visiting justices that the number of prisoners in the county gaol is unusually small, there being only 63; of whom 30 are debtors, 11 convicts, 15 for limited periods of imprisonment, and 7 for trial at the next assizes. The commitments to the house of correction since the last sessions have been very numerous, amounting in the whole to 199; a great proportion of these were for offences against the game laws, and many of the delinquents were very young. At the commencement of the sessions there were 60 on the calendar for trial, and 110 in confinement on previous convictions. Of 117 persons committed to Gosport bridewell in the last quarter, 56 were vagrants. After the report of the visiting justices had been read, G. Hollis, Esq. was re-elected Treasurer for the year ensuing, on the motion of Sir J. W. S. Gardiner, Bart., seconded by the Rev. E. Poulter. On Tuesday the court opened with the hearing of appeals, &c.; the Hon. and Rev. G. Herbert in the chair.
Sentences of prisoners tried at these sessions:
  IMPRISONMENT.— …Jas. Brown, for stealing a coat and jacket at Petersfield; …; 12 months each.

Hampshire Chronicle
Positive Certainties for the 17th of May.
  Wyer and Co. Petersfield.
Evening Mail
  On Monday last, at Petersfield, Hants, Mr. John Brewer, of the Borough, to Miss Caroline Willmer, of the former place.

Morning Chronicle
Positive Certainties for the 17th of May.
  Wyer and Co. Petersfield.
Morning Chronicle

  MODERATE REFORM.—The House of Commons having passed the Bill for disfranchising Grampound, and giving the elective franchise to so large a place as Leeds, and having also granted Committees to investigate the right claimed by the inhabitants of Portsmouth and Petersfield for participating in the election of Members, must convince all persons (together with what passed in the House of Lords last night), that there is no inclination on either part of the Legislature to increase the number of close boroughs, or to deprive the people of this country of those rights which have been said in good old times to have belonged to them. We honestly confess that we wish success to all such attempts at moderate reform, which seem compatible with the spirit of our glorious Constitution.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  A ballot for a Committee to enquire into the right of Election in the Borough of Petersfield stood for this day, and there being only 87 Members present at four o’clock, the House adjourned as a matter of course.
Windsor & Eton Express
  MR. WHARTON reported from the Committee appointed to inquire into the petitions concerning the right of voting at Elections for Members of Parliament for the borough of Petersfield. The Committee had decided the right of voting to be in the burgesses of the said borough, and in the freehold proprietors of land, houses, and tenements within the same.

Morning Post
  Mr. GASELEE moved to make the rule absolute for a Quo Warranto against Thomas Chitty, the present Mayor of Petersfield, calling upon him, to shew by what authority he claims to exercise that office, which was ordered accordingly, no cause being shewn to the contrary, and this being the third information which the Court has granted in this case.
Hampshire Chronicle

  In the House of Commons, last Wednesday, the Chairman of the Committee appointed to investigate the petitions respecting the mode of election for Petersfield, reported—“That the right of election for two Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Petersfield, is in the Freeholders of Lands, or ancient Dwelling-houses or Shambles, or Dwelling-houses or Shambles built upon ancient foundations, such not being restricted to entire ancient Tenements.” The above decision does not vitiate the return of the Members now sitting; nor is the right of voting confined to ancient burgage tenures only, but is vested in all proprietors of lands within the borough, which may be divided (as in the case at Weymouth), into an indefinite number of votes, An acre of land being split into small parcels may give the right of voting to 100 persons.

Hampshire Telegrapht
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by Mr. WELLER, on Wednesday the 27th June, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon (unless previously disposed of by Private Contract, of which due notice will be given), at the Red Lion, Petersfield,—A truly desirable and valuable FREEHOLD ESTATE, comprising a good Farm House, Offices, Garden, two Barns, Stables, Ox-stall, and Cart House, together with one hundred and thirty-three Statute Acres of very productive Arable and Meadow LAND, lying very compact, 59 Acres of excellent Meadow, a stream of water runs through the same which irrigates the whole of the Land, let to Messrs. Bridger, Tenants-at-Will, situate in the pleasant village of Liss, within half-a-mile of the Turnpike Road, and three miles from Petersfield.
  Further particulars may be known, by applying to Messrs. Johnson, Price, and Freeland, Solicitors, and of Mr. Weller, Chichester.

  The borough of Petersfield, which, by the decision a few days ago of the second Committee of the House of Commons, is now declared to be free and open, and the right of voting to be in every freeholder, without any restriction, after having been closed for a century, forms a striking proof what may be done by perseverance. Some old charters, found a few years ago, brought to light the rights of the Petersfield people, which they had so long been deprived of.

Hampshire Telegrapht
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, in Four Lots, by JOHN CAWLEY, on Tuesday the 17th day of July next, between the hours of four and six o’clock in the afternoon, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, in the County of Southampton.—The following desirable FREEHOLD PREMISES, situate in the parishes of Liss and Greatham, in the County of Southampton :—
  Lot 1.—A good brick-built MESSUAGE or FARM HOUSE, with a Malthouse adjoining, with a Garden, Orchard, Yard, Stable, and other convenient out-buildings, in a good state of repair, and a Close of Arable LAND adjoining, called the Housefield, containing by estimation 3A. 3R. 32P. situate in the parish of Liss, and now in the occupation of Mr. James Inwood, Tennant-at-Will.
  ☞ This Lot is subject to an annual Quit Rent of 10s.
  Lot 2.—Two Pieces of MEADOW LAND, containing together, 4A. 0R. 18P. situate near Greatham Bridge in the Parish of Greatham, in the occupation of Mr. R. Ayling, the proprietor.
  Lot 3.—A comfortable DWELLING-HOUSE, (with excellent cellar and dairy,) barn, turf-house, and other necessary outbuildings, with a Close of Arable LAND, called Coversfield, adjoining, containing 3A. 0R. 28P. situate in the said parish of Liss, in the occupation of the said Richard Ayling.
  Lot 4.—A valuable piece of Meadow Land, adjoining Liss Green, called Oakley’s Meadow, containing 2A. 2R. 12P. in the parish of Liss, in the occupation of the said James Inwood, as Tennant-at-Will.
  For a view of the premises apply to Mr. R. Ayling, at Liss, and for further particulars (if by letter post-paid) to Messrs. Hector and Mitchell, Solicitors, Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle

  The Petersfield Friendly Society met at the Fighting Cocks, on Monday last, to celebrate their anniversary. After walking in procession (attended by an excellent band of music) to church, and hearing an appropriate sermon from the Rev. J. Whicher, they returned in the same orderly manner to the above Inn. Nearly 180 sat down, in a booth erected for the purpose, to an excellent dinner, provided by Mrs. Pearson. Many loyal and patriotic toasts were given by the President, C. J. Hector, Esq. and drank with great applause. A general report of the progress of the Society being read, the Chairman congratulated them on the prosperous state of their funds. Some gentlemen amateurs attended, who enlivened the company with vocal and instrumental music. The greatest harmony and brotherly love prevailed throughout the day, and evinced the great utility of such societies.

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Tuesday last, at Petersfield Fair, a fellow called at Mr. Poulson’s, tinman, to purchase a kettle, for which he tendered a Chichester £19 note. Mr. P. not having sufficient small notes, went out to get the note changed at a neighbour’s; on the way he met Mr. Durant, clerk to Messrs. Patrick and Co. bankers, and asked him to change it. On inspection, Mr. D. discovered the note to have been a one pound, the “one” having been erased, and “Ten” substituted. Before the return of Mr. Poulson, the fellow had decamped, leaving the kettle and note behind him.

Committals to the County Gaol— …W. Todman and J. Soale on suspicion of stealing at Petersfield, a cot containing linen, bedding, and other articles, the property of Lieut. Stent.

Hampshire Chronicle

Hampshire Summer Assizes.— The undermentioned prisoners stand committed for trial at these Assizes, which commence on Monday next, at the Castle of Winchester, before the Hon. Sir Wm. Draper Best, Knt. And the Hon. Sir R. Graham, Knt :—
  William Mould, Wm. Windybank, and Robert Durdle, alia Durden, for stealing a quantity if malt, the property of C. J. Hector, Esq. of Petersfield.
  Wm. Todman and Joseph Soale, for stealing, at Petersfield, a cot, containing linen, &c. the property of Lieut. Start, R.N.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  STOLEN, in the Night of Tuesday the 24th of July instant, or early the following morning, from PETERSFIELD, Hants,—A BAY MARE, of the coach kind, about 15 hands high, rising six years old, scarcely any white except a blaze down the face, scratched over the knees,, near eye, and buttocks, has a long tail, and long hair on the legs. Whoever will give such information as may lead to the discovery of the Mare, and conviction of the offender, shall receive the above reward of Mr. James Minchin, of Petersfield.

Hampshire Telegraph

  Many of the Subscribers to the Petersfield Agricultural Society being engaged on the Grand Jury, and on other business, at our ensuing Assizes, the Meeting has been postponed to Monday the 6th of August next, (vide Advertisement).—A field near Petersfield has been engaged for the purpose; and it is expected that a great deal of prime Stock of all descriptions will be exhibited.

Hampshire Telegraph
No. 9, Essex street, Strand.
  PETITIONS of Insolvent Debtors to be heard at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden at the Grand Jury Chamber, in the city of Winchester, in and for the county of Southampton, on Saturday the 25th day of August, next, at the hour of eleven o’clock in the morning.
  William Pearson, late of Gravel Hill, near Petersfield, in the county of Hants, publican.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next Meeting of the Trustees of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road, resident in Portsmouth and its vicinity, will be on Monday next the 6th day of August instant, at the Guildhall, in Portsmouth, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon.

J. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

Hampshire Chronicle
  Wm. Mould, Robert Durdle, alias Durden, and Wm. Windybank, were convicted of robbing the Malthouse of C. J. Hector, Esq. of Petersfield, their master, of a quantity of malt. Mould was sentenced to 14 years transportation; Durdle to seven years transportation; and Windybank to one year’s imprisonment
  Wm. Todman and Joseph Soale, for stealing and carrying away a cot, bedding, &c. the property of Lieut. Start, R.N. at Petersfield, on the night of the 11th of July. The former seven years transportation, the latter one year’s imprisonment.

Hampshire Chronicle

  His Majesty and suite passed through Petersfield on Tuesday last, on their way to Portsmouth.—Great numbers of people assembled in the streets and on the London road for several hours, anxiously expecting his arrival, and the bells welcomed him into the town, where he was most cordially received, amidst the cheerings and greetings of the delighted multitude. His Majesty shook hands with Gen. Hugonin, and conversed several minutes with him in the most affable manner. All the respectable families in the town and neighbourhood were present eager to shew their attachment to the Sovereign, as were also the children of the different schools, presenting a most gratifying sight. Among the principal persons were Gen. and Major Hugonin, Capt. Murchison, Christopher Alderson, Esq. of Ashford-house, and their respective families, Sir C. Paget’s two sons, T. Ridge, Esq. of Fyning-house, &c. &c. The Mayor and several gentlemen rode out to meet his Majesty, and attended him into the town.

  Married, on Thursday, at Eastmeon, Mr. W. Minchin, printer, &c. of Petersfield, to Miss E. Pink, of the former place.
  A hawker was apprehended in the market at Petersfield, on Wednesday, for selling goods without a license, but it appearing that his license only expiring the preceeding day, he was suffered to depart on payment of expenses.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  His Majesty passed through. A vast concourse of people assembled opposite the Dolphin Inn, and paraded the London, in anxious expectation, for several hours previous to his Majesty’s arrival. A colour was hoisted on the tower, and the bells rang a merry peal, to welcome him. Many gentlemen, with the Mayor and other respectable persons, rode out to meet him. He condescended to shake hands with General Hugonin, and conversed several minutes while the horses were changing. All the respectable families in the town and neighbourhood were assembled at the Dolphin Inn, eager to get a sight of their Sovereign; and the children of the several schools were also assembled, which rendered the scene truly gratifying.— Among the distinguished persons present, not residing in Petersfield, were observed—General and Major Hugonin, Captain Murchison, Christopher Alderson, Esq. of Ashford house, and their several families, two sons of Sir Charles Paget, Thomas Ridge, Esq. of Fyning House, &c.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal

  HAMPSHIRE ASSIZES.—The commission for this county was opened at the Castle in the usual manner on Monday last, and on Tuesday, after divine service, Mr. Baron Graham opened the business on the civil side, and Mr. Justice Best on the crown side.
  The number of prisoners was unusually small, notwithstanding the Assizes took place a full fortnight later than usual. The calendar contained a list of 48 prisoners.—The following received sentences as under:
14 years’ transportation.—Wm. Mould, for stealing malt from C. J. Hector, at Petersfield.
7 years’ transportation.—Robert Durdle alias Durden, for stealing malt from C. J. Hector, at Petersfield. … Wm. Todman, for stealing linen, &c. from Lieut. Stert, at Petersfield.
One year’s hard labour.—Jos. Soale, for stealing linen, &c. from Lieut. Stert, at Petersfield. … Wm. Windybank, for stealing malt from C. J. Hector, at Petersfield.

  On Thursday last was married at Eastmeon, by the Rev. J. Docker, Mr. W. Minchin, printer, of Petersfield, to Elizabeth, second daughter of the late Mr. W. Parish, surgeon, of the former place.

Morning Post

  His MAJESTY passed through Petersfield about four o’clock, escorted by a small party of the 10th Hussars, A vast concourse of persons assembled opposite the Dolphin Inn, and paraded the London road, in anxious expectation, for several hours previous to his MAJESTY’s arrival. A colour was hoisted on the tower, and the bells rang a merry peal, to welcome our beloved Sovereign into the town. Many Gentlemen, with the Mayor and other respectable persons, rode out to meet him. His Majesty was received there with the most enthusiastic greetings, and appeared in good health and spirits. He graciously condescended to shake hands in the most cordial manner with General HUGONIN; kindly asked after his family, and conversed for several minutes while the horses were changing. All the respectable families in the town and neighbourhood were assembled at the Dolphin Inn, eager to evince their loyalty and get a sight of their Sovereign; and the children of the several schools were also assembled, which rendered the scene truly gratifying.

Hampshire Telegraph

  TO be SOLD,—SIX fine SWANS,—For particulars enquire of Mr. Edward Patrick, Jun. Heath-house, Petersfield; if by letter, post-paid.

Morning Post
  …; Lady Elizabeth Monck, for Fairoak, Petersfield; …

Hampshire Chronicle

  The Petersfield Agricultural Society held their annual meeting on Monday the 6th inst. The show of stock of every description, both in quantity and quality, was much better than has been exhibited at any former meeting, especially in South Down sheep. The members of the Society were occupied till three o’clock in inspecting the animals brought on the ground for competition; and at that hour they adjourned to the Dolphin Inn, where a very large number of the members and their friends sat down to dinner; the President of the Society (Richard Norris, Esq. of Basing Park) in the chair. Many appropriate toasts, attended with observations and remarks, touching the interests of agriculture, were given. “The King”—“Breeding in all its branches;” “Liberal landlords and deserving tenants”—“The Petersfield Agricultural Society”—“Mr. Coke”—“Mr. Norris, the President”—who returned thanks in a short address, strongly recommending the propriety of giving as much attraction to the meeting as possible, and advocating the attempt to establish a wool fair on the day of their Anniversary Meeting; in consequence of which every wool grower then present agreed not to offer his wool for sale till that day; and, from the centrical situation of Petersfield, it was thought that the object might in a few years be accomplished. The following premiums, amongst others, were awarded :—
  His Grace the Duke of Richmond, Samuel Jellicoe, Esq. Messrs. Bernard, King, &c. &c. were admitted new members. C. J. Hector, Esq. in a speech of considerable length, propose a subscription by the farmers, for a piece of plate to Joseph Hume, Esq. M. P. for Aberdeen, in testimony of his great exertions in attempting to reduce the national expenditure, and consequently alleviate the burthens of agriculture, and subscribed one guinea.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next Meeting of the Trustees of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road, resident in Portsmouth and its vicinity, will be on Monday next the 10th of September, 1821, at the Guildhall, in Portsmouth, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon.

J. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees. 

Hampshire Chronicle
To Dealers in Cattle and Sheep.
  NOTICE is hereby given, —That this Fair will be held on Saturday the 6th of October, 1821, and that, in consequence of the extensive support given to those who attended the Cattle Fair, held in October last, the Gentlemen and Breeders, in the neighbourhood have determined to send their Sheep for sale, and from the eligible and central situation of Petersfield, it is expected that many Dealers from the Eastern and Western Parts of England will attend.
  The Cattle Fair will be held on Petersfield Heath, and the Sheep Fair in a Field adjoining. Coops may be obtained, on reasonable terms, by application to John Cawley, Petersfield.

Morning Post
  Never were public gratitude and exultation more strongly evinced than at this place on Saturday last, which was the day fixed for Mr. ATCHESON’s first visit, since the successful termination, on the 29th May last, of the proceedings in the House of Commons, on the right of Election of Members of Parliament for this Borough. A meeting of the inhabitants was held some time since then, and a Committee was appointed to consider of the best means of receiving Mr. ATCHESON in a manner consistent with their sense of the great services which he has rendered to the Borough, by his unremitting endeavours to release them from an influence which had long been banefully exercised over the election of their representatives, and which has depressed the town and reduced it from a state of opulence and power to comparative poverty. The Committee were unremitting in the discharge of the trust delegated to them, and in their exertions to complete every arrangement which could insure regularity, and give effect to the wishes of the inhabitants. A letter was addressed to Mr. ATCHESON, requesting him to name the day when they might expect to see him once more amongst them, and to invite him to a public dinner, at which it was the desire of the inhabitants to welcome his return, and to congratulate him on the success which had crowned his efforts in their cause; and Saturday last was the day fixed upon for his arrival. It was arranged that Mr. ATCHESON should be met a mile from Petersfield, and that his approach should be announced by a person stationed on a hill, who, as a signal to an engineer placed on Petersfield Heath with a cannon, was to announce the happy event to the town by the discharge of a salute of twenty-one rounds, which the bells from the Church Tower were to answer by ringing a loud and merry peal. Many days were busily occupied in preparing for the occasion. The most intense anxiety prevailed throughout the town, neighbourhood, and adjoining villages, and every one seemed to emulate his neighbour in his exertions to contribute individually to the conduct of the arrangements for the day.
  The morning was occupied in erecting a triumphal arch formed of branches of laurel across the street on the entrance to the town, and in decorating the new Ball-room at the Red Lion Inn, where the dinner was to take place, with festoons and wreaths of flowers and various banners and flags.
  About two o’clock the inhabitants began to assemble, and proceeded with a numerous and powerful band of music, and with flags and banners that were to be displayed on the occasion, to the place appointed, where they were arranged in order, and marshalled by the Gentlemen who had been deputed by the Committee to conduct the procession.—About three o’clock Mr. ATCHESON’s carriage was seen descending the hill that leads to the bridge, and on his arrival he was received with loud and repeated cheers. The horses were taken from his carriage, and their places supplied by four others, provided by the Committee; the postilions were very neatly dressed in new dark blue jackets, for the occasion, and the populace were expressly forbidden by the Committee to draw the carriage into the town, not only to prevent accident, but an exhibition , which, when coolly considered, must appear degrading to those whose feelings might lead them to engage in it.
  After some little time passed while Mr. ATCHESON was receiving the congratulations of friends who were near the carriage, the procession moved to the town in the following order, attended by some thousands of spectators :—

The Grand National Union,
Borne by a Freeholder on horseback.

Three small Flags,
borne by
Freeholders on
two abreast.
and Inhabitants
Three abreast
A Large Silk Flag, with
inscribed thereon
Three small Flags
borne by
Freeholders on
two abreast.

Three small Flags

Freeholders and
three abreast

Three small Flags

The Flag of the
Hamlet of Buriton
borne on horseback
A small flag

The British Union
Flag, borne on

The Flag of the
Hamlet of Sheet
borne on horsebak

Freeholders on
on horseback

The Band of Music.
The Petersfield Union Flag, borne by a Freeholder on horseback, having Mr Atcheson's Arms and those of the Borough richly painted on it, and the following inscription:—
"In commemoration of the final establishment of the Right of Election in the Borough of PETERSFIELD obtained in a Committee of Appeal of the House of Commons, by Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq. May 29, 1821"

Freeholders on
on horseback

Three small Flags, with various emblematical Devices thereon


A large yellow Silk Flag borne by a Freeholder on horseback, having the arms of the Borough encircled with branches of the Rose, the Thistle, and the Oak, and the Motto—"Virescit vulnere Libertas." On the reverse, an Inscription, alluding to the Borough.
A large blue Silk Flag borne by a Freeholder on horseback, having Mr Atcheson's Arms, Crest, and Motto, between Palm and Olive Branches, and on the reverse an Inscription, alluding to the recent decision.


Four Gentlemen,
Freeholders, on
Members of the

Three small Flags


Freeholders on
Horseback, two abreast.

Four Gentlemen,
Freeholders, on
Members of the

Three small Flags

 Upon arrival of the procession opposite Churcher’s College, it halted, and the band ceased, and three cheers were given, after which it proceeded till the carriage had arrived under the triumphal arch, when it again halted, and the cortege again gave vent to their feelings in three cheers: the procession was then led down the new way into the square, and from thence to Mr. ATCHESON’s house, where he alighted, and the procession passed on to the Red Lion Inn, where the band continued playing at intervals during the remainder of the afternoon. As the procession approached the town the numbers increased, and in the square it was surrounded by at least five thousand persons. The Committee had directed three sheep to be roasted whole, which were afterwards taken to the various public houses in the town, and distributed with a proportionate quantity of bread and beer.
  At five o’clock a numerous and respectable party, consisting of about one hundred persons, sat down to an excellent dinner, provided by Mr. HOLDAWAY, of the Red Lion Inn. The tables were decorated with much taste, with pyramids supporting wreaths, and banners bearing various emblematical devices, and the dinner wand wines were highly creditable to Mr. HOLDAWAY. The chair was very ably filled by Mr. John ATKINSON, who acted for his father, H. C. ATKINSON, Esq. and his convivial powers kept the interest of the company alive, and the happy strain of eloquence with which he prefaced the various toasts, and the manly and independent sentiments which he expressed, reflected equal credit on the heart and talents of the speaker, and gave universal satisfaction to his hearers.
  On the Chairman proposing the health of “NATHANIEL ATCHESON, Esq.” he addressed the company to the following effect: —“Having now completed the usual constitutional toasts, it becomes my pleasing duty to propose to you one in which our private and best feelings are concerned—thus endeavouring to pay in some degree a debt of gratitude due to our excellent friend on my right, whose return among us we are this day met to celebrate. When we review the circumstances of the last three years, it is impossible for me to express in adequate terms our applause and admiration at what has been accomplished, and the liberal manner in which it has been executed, feeling, as you all must do, that you were possessed of chartered rights, and thus far for a century you had been labouring under a usurpation and a system of petty tyranny, by the agents, and friends of the Borough Patron, as disgraceful as unconstitutional, and which, if not for the abundant proof, would not have been believed in the present enlightened state of society. But thanks be to Providence, and the unwearied exertions and perseverance of our excellent Friend, the spell is now broken, and the Committee of Appeal have restored our rights, by deciding that the Freeholders of every description, and without any restriction, possess the elective franchise, thereby enabling every Gentleman whom I have now the honour to address, who is not a Freeholder, to qualify himself, and to become a guardian in his own person of the most important of an Englishman’s rights, the power of electing his own Representative. Gentlemen, I presume you are anxious even to anticipate the name I am about to propose, and when all are aware of the truth of my observations, it would be injustice to detain you; I have therefore to request you will join me in this humper of wine, and drink the health of our friend NATHANIEL ATCHESON, Esq. with every wish that he may be blessed with health, and that he may long reside amongst us, and enjoy the victory obtained by his extraordinary exertions.” Mr. ATCHESON’s health was then drank with three times three, followed by reiterated cheering and loud and continued plaudits.
  Mr. ATCHESON rose and returned thanks for the honour which had been conferred upon him. He said that his reception that day by the Freeholders of Petersfield had made an impression upon his heart which could never be effaced. Their kind support had stimulated him to perseverance and exertion in a cause, which, by many who were ignorant of the facts of the case, had been considered as desperate; but it was with no small degree of pride that he now looked back and contemplated the difficulties that had been overcome, the predictions that had been disappointed, and the triumph which had been gained, a triumph the more gratifying, as it dispelled a baneful and injurious influence that had too long depressed the best energies of the town, and sunk it from a state of great political as well as commercial importance, to is present condition; for there was evidence that Petersfield many years ago, before the Lords of the Manor assumed that power which they had so injuriously exercised, was a place of considerable wealth, and a great manufacturing town, and that in the reign of King James the First, it maintained upwards of a thousand persons in the manufacture of woollen cloths. He assured them that the confidence which they had reposed in him, and the zealous and steady attachment which they had displayed, an attachment which no promises or threats had been able to shake, imposed upon him a debt of gratitude which it would ever be most gratifying to him to endeavour to repay. Whatever services he could render the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Borough collectively or individually, he should at all times be most happy to offer, as a small return for the kind attentions which he had invariably received from them. He looked forward with confidence to the time when he should have the honour of being their Representative in Parliament, and when that period arrived, he could only say, that he should ever steadily endeavour to promote, to the utmost of his power, the local interests of the town, and to act up to the principles which had ever regulated his conduct; and he concluded by thanking them once more for the very kind and gratifying manner in which they had drank his health, and received him on his return to the Borough.
  The CHAIRMAN then gave the following toasts :—“Colonel JOHN CAMAC”—“The ancient Borough of Petersfield, and perpetuity to its Independence.”—“The Freeholders of Petersfield, who have promoted, and ever will support the cause of Freedom.”—and “ROBERT ATCHESON, Esq.” These toasts were all drank with the greatest applause.
  The CHAIRMAN then rose and stated, that having, by the kindness of the Committee, been deputed to perform a duty which was always gratifying to him, and upon the performance of which he should always look back with feelings of pride and satisfaction, they had now arrived at that period of the evening when he was called upon to fulfil it. The inhabitants and freeholders of Petersfield, feeling that gratitude which must always distinguish good and honourable men, had determined as a small token of their sense of the great and signal services which have been rendered to them by their much esteemed and excellent friend, Mr. ATCHESON, to present him with a piece of Plate, which they trusted that he would accept. After some further observations, the Chairman, who had received an elegant Silver Vase from the Committee of Management, who had advanced to the upper end of the room, addressed himself to Mr. ATCHESON as follows :—
  “I am desired, Sir, to convey to you the thanks, and to express the gratitude and esteem, of the Freeholders of this ancient and respectable Borough, for the very important services you have rendered to them—services which at once display the greatest perseverance and talent, and a liberality of conduct at once honourable to yourself and highly beneficial to our local interests. Through your exertions, we are now restored to the exercise of important political rights, which have long been usurped from us. I have now, in the name of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of Petersfield, to request your acceptance of this Vase, and in their name to thank you for all your exertions in their behalf, and to congratulate you on their successful termination. Permit me at the same time to offer my own heartfelt congratulations, and to wish you health long to joy this victory over a system of disgraceful and shameful corruption.”—(The Address was received with the greatest applause, and it made a deep impression on all present.)
  Mr. ATCHESON then arose and said, “Gentlemen, my reception amongst you this day has been most gratifying to my feelings. It is impossible for me to express them; and if I want words to convey to you an adequate idea of them, I trust that you will forgive me, and not believe that I am less grateful. This last act of your kindness has made an impression upon me, which is indelible. It was altogether unexpected. I had already been amply repaid, for my exertions in your cause, by the zeal and interest which you have always displayed. This token, therefore, imposes upon me an obligation which I shall always cheerfully acknowledge, and endeavour to return, by every act of personal friendship and attachment that I can shew to you. I intend to reside here as much as my professional avocations will permit; and I trust that many opportunities of so doing will arise. Once more accept my warmest and best thanks for this and every other kind attention which I have received from you.”—(Loud and continued applause followed the conclusion of this address.)
  The CHAIRMAN then gave “the health of Mr. T. W. Bower, and the City of Winchester.”
  Mr. BOWER returned thanks in suitable terms.
  The company then separated about twelve o’clock (it being Saturday) highly gratified; and we are happy to say that the day and evening passed over in the most convivial manner, without the least accident or occurrence whatsoever to disturb the harmony of the scene.
  There was a good display of fire-works in the evening.
  [We have thus put upon record the proceedings on this highly gratifying occasion—proceedings which do equal honour to the inhabitants of Petersfield, to the Committee of Management, and to the Gentlemen whose patriotic and disinterested exertions have excited in that town a spirit of independence amounting to enthusiasm, and a sense of gratitude which has been manifested in a manner not more flattering to him than honourable to the parties who have so feelingly evinced it. We understand that the preparations were made with great spirit, and that the effect of the whole scene had an air of harmony and splendour far exceeding even the expectations of those Gentlemen, who were unacquainted with the judicious measures which the Committee had adopted.]

Morning Post
  The piece of Plate presented by the Borough of Petersfield to NATHANIEL ATCHESON, Esq. in testimony of gratitude for his great and disinterested services, is a Silver Vase, surmounted by leaves and flowers, and encircled by the vine in full bearing, having also, lower down, a row or circle of alternate leaves and flowers; in a compartment, at one side, are two horses at full speed; and the whole, embossed and beautifully chased, is richly decorated with various ornamental and fancy embellishments, forming altogether a specimen of most exquisite workmanship, worthy the elegance and taste of the design. The following is a copy of the inscription on this interesting memorial :—
As a TOKEN of
And grateful Admiration
Of the
He has displayed
In his Exertions to Restore to them
Which had been long usurped from them,
But which,
They now possess;
And also,
As an Expression of their Gratitude
For the salutary and beneficial Investigation
He has instituted into the
Salisbury & Winchester Journal

  CURIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.—Two sheep were roasted whole in a sand-pit, close to the town of Petersfield, on Mr. Atcheson’s arrival there on Saturday last, and a nest of young sand martins, alive and well, was afterwards found in a hole just behind where the fire was made, which must have been enveloped with smoke and fire nearly the whole day.

Hampshire Chronicle
  The different Lodges then proceeded to All Saints Church (Southampton) in the following order …—
Two Tylers, with drawn swords.
Band of Music.
Lodges not belonging to the county.
Lodges in the Province of Hampshire:
St. George’s Lodge ……………………..Petersfield.

  Mr. Green, the celebrated aeronaut, again delighted the inhabitants of Hants, by ascending a second time with his balloon on Thursday last. Many particulars of the first aerial excursion will be in recollection, and the interest excited by his second ascent will make the following particulars interesting:—
Mr. Green’s own Account.—“On Thursday last, according to advertisement, I made my second ascent from the Duke of York’s Bastion, Portsea. The morning, although cloudy, seemed nevertheless to presage favourably: the crowds assembled to witness its ascension were considerably greater than on a former occasion. I should think the number assembled must have exceeded 20,000 persons. About eleven o’clock the operation of filling commenced, and the balloon was inflated by half-past twelve, under the superintendence of Mr. Onthett, engineer of the Gas Company. I suffered much inconvenience from my late accident, but was greatly assisted by several scientific gentlemen present (especially by Mr. Kingston, superintendent of the steam-engine in the Dock-yard), as well as by the Gentlemen of the Committee, whose services were importantly useful.
  “About half-past one o’clock I took my seat in the car, after which a signal gun fired to assemble the Gentlemen of the Committee on the ground; I had the pleasure in this situation of taking a glass of wine, and returning to those Gentlemen my warmest thanks for their disinterested behaviour. The balloon having been carried round the ring, I took my leave amidst the plaudits and anxious good wishes of surrounding thousands, and ascended slowly, but majestically towards the celestial regions. On leaving the ground my barometer stood 29 7-10ths, and thermometer 72. Finding I could ‘ascend’ to a great altitude without entering the clouds, I discharged 10lbs. of ballast, and ascended to the height of 3,000 feet. I intended at this altitude to have descended my parachute, but, finding myself immediately over the harbour, the safety of the animal (belonging to Mr. Charles Wilcox) obliged me to alter my determination; I immediately discharged more ballast, and ascended to the height of 4,500 feet. I here found the course of the balloon taking a direction N. E. which afforded the spectators a longer and better view. After being up, ten minutes and a half I descended my parachute and cat, which reached the earth in safety, but was unfortunately at too great a distance from Portsea, to have it observed, unless by the assistance of the telescope. The descent of the parachute was astonishingly rapid for about 300 feet; it afterwards became distended, and its oscillation very inconsiderable: I suppose it reached the earth eight or nine minutes after its separation from the balloon.
  “I now ascended with great rapidity to upwards of 10,000 feet: knowing this to be the greatest altitude I could reach with safety, so as to enable me to make a few Philosophical experiments, I applied myself to this interesting purpose: the mercury at this altitude stood at 20 and 5-tenths, and the thermometer at 38. After completing my observations, I looked at my watch and found it twenty minutes after two: I determined on descending; and by repeatedly discharging ballast, my descent became gradual till half past two: at this time a heavy shower of rain added considerably to the weight of my balloon, and occasioned likewise the condensation of the gas, so that its rapid descension might have been attended with considerable danger, had I not thrown out a great quantity of ballast, which had the desired effect of checking the rapidity of my descent, after which I descended in a meadow belonging to J. Hollest, Esq. of Mitchett Lake, near Frimley, Surrey; completing a voyage of nearly 45 miles in 45 minutes. The rebounding of the balloon was extremely violent; but I at last secured my landing by the assistance of some men working in the fields, and partook of a good dinner at the hospitable mansion of J. Hollest, Esq. I afterwards took a post-chaise and arrived at the White Hart, Guildford, at seven o’clock.
  “On the following day I reached Portsea and was received with a hearty welcome by the Gentlemen of the Committee, to whose liberality and distinguished benevolence I shall ever feel grateful. I cannot forbear giving publicity to this fact, viz. that after their paying me the sum stipulated, they voluntarily surrendered the overplus of the money for the use and benefit of my only child. To the Committee my thanks are particularly due; to Messrs. Barlow (brothers) for their gratuitous supply of gas; to Colonel Dickson and other officers for their kind assistance; and to the public at large for their patronage and support.”
  The balloon passed over between Wymering and Cosham, over Purbrook Park, to the westward of Petersfield a quarter of a mile; between Ampshot and Greatham, over Kingsley, one mile to the westward of Farnham, and a quarter of a mile to the westward of Farnborough, and landed at Frimley, in Surrey, four miles S. W. by S. of Bagshot, about 45 N. N. E of Portsmouth.

Hampshire Chronicle
    John Pince, ….. Agent at ….. Petersfield
Hampshire Chronicle

  TO be SOLD or LET, with immediate possession,——A Desirable FREEHOLD and COPYHOLD ESTATE, in a good sporting country, called WICK GREEN, pleasantly situated in the parish of Froxfield, in the county of Hants; with a good house, three barns, stables, cow-pens, and other buildings; also, a malt-house and store-room, and 280 customary acres (more or less) arable, meadow, and wood land; distant from Petersfield , two miles and a half, on the turnpike road to Alton and Alresford (nine miles from each), all good market towns, now in the occupation of Thos. Shaft, the proprietor.
  The crops may be taken at a valuation, or not, at the opinion of the succeeding occupier. The hay, horses, waggons, carts, agricultural equipments, and ploughings, to be taken at a fair valuation.
  The Estate is for the most part Copyhold of Inheritance under the Bishop of Winchester, and nearly equal in value to Freehold.
  For further particulars inquire of Thomas Shaft, on the premises.

Hampshire Chronicle

  At Petersfield Market, on Wednesday, the following were the prices taken at the Market Room, Red Lion Inn …

Cumberland Pacquet, and Ware’s Whitehaven Advertiser
  The annual change of civic officers of Carlisle took place on Monday last, …
  The Mayor proposed the “Members for Petersfield,” observing that he need not inform the company that an Hon. Baronet who sat near him was one of those members. The toast was drank in a flattering manner. Sir Philip Musgrave said he felt very highly the compliment which had been so handsomely paid to him; and he was very sensible of the kindness of the worthy Mayor in procuring him the pleasure of meeting here today so many gentlemen to whose exertions he had been much indebted on a recent occasion. He trusted that he appreciated all this kindness as he ought—and he should feel great satisfaction at all times in meeting the friends whom he saw around him.

Hampshire Chronicle
  LIST of Persons who have obtained GENERAL CERTIFICATES, at the Rate of Three Pounds Thirteen Shillings and Sixpence each, for the Year 1821.
  …; Acheson, A Petersfield; …; Chase, John, Petersfield; …; Clark, George, Petersfield; …; Greetham, C Petersfield; …; Meeres, J Petersfield; …; Whicher, Rev. John, Petersfield.
Hampshire Telegraph

  The Petersfield Annual Cattle Fair was held this day on the Heath, and was numerously attended by buyers; of Beasts there were 2,000, and of sheep 5,000. The spot on which the Fair is held, is admirably adapted for the display of stock, and the scene presented, was one of very lively interest. This Fair was established last year, and promises to become one of equal importance to any in the country.

Morning Post
  …—E. Patrick, sen. and Co. Petersfield, Hants, bankers—

Hampshire Chronicle
INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT OFFICE. No. 9, Essex-street, Strand.
  PETITIONS of Insolvent Debtors, to be heard before his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of Southampton, in open Court, at an adjournment of the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden at the Castle of Winchester, in and for the said county, on Saturday the first day of December next, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon.
  WILLIAM STALLARD (sued by the name of William Stallard, the younger), late of Petersfield, in the county of Southampton, fellmonger and shopkeeper.
Morning Post

  At Reigate, on Sunday morning, November 11, Mrs. Jolliffe, aged 76, relict of the late William Jolliffe, Esq., M. P. for Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle

  Died, on Sunday, at Reigate, Mrs. Joliffe, aged 76, relict of the late W. Joliffe, Esq. M. P. for Petersfield. The deceased was daughter and sole heiress of Sir Richard Hylton, of Hayton Castle, in the county of Cumberland, Baronet, the lineal descendant of the Lords de Hylton, and claimant of that ancient barony.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next Meeting of the Trustees of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road, resident in Portsmouth and its vicinity, will be held on Monday next the 19th instant, in the Guildhall, Portsmouth, at eleven of the clock in the forenoon.

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.   

Hampshire Chronicle
Circular to the Deputy Lieutenants and Magistrates of the County.
  I BEG Leave to call your attention to the annexed Lists of Men enrolled to serve in the MILITIA of the County of HANTS, who have not appeared at the Time and Place appointed for Exercise, and to point out to you the expediency of taking some steps to have these Men apprehended and dealt with according to the 42d Geo. III. Cap. XC. Sect. 99.
  The consequence of the omission of these Men to appear, as required by Law, is, that fresh Ballots must take place, other Men must be called upon to serve, instead of those already drawn who have omitted to attend, and thus the inconvenience and burthen of the Militia to the County in general is greatly increased.
I have the Honor to be, &c.

WELLINGTON, His Majesty’s Lieutenant.  

  WINCHESTER, November 2, 1821.

List of Men enrolled to serve in the NORTH HANTS Regiment of MILITIA, who did not appear at the Time and Place appointed for Exercise, and are therefore deemed DESERTERS.


Thomas Ayliff

Residences when enrolled


Date of enrollment

10th November 1820

Subdivision in
which enrolled

List of Men enrolled to serve in the SOUTH HANTS Regiment of MILITIA, who did not appear at the Time and Place appointed for Exercise, and are therefore deemed DESERTERS.


James Ambledon

Residences when enrolled


Date of enrollment

18th October 1820

Subdivision in
which enrolled
Alton, South

Morning Post

  H. JOLLIFFE, Esq. M.P. for Petersfield, is about to give on Friday next, at his seat at Mersham, Surrey, a most splendid fete, on a very extended scale, to a numerous and distinguished party of fashionables.

Morning Chronicle

  J. JOLLIFFE, Esq. M.P. for Petersfield, gives on Friday next, at his seat, at Mersham, Surrey, a splendid fete, on a very extended scale, to a numerous and distinguished party of fashionables.

Belfast Commercial Chronicle

  A man is detained at Petersfield, having a good grey gelding, under suspicious circumstances. He said he purchased it of a person in this neighbourhood, who disclaims all knowledge of the horse.

Morning Post
  The county of Surrey has rarely, if ever, been enlivened in a greater degree than by the sumptuous entertainments given by the JOLIFFE family, on Friday and Saturday last, in honour of the coming of age of Sir WILLIAM HYLTON JOLIFFE, nephew and heir to the highly-esteemed Col. HYLTON JOLIFFE, the Member for Petersfield, and son of the Rev. Mr. JOLIFFE, of Imperial Cottage. Preparations on the most extensive scale have been making for some weeks previous, both at Merstham Hall and at the Rev. Mr. JOLIFFE’s. The family, upon this happy occasion, had determined to revive one of those truly English scenes of olden time, when the ancient banners of their house, in trophied splendour decorated the hall of their ancestors, and the happy tenantry quaffed in honest revelry the inspiring draught of nut-brown October, with shouting “welcome and success to the lord of the soil.” The morning was ushered in by the ringing of the bells of Merstham, Chipstead, and the neighbouring villages, where the family estates are. The Steward of the Colonel summoned together, in the village, one hundred and twenty poor families, and the Almoner of the house of JOLIFFE distributed to each a plentiful supply of good English cheer, consisting of bread, meat, beer, and coals.
  The poor thus provided for, the most sumptuous preparations for the noble and wealthy visitants were completed. A temporary ball room had been constructed at Merstham Hall, which displayed great skill and ingenuity; it was situated under the great carriage entrance, at the end of the mansion, of the length of 80 feet by 30 feet wide, and communicated with the grand entrance; the interior was lined throughout with rich glazed draperies, of various colours, over a white ground of the same materials, which covered the walls, thickly fluted, similar to the grand apartment at Burlington House. From the ceiling was suspended a variety of elegant festoons in massive folds, with gold fringes spreading across the room: the whole had the appearance of a grand Persian hall of pleasure—an assimilation that was perfected by the splendid mirrors and ottomans placed in the recesses at each end of the hall. From the right hand side (which was completely open, and supported by two pillars, the capital and bases being formed of flowers) a semicircular tent, with the same decorations, and a roof formed of immense folds of draperies of different colours, spreading from a rising sun, in burnished gold, extended itself to the extreme of the building, was only separated from the ball room by a slight gold railing of trellis work; under this elegant structure was arranged the orchestra, and on each side rose a choice collection of orange, citron, and other fragrant shrubs, wafting a grateful odour to the company. The approach and entrance hall was lined to accord with the ball room, and the grand staircase (the ascent to the supper room) was enlivened by great quantities of natural roses, from the Earl of DERBY’s, at the Oaks, entwined in every fanciful mode with evergreens and laurel. The apartments were lighted with a profusion of elegant gilt candelabras, with lamps disposed in various situations to add to the brilliancy of the scene.
  The company, among whom we noticed the following distinguished personages, began to arrive about four o’clock at the Rev. Mr. JOLIFFE’s :—
  The Duke of St. Albans, Viscount Eastnor, Hon. D. Erskine, G. H. Sumner, Esq. M.P. and J. Dennison, Esq. M.P. the members for the County, Sir Gilbert and Lady East, Lady Charlotte Beauclerk, Lady Caroline Dundas, Sir John and Lady Paul and the Misses Paul, Earl Burford, Colonel and the Hon. Mrs. Windham, Lady Sheffield, the Right Hon. S. Lushington, Sir Mark Wood and J. G. Wood Esq., J. Dent, Esq. M.P., Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Nevill, Sir Benjamin and Lady Hobhouse and the Misses Hobhouse, Mrs. Hartley, the two Misses Gilders, Lord Emelius Beauclerk, Capt. Shiffner, Mr. and Mrs. Banks, W. Holroyd, Esq. J. Brogden, Esq. M. P., and a very numerous assemblage of Fashionable, to the number of two hundred persons.
  At seven o’clock the party sat down to a most luxuriant repast, consisting of every delicacy of the season. The hospitable board groaned beneath the load of massive plate and the profusion of choice viands and rich wines. After dinner at ten o’clock in the evening the company were conveyed in carriages to Merstham Hall, a distance of not more than 150 yards from Mr. JOLIFFE’s, on the rise of the hill. Here the hospitable Colonel was in waiting to receive his numerous visitants who were astonished at the splendour and magical effect of the surrounding scene. The ball was opened by Sir W. HYLTON JOLIFFE and the accomplished Lady CHARLOTTE BEAUCLERK, with a favourite quadrille, and quadrilles, with one exception (in favour of a Venetian dance), were the amusement of the evening. Amid such an assemblage of beauty and fashion it would be difficult to distinguish. We never saw a more elegant set of quadrille dancers; the beautiful MISS MARIA PAUL was the leading star of the night, and shone in every dance the admiration of the room. The French band was led by Mons. TUTTELL in very scientific style, the company continued to trip on the light fantastic toe until three o’clock, when supper was announced in the grand drawing-room. This was one of the most magnificent scenes witnessed in a private establishment; six tables, to accommodate 250 persons, were displayed with all the variety of attractions to the sense and taste. Temples, pyramids, trophies, figures, and devices of every fancy met the eye, and did great credit to the abilities of Mr. INGRAM, the confectioner, under whose direction the feast was arranged. The healths of the JOLIFFE Family were severally drank by the company with long continued plaudits.
  The first toast was the health of the young Baronet with three times three; which honour was prefaced with an encomium pronounced by Sir WILLIAM PAUL, and answered in an appropriate way. The nest toast was the Colonel, as the donor of the festivity, and then the young Baronet’s father. It was delightful to hear the father confirming the approbation bestowed by Sir WILLIAM PAUL on Sir WILLIAM JOLIFFE, for his conduct throughout life’s first stage. The last toast worthy of mention was Mrs. JOLIFFE, the Baronet’s mother, and was received with universal applause. To the most elegant manners this Lady adds the kindest heart, and thus unites the charms of fashion to the virtues of hospitality.
  Never was a company seen more delighted and gratified, or a day spent in the participation of more real and substantial happiness. Dancing was resumed and kept up with the greatest spirit, long after the appearance of the morning’s dawn: it was nearly eight o’clock before all the party had retired. The nex morning (Saturday) a public breakfast at one o’clock, was given at the Hall, and most of the company of the previous evening attended, and a large field of sportsmen assembled on the heights to hunt with the Colonel’s crack pack of hounds. The whole party received an invitation to dine at the hall, and the succeeding evening was again devoted to the exhilarating pleasures of the circling glass.
  This fete, which was every way worthy the occasion for which it was prepared, will, it is said, cost upwards of five thousand pounds; certainly there was no expence spared that could add to the comfort or the pleasures of the guests.
  On this day, a ball an supper are to be given to the tenantry and trades-people of the family, at the Hall; the Colonel’s Steward will preside.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next MEETING of the TRUSTEES of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road, resident in Portsmouth and its vicinity, will be held on Monday next the 17th of December, 1821, at the Guildhall, in Portsmouth, at eleven of the clock in the forenoon.

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  


Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next MEETING of the TRUSTEES of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road, resident in Portsmouth and its vicinity, will be held on Monday next the 17th of December, 1821, at the Guildhall, in Portsmouth, at eleven of the clock in the forenoon.

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

Hampshire Telegraph

  Died, on Monday last, Mrs. Minchin, relict of Mr. Jas. Andrews Minchin, Builder, Petersfield.

Morning Advertiser
  Mr. HARRISON moved to file a criminal information against Mr. Hector, Steward of the Court Leet of the manor of Petersfield. The application was made on affidavits, stating that Mr. Hector had been guilty of gross misconduct, in nominating and remaining with the Jury, at the election of Mr. Joliff, the Mayor. The usage formerly was stated to be this :—The Jury being summoned, retired to elect the Mayor, and made their presentment contrary to the custom. Hector, who was the agent of the Joliffe family, remained with them to influence their decision. The principal freeholders of the Borough, in order to prevent a practice, which they considered adverse to the right of election, sent Mr. Hector a notice, that if he persisted in being present with the Jury during the time of making their presentment, application would be made to the Court of King’s Bench for a criminal information. Notwithstanding that notice, Mr. Hector did continue with the Jury until they made their presentment. Mr. Harrison contended, that this proceeding by the Steward of the Court was not only an obstruction to the fair election of Mayor, but an infringement on the due exercise of the elective franchise. Mr. Joliffe, who was Lord of the Manor, and Mayor of Petersfield, had the design of procuring the election of his son again as a representative of the Borough at the next election; and if this improper influence on the part of Mr. Hector was permitted, there could not be a free election.
  The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Have you an affidavit to shew it was formerly the practice of the Steward to retire?
  Mr. HARRISON said that affidavit had not been made.
  LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—It would be much to your interest to lay before the Court what the ancient practice was, and prove this was innovation. Without that fact the Court cannot decide.
  Judge BAYLEY.—You know the Grand Jury of Middlesex have an officer with them, from the beginning to the end of their business. He often assists them with advice.
  Mr. HARRISON.—Yes, my Lord, but he has no influence. The Learned Counsel then said he would procure such affidavits as the Court considered requisite.
  Mr. SCARLETT moved to file a criminal information against one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, in the county of Carmarthen, for improper practices in the discharge of his duty. The Learned Counsel said, he had instructions to move not less than ten informations against this gentlemen. The present application was made by the Magistrates of the County. The Learned Counsel stated the transaction which occasioned this application at the instance of the Magistrates, but we decline, in this stage of the proceedings, going into details.
  The Court granted a rule to shew cause.
  Mr. GASELEE moved for the writ quo warranto against Mr. Joliffe, to enquire by what authority that Gentleman claims to be Mayor of Petersfield. The application was made on the ground stated by Mr. Harrison.

Morning Post
  Mr. HARRISON applied to the Court for a Rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Cornthwaite John Hector, Steward of the Court Leet of the Manor and Borough of Petersfield, for misconduct, as such Steward, at the election of the Mayor of that Borough, who is the Returning Officer. The Learned Counsel said, that it was well known that for a considerable period the Borough had been under the influence of a particular family—the family of Mr. Jolliffe; that a member of that family had of late years been invariably returned as one of the Representatives of the Borough in Parliament, and that the other Member had been returned under their influence. A contest took place in 1818, which gave rise to the agitation of a question upon the right of Election, and there had been a subsequent contest at the last General Election, when Mr. Atcheson and Col. Camac stood in opposition to Mr. Joliffe and Lord Hotham; and upon that contest there was a petition to the House of Commons, which led to a decision on the right of voting. From that decision there had been, in the last session of Parliament, an appeal, when the first decision was reversed, and a right established adverse to the influence which had existed in the family of Mr. Jolliffe. Under these circumstances it had become most important to the inhabitants of the Borough that the Returning Officer should be legally and impartially elected, and he mentioned these circumstances to shew the relative situation of the parties. With reference to the election of the Mayor, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that repeated applications had been made to the Court for permission to file quo warranto informations against the persons who had filled that office. The first was against a Mr. John Meeres, who had been elected in 1819, by a jury of the Court Leet, nominated and selected by Mr. Hector, the Steward. After the filing of that information, Mr. Meeres disclaimed his office, but at a Court Leet, held under a mandamus from the Court, he was again elected into the same office by a jury selected in the same manner as the former, and in consequence their Lordships a second time allowed an information in the nature of a quo warranto to be filed against him, when he again disclaimed. Another information had been filed against a Mr. Chitty, who was the late Mayor, but from his delaying to file his plea, till a short time before the last Summer Assizes for Hampshire, the parties were prevented bringing the case on then, and it now stands for trial at the next Spring Assizes. Their Lordships might perhaps remember, that the ground upon which those informations proceeded was, that the Bailiff had not been permitted to use his own discretion in the selection of the Jurors, but that the Steward had nominated on the precepts the persons whom he was to summon to serve on the Leet Jury. In the present case, notice was given to Mr. Hector, that if he persisted in nominating the Jury, and in remaining with them after they had been charged and ordered to retire to consider of their presentments, instead of permitting the Jury to discuss them without the presence of any other person, application would be made to their Lordships for permission to file a criminal information against him. Notwithstanding this notice, however, it appeared from the affidavits, that Mr. Hector had persisted in nominating the Jury—that the Jurors, prior to the meeting of the Court, had breakfasted with Mr. Jolliffe, and afterwards walked in procession to the Court House, headed by him, the Rev. Mr. Jolliffe, his son, and Mr. Chitty, the late Mayor—and that when an objection was made by one of the Jury to the eligibility of the Rev. Mr. Jolliffe, on the ground of non-residence, and that he would not be approved by the inhabitants, Mr. Hector interfered, and said there was no objection to him, and that he paid rates and ???es, and he seemed out of temper at the objection. The affidavits also stated, that the Foreman of the Jury was Mr. John Meeres, the person who had twice disclaimed the office of Mayor, and that on the very day on which this transaction took place, Mr. Joliffe intimated publicly that Sir Philip Musgrave—
  Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY.—Was that in the presence of Mr. Hector?
  Mr. HARRISON—Yes, my Lord. Mr. Hector was present the whole time. He (Mr. Jolliffe) intimated that Sir Philip Musgrave, one of the present Members for the Borough, intended to vacate his seat, and that he should immediately proposes his nephew, Sir George Jolliffe, the son of the Reverend Mr. Jolliffe, the present Mayor. I am aware that your Lordships will never interfere in mere election questions, but I apprehend it is of the utmost importance, that this Court should guard the legal Institutions of the country from being made the instruments of corrupt influence in boroughs to serve the private purposes of individuals; and I conceive that in all cases of this kind which come before your Lordships (I might mention the recent case of the Mayor of Chester in support of this opinion) it is your peculiar province to interfere and to visit every attempt to pervert legal establishments for such ends with its due and proper punishment. In this case, your Lordships will perceive that it is most important that those who have established their right should have the chance which the law gives them by election of a fair and impartial returning officer, who is to decide upon the exercise of that right. Upon these grounds, I submit that I am entitled to the rule against Mr. Hector. It is impossible to suppose that he was ignorant he was doing wrong. The affidavits state, that he is not only the Steward of Mr. Jolliffe’s Court Leet, but the active agent and adviser of that Gentleman in every one of the contests in the Borough, and that he appeared as his agent, and was examined as his witness, before the Committee of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Had that mode of proceeding ever been decided to be illegal?
  Mr. HARRISON.—It has never been decided, because, but successive disclaimers of the Mayor, it has never come to trial; but, if your Lordships will allow me, I will observe that the grounds upon which motions of this sort are found, rested upon the motives of the party who is charged with any particular act. In the case of the late Mr. Jolliffe, the father of the present Member, he did that which was considered incorrect, and he was made the subject of a criminal prosecution. It was for distributing a printed paper in the town of Kingston with a view to influence a Jury with reference to a trial respecting the election of Overseers of the Poor, which perhaps might have been done innocently by some persons, but was criminal in him, as it was done to serve private purposes. In this case, it is impossible to mistake the motive of Mr. Hector. Mr. Hector was the person who, before the Committee of the House of Commons, stated himself to be in possession of Mr. Jolliffe’s documents, papers, and records—the Agent who managed his Election Petitions before the Committees, and to whom all his concerns in the Borough were intrusted, and so active has he been for his employer, that he was once the subject of an indictment for a forcible entry into a house in Petersfield in order to prevent the owner voting at the last election against Mr. Jolliffe.
  Mr. Justice BEST.—Were they to meet on the day in question to elect a Mayor?
  Mr. HARRISON.—Yes, my Lord; that was one of the objects of the Meeting.—I apprehend, my Lords, there is no doubt, for it appears in all the books, that the practice is for the Jury to retire for the purpose of considering their presentments. The duties of the Leet Jury were anciently very important; and though some of their functions have, from particular circumstances, ceased, it is essential that those functions which remain should be regulated by the same rules and principles which formerly governed them. Now when they were sitting as Jury to find bills of indictment, it was impossible to imagine that the Steward, who is the Judge of the Court, could legally be closeted with them. Mr. Hector must have been aware that the course he was pursuing was not legal. I am aware that your Lordships have nothing directly to do with the elective franchise, but collaterally through questions arising as to poor’s rates, Mayors of Boroughs, and in many other ways it comes before your Lordships; and I am sure the Court will feel the necessity of their protecting it against the practices of a person in the situation of Mr. Hector, who is the Steward of an individual who has exercised a political influence in the place, and who has been his active agent in all his transactions respecting it; and especially when your Lordships recollect the declaration which was made on the day which gave rise to this application—that the nephew of Mr. Hector’s employer, and the son of the person chosen as the Mayor and returning officer for the Borough, was immediately to be brought forward to represent the place in Parliament.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Did you not state that there is at present pending a prosecution against a person claiming under a similar application?
  Mr. HARRISON.—I did, my Lord; but my affidavits state, that from the defendants delaying to plead, and from his throwing the case over the Summer Assizes, it is expected that there will be another disclaimer. There is, however, this difference between the cases—that the former cases went entirely upon the ground of the Steward’s naming the Jury, and no issue was raised on the fact of his remaining with the Jury whilst they were considering their presentments. In this case we go upon both grounds.
  Mr. Justice BEST.—What do you state about his insisting to be present with the Jury?
  Mr. HARRISON.—Notice was given to him not to be present, and he remained in defiance of the notice.
  Mr. Justice BEST.—Is it not necessary he should be present?
  Mr. HARRISON.—I apprehend not, my Lord: the Jury retire.
  Mr. Justice BEST.—Is that which is done, in the form of a presentment?
  Mr. HARRISON.—Yes, my Lord.
  Mr. Justice BEST.—What has been the practice on former occasions on the election of the Mayor?
  Mr. HARRISON.—In old times the Jury retired, as all other Juries retire; and it is clear that the Steward was not present, for he always assumes the right of correcting matters of form in the presentments, taking care not to alter them in substance, as error in form might occur, as the Jury are closeted without the presence of any person to suggest the terms of them.
  Mr. Justice HOLROYD.—How long has the practice prevailed of the Steward remaining with the Jury?
  Mr. HARRISON.—I believe it has been introduced by Mr. Hector.
  Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—Do any of your affidavits state that the former practice was to allow the Jury to retire by themselves?
  Mr. HARRISON.—I have not an affidavit to that effect.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—If there is an indictment found by the Jury, the Steward is the person to try it.
  Mr. HARRISON.—Certainly, my Lord. He is the Judge of the Court. The notice which we gave to Mr. Hector was in this form :— “We, the undersigned resiants, within the jurisdiction of the above-mentioned Court Leet, and who are also freeholders within the borough of Petersfield, and entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the borough, do hereby protest against your remaining with the Jury which may be impanelled at the said Court Leet on the 14th day of January instant, during the time in which the said Jury are considering the several presentments which they are required to make; such conduct on your part being highly illegal, and subversive of the rights of the Jury and the resiants and freeholders. And we give you notice that should you remain with the said Jury during the time aforesaid, in defiance of this notice, an application will be made to his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench, for leave to file a criminal information against you for wilfully persisting in an illegal course.”
  Mr. Justice BEST.—I do not understand that the Jury themselves protested—they did not object.
  Mr. HARRISON.—It is difficult for us to shew what they themselves did.
  Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—You cannot shew that they protested against it.
  Mr. HARRISON.—No, my Lord, it is hardly to be expected that they should—all the Jury were persons whose names were put upon the precept by Mr. Hector. My two objections are, first, that Mr. Hector nominated the Jury, and that the selection was made for a corrupt purpose; and secondly, that he remained with the Jury, so illegally and corruptly named, during the time they were considering their presentments, in order to influence their election of the Mayor and other Officers.
  Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—It is very desirable that you should lay before the Court the ancient practice—whether it was practice for the Jury to retire.
  Mr. HARRISON.—I have suggested that such affidavits should be furnished.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—You are aware that the Grand Jury of this Court have an officer invariably remaining with them during the whole time. He very often assists them in matters of law which arise.
  Mr. HARRISON.—He is not the Judge of the Court, my Lord.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—No; that may apply very well to the indictments, but not so well to the presentment of particular persons for corporate officers.
  Mr. HARRISON.—Will your Lordship allow me to mention this a day or two hence.
  Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—Certainly, with such affidavits as you may consider necessary.

Salisbury & Winchester Journal

  In the Court of King’s Bench yesterday …
  In the same Court yesterday, Mr. Harrison moved for a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not issue against Mr. Hector, who was steward of the manor and borough of Petersfield, for misconduct in his office when nominating a jury, with the view of serving the Jolliffe interest—The learned counsel being unable to shew the affidavit that Mr. Hector had acted differently from his predecessors in office, the Court refused the rule.

Hampshire Chronicle

  A motion was made on Thursday, by Mr. Harrison, in the Court of King’s Bench, to file a criminal information against Mr. Hector, Steward of the Court Leet of the Manor of Petersfield. The application was made on the ground that Mr. Hector had been guilty of gross misconduct in nominating and remaining with the Jury at the election of Mr. Jolliffe, the Mayor. The election of Mayor in the above borough is by presentment of the Court Leet Jury. Mr. Hector, as it was alleged, contrary to custom, and as the agent of Mr. Jolliffe, remained with the Jury to influence their decision. The principal freeholders, to prevent this practice, which they considered adverse to the right of election, sent Mr. Hector notice that if he persisted in being present with the Jury during the time of making their presentment, application would be made to this Court for a criminal information. Notwithstanding that notice Mr. Hector did remain with the Jury until they presented Mr. Jolliffe as Mayor. Mr. Harrison contended, that this mode of proceeding on the part of the Steward of the Court was contrary to ancient custom, and the right of election. It would also have great effect in preventing a fair return of a Member to Parliament. The Rev. Mr. Jolliffe, who was Lord of the Manor, had the intention of bringing his son in again as one of the Members for the borough, at the next election. The Lord Chief Justice enquired if Mr. Harrison had an affidavit to shew it was formerly the practice of the Steward to retire? Mr. Harrison replied in the negative; on which the Lord Chief Justice observed, it would be much to his interest to lay before the Court what the ancient practice was, and prove this to be an innovation. The Learned Counsel then said he would procure the affidavits the Court considered necessary.
  On the same day, Mr. Gaselee obtained leave to file a quo warranto information against the Rev. W. J. Jolliffe, Mayor of Petersfield, and the brother of the Member for that borough, on the grounds, first, that he had been elected by a Jury, selected and nominated by the Steward, who is the Judge of the Court; and secondly, that the Steward, Mr. C. J. Hector, after nominating the Jury, had remained with them during the time they were retired to consider their presentment, for the purpose of influencing them in the election of the several officers.

Morning Post
  Mr. HARRISON renewed the application which he made a few days ago, for a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Hector, the Steward of the Court Leet of the Borough of Petersfield, for a partial selection of a Jury in order to procure the election of the Rev. W. J. Jolliffe to be Mayor of the Borough for the present year, and for remaining with them after they had been directed to retire. The Learned Counsel said that he had availed himself of their Lordships’ permission to procure such further affidavits as he considered necessary; and that with respect to the practice, upon which this Court had desired to be informed, it appeared from the affidavits which he now had, that Mr. Hector had been in the habit of remaining with the Jury whilst they were considering their presentments, and that Mr. Andrews, the late Steward, had also usually remained with them, though he sometimes withdrew with the other resiants attending the Court. But he submitted that a laxity of practice could not be justified by its continuance, and particularly in the present case, where it had occurred at a period when it was not a matter of interest to any body, and notice had been given as soon as it became so, and it was important to have an impartial Officer elected; that if it was not discontinued, it would be brought under the notice of their Lordships. It also appeared from the affidavits, that certain persons to the number of about twenty, had been invariably selected by Mr. Hector to serve on all Leet Juries since the commencement of the present contests in the borough, and that they were all either the tenants or under the direct influence of Mr. Jolliffe and Mr. Hector, who is that Gentleman’s steward and agent. The affidavits described all the particulars of their connection, and as an instance, he could mention the first on the list, who is the Rev. James Cookson; and it was stated that he had been appointed the Master of a school in Petersfield, in opposition to the statutes which require the Master to be a layman by ——.
  The Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—You need not go through them.
  Mr. HARRISON—There is also, my Lord, in the affidavits, an enumeration of upwards of forty resiants in the place, the greater part of whom have generally attended these Courts Leet, and not one of whom has been named on the Jury. One of the affidavits, which is sworn by nine persons distinctly, states, that they verily believe this selection has been made by Mr. Hector, because he was perfectly aware that if he put any other individuals on a Jury, a Mayor would most probably be elected, who would, by acting impartially, defeat the purposes of the party for whom he acts.
  Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—I think you have stated enough to entitle you to your rule to shew cause.—Take a rule to shew cause.—Rule Nisi granted.

Bury & Norwich Post

  Mr Harrison obtained a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Hector, the steward of Mr. Jolliffe, and the returning officer of Petersfield, for improper conduct at the election of Mayor on the 14th of last month.

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Monday Mr. Coltman moved the Court of King’s Bench, to make the Rule Nisi for a quo warranto information which had been obtained in the case of the King against the Mayor of Petersfield, absolute, which was granted. On the day following Mr. Harrison obtained a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Hector, the steward of Mr. Jolliffe, and the returning officer of Petersfield, for improper conduct at the election of Mayor on the 14th ult.

Morning Post

  After the Surrey Meeting at Epsom, COBBETT accompanied C. J. Hector, Esq. to Petersfield, where he dined with him. From Petersfield he proceeded to Chichester, where he attended public dinner, at which he was the principle speaker.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  THE next MEETING of the TRUSTEES of the above Road, will be held on Monday next the 15th of April, 1822, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, at the Old Town Hall, in Portsmouth

J. S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

Hampshire Chronicle
To the Editor of the Hampshire Chronicle & Courier.
  SIR,—The importance to the public at large of facilitating the communication from the West of England to Sussex through Hants, by way of Winchester, as well as Basingstoke, Alton, Petersfield, &c. is universally admitted, and is now more than ever necessary. The advantages to the trade of the various towns, as well as the agriculture in the several districts by the improvement of the roads in the route alluded to, and increasing the traffic thereon, is so evident, as to demand the active exertions of those respectable individuals who are Commissioners of the various Turnpike Roads. There is no road in the county that requires more alteration than that from the Alton road to Petersfield over the Barnet, and the very steep descent called Stoner’s Hill, which acts almost as a preventive to many travellers taking that route, while the cheapness of labour, and the abundance of materials with which the soil abounds, render it a matter of surprise that this dangerous nuisance should have been permitted to remain so long. In hopes that these remarks may produce some investigation, and that the cause of complaint may either be abated or removed,

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  The next Meeting of the Trustees of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road will be held on Monday the 29th of April, 1822, at the Old Town Hall, in Portsmouth, at eleven o’clock in the Forenoon.

J. S. SHUGAR,    
Clerk to the Trustees 

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by Mr. ABBOTT, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, Hants, on Tuesday the 30th day of April, 1822, at two o’clock, by direction of the surviving Trustee of the late B. White, Esq.,—A valuable FREEHOLD ESTATE, most desirably situate within the Tything of Sheet, and near the Borough of Petersfield; consisting of a Cottage and Garden, Barn, and Out-buildings, and 49 Acres of excellent Arable and Pasture Land, nearly within a Ring Fence, in the occupation of Mr. Blunt, who will deliver up possession at Michaelmas next.
  The Estate may be viewed on application to the Tenant; and particulars may be had at the Place of Sale; at the Crown, Portsmouth; the King’s Arms, Godalming; at the White Hart, Guildford; of Messrs. Jenning and Bolton, 4, Elm-court, Temple; and of Mr. Abbott, Estate Agent and Appraiser, 26, Conduit-street, Bond-street, London.

Hampshire Chronicle

  A detachment of the 58th Regiment, which lately arrived from Jamaica, left Gosport Barracks this morning, for Petersfield, on their route to Chatham. The remainder will proceed on Monday.

Morning Chronicle
  This application was made to the Court by Mr. HARRISON, in the course of last term, for a criminal information against the defendant, who is steward to Mr. Jolliffe, a gentleman who holds considerable property, and necessarily of great influence in the borough of Petersfield.
  Mr. SCARLETT shewed cause against this rule, which had, he said, been obtained on the affidavit of a respectable solicitor, named Atcheson, who charged Mr. Hector with having committed several misdemeanours. It would have been more desirable had these charges assumed a more specific shape, and condescended upon more defined particulars—then they could have been better answered. The real fact was, that Mr. Atcheson, who was a man of property also, had taken up his country residence at Petersfield, and done various acts to demonstrate the interest he was disposed to take in the affairs of the borough. Now the misdemeanours which the defendant had committed were merely a feeling expressive of his determination to prefer the interest of his own patron and friend to that of Mr. Atcheson, in the borough. The affidavit charged Mr. Hector with summoning jurors, and appointing a returning officer for elections of Mayor of the borough, with the view of forwarding the canvassing purposes of Mr. Jolliffe. Now he (Mr. Scarlett) challenged his Learned Friend to point out a single fact to justify the criminal imputations levelled at Mr. Hector. On the face of the proceeding there were certainly no grounds for sustaining a criminal information.
  Mr. HARRISON, in reply, contended that the affidavits filed in Court detailed sufficient matter to support the corrupt interference ascribed to Mr. Hector, and to shew that he selected the jurors for party purposes, and to promote the election of Mr. Jolliffe as Mayor of the borough. The ultimate object was clearly electioneering, and the exclusion of particular and very respectable persons, sufficiently established the motives which governed the defendant.
  In answer to questions from the Court, Mr. HARRISON said that his affidavit did not deny that the object of his clients was also to promote party in the borough. It was silent upon that head, and he believed their motives were pure.
  The Court said, that as other questions were involved in the present, they would postpone delivering their opinion upon the rule until the first day of next term. The Court rose at five o’clock.

Morning Advertiser
  This was an application made by Mr. HARRISON, during the last Term, for a Criminal Information against the defendant, who is steward to Mr. Jolliffe, a Gentleman possessing considerable property and influence in the Borough of Petersfield.
  Mr. SCARLETT shewed cause against the rule, which, he said, had been obtained on the affidavit of Mr. Atcheson, a respectable Solicitor, charging Mr. Hector with various misdemeanors. Now, he wished the charge had been a little more specific, and he should have been better able to have answered it. The fact was, that Mr. Atcheson, who, is a wealthy, had, by some means or other, been induced to select Petersfield as his country, where he first took a furnished house; but liking the place, he had frequently, since his first appearance there, renewed his visit, and no doubt trusted he should be bale to excite such an interest for himself as would obtain for him the object which he seemed to have in view. Now the misdemeanours charged on the defendant seemed to be, that he had preferred his old master’s interests to those of Mr. Atcheson. The affidavits charged Mt. Hector with corrupt conduct, in summoning jurors, and electing returning officers of the Borough, for the purpose of forwarding Mr. Jolliffe’s election. He (Mr. Scarlett) denied that any such construction could be put upon Mr. Hector’s conduct, and contended that there was no grounds whatever for granting a criminal information.
  Mr. HARRISON, in support, of the rule, went through the affidavits, and contended that they afforded full proof of corrupt motives having influenced Mr. Hector in the discharge of his duties as steward of the manor, and that his object, namely, that of promoting the election purposes of Mr. Jolliffe, was obvious.
  The Court, after hearing Counsel on both sides, said, as other questions relative to this subject were pending, they would for the present refrain from giving any opinion on this rule.

Morning Post
  In this case Mr. HARRISON had obtained last term a rule, calling upon the Defendant to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him for certain misdemeanours in the discharge of his office of Steward of the Court Leet of the borough of Petersfield.
  Mr. SCARLETT shewed cause against the rule, which, he said, had been obtained upon the application of Mr. Atcheson, who charged Mr. Hector with having been guilty of several misdemeanors. It would have been desirable, had these charges assumed some specific shape, and been more defined, they could then have been better answered; but they were spread over a vast surface, and contained in extremely long affidavits, which he described as having had a most soporific effect upon his senses. It seemed that Mr. Atcheson had gone down to Petersfield in 1818, and had taken a ready furnished house there, and stood a contest at one of the elections, in which he was not successful, that he had afterwards purchased this house, and made it his Summer residence, where he endeavoured to amuse himself by redressing what he called the grievances and improper practices in the borough. That he had instituted various legal proceedings for obtaining those alterations, which he wanted in order to effect his objects. He had also stood a second contest, in which he and the Gentleman who stood on his interest failed, as they had objected to the admission of certain voters, when a Committee of the House of Commons had decided to be good voters, so that it did not appear that the persons who were appointed Returning Officers under the system of which Mr. Atcheson complained, neglected their duty. It was true, there had been a second Committee, which decided differently from the first, and admitted a more extensive right of voting, and there would now be splitting of freeholds, but then it was only the opinion of one Committee against the other. All these proceedings were detailed in voluminous affidavits with a vast deal of circumstantiality and the utmost minuteness, but they are nothing to the purpose. What was the crime charged against Mr. Hector? He professed he could not tell. He had done no more than his predecessors, and it was no more than expressive of his determination to prefer the interest of his patron and employer, to that of Mr. Atcheson, in the Borough, which was perfectly justifiable. The affidavits stated, that he had selected Jurors, who elect the Returning Officer, with the view of supporting and forwarding the electioneering purposes of Mr. Jolliffe. Now he maintained that that was no crime. Mr. Hector was not bound to appoint a Jury, who would effect Mr. Atcheson’s objects. Mr. Jolliffe might then complain that he had not done his duty to him; and, if he appointed six on one side, and six on another, possibly no Mayor at all would be elected, and what then was to be done? He challenged his Learned Friends to point out one single fact to justify the criminal imputations levelled at Mr. Hector. All the allegations contained in the affidavits on the other side were denied by the affidavits which he had filed; and he submitted that on the face of the proceedings there were certainly no grounds for sustaining a criminal information.
  Mr. ADAM and Mr. MEREWEATHER followed on the same side.
  Mr. HARRISON, in support of the rule said, that he could easily believe that the affidavits in this case had produced upon his Learned Friend, Mr. Scarlett, the soporific effect which he had ascribed to them, since he professed not to have discovered the charges against Mr. Hector, for they were broadly and distinctly stated, and not one of them had Mr. Hector found it convenient to answer. He had sworn that it had been his practice to remain with the Jury during their deliberations, and for the Steward of the Court to name on the back of the precept to the bailiff, the persons whom he wished to have summoned as Jurors. What then was the case made out? That a practice had prevailed in this borough, a practice which he contended was illegal, and of mischievous tendency, for the Steward of the Court Leet, who is a public Officer, and the Judge of the Court, as he should shew, to nominate and select the Jury, who are to present the Officers and decide the matters which are inquired of at the Leet; and that it had also been the practice for the Steward not to retire with the other resiants but to remain closeted with the Jury during the time they were considering their verdict. This practice he submitted, was both illegal and inconsistent with the oath administered to the Jury—“The King’s, their own, and their companions counsel to keep;” for how could it be kept when a person was present to whom the same oath was not administered. However, such was the practice; and he admitted that he could not, however illegal it was, and however bad in itself, support his application, if he could only shew that Mr. Hector had merely adhered to it. Admitting, therefore, for the present, that the practice was legal, he contended that it was Mr. Hector’s duty to exercise the powers with which that practice invested him in a fair and impartial manner, and not for the purpose of promoting any private object, or supporting the interest of any particular individual; and the charge preferred against Mr. Hector was that he had acted most partially and most corruptly, in selecting only such persons to serve on the leet jury as were the dependants of Mr. Jolliffe, or his avowed partizans, and studiously excluding all other persons. This charge Mr. Hector had not condescended to answer, and it would be seen that he had persevered in this improper course after he had received repeated warnings, and on the last occasion a written notice, signed by fourteen most respectable inhabitants of the town, that it was their intention to apply to the Court for a criminal information, if he did so. It was said by the other side that Mr. Hector had answered these charges. Now he would read the allegations as they were stated in the affidavits of several individuals, and then he would read the answers from the affidavits filed by Mr. Hector. The allegations were that Mr. Hector “had been in the habit of selecting and nominating such persons only for jurors as were the tenants or under the influence of himself or Mr. Jolliffe, and whom as the deponents verily believed, he had reason to expect would present such individuals to serve the office of Mayor as would be subservient to the purposes of the said Hylton Jolliffe, and that he had invariably excluded, with very few exceptions, and those exceptions at periods when no contest for the borough was expected, from the Jury all such persons as were known or supposed to be not under the influence of Mr. Jolliffe, and that in consequence, the personal friends and most strenuous supporters of Mr. Jolliffe were the only persons elected to serve the office of Mayor.” The affidavits then went on state the names of about thirty persons, from whom Mr. Hector had selected the Leet Juries within the last four or five years,—and they detailed a variety of circumstances to shew their connection with Mr. Jolliffe. He should not trouble the Court with going through the whole of them, but he should confine himself to a few, as examples of the kind of persons whom Mr. Hector considered most fit and proper to serve on the Jury. The first which he put his hand on was the name of a person, who had served in every one of the Juries, and who, the affidavits stated, had formerly been a baker—that he was a tenant under Mr. Jolliffe, of some property, consisting of stables and premises which were of considerable value to him—that he had represented himself as a freeholder, and voted for Mr. Jolliffe, and that he had attended during the polling at the election in 1820, and assisted Mr. Jolliffe’s party in objecting to the votes of their opponents, and afterwards attended as a witness for Mr. Jolliffe in the Committee of the House of Commons, and that in the course of his cross-examination before the Committee of Appeal, he admitted that he obtained the freehold tenement for which he voted through the means of Mr. Hector, the agent of Mr. Jolliffe, to whom the tenement belonged; and that he had never paid for it, though he had twice voted for it. Another person whom Mr. Hector had been in the habit of selecting was Mr. Meeres, the person who had twice disclaimed the office of Mayor, and who acted as the Foreman of the Jury on the last occasion. The affidavits stated that this individual had always shewn himself a most decided and active partisan of Mr. Jolliffe’s, and afterwards attended the House of Commons as one of Mr. Jolliffe’s witnesses; and the deponents swore to their conviction that Meeres would propose to the Jury, and use his influence with them to present such persons only to the office of Mayor as would support Mr. Jolliffe’s influence, and that he would oppose the election of any other person that might be proposed. He should not trouble the Court by going over the whole list; the same imputations were charged against all of them. The affidavits did not stop here; they went on to enumerate the names of upwards of forty other persons, none of whom, except two or three, had ever served on the Jury, though they had been in the habit of attending the Court Leet, and were as fit and as respectable as those selected by Mr. Hector, and they were not the partizans of Mr. Jolliffe.
  Chief-Justice ABBOTT.—Is it stated that they are not of Mr. Atcheson’s party?
  Mr. HARRISON.—My affidavits state that these persons are eligible and well qualified to serve on the Leet Jury, and that they are not of the party of Mr. Jolliffe. They do not go further. It was not necessary. Your Lordships, I apprehend, have nothing to do with consequences, whether your decision will throw the influence on the one side or the other, and therefore though you will not interfere for electioneering purposes, I apprehend it is the peculiar duty of the Court to guard the elective franchise, and to see that all the offices connected with its exercise are fairly and impartially administered, and not perverted to promote the interests of private individuals. It is not stated whether these individuals are of Mr. Atcheson’s party, and protecting their rights.
  Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Your argument is, that there being a considerable number of persons qualified to serve on the Jury, the nomination has been confined to a few who are decidedly favourable to a particular interest, and that the Steward being a public officer he was bound to discharge his duty without favour or bias to any party.
  Mr. HARRISON.—Yes, My Lord, that is my argument. The Learned Counsel went on to say, that the affidavits had enumerated a variety of facts to shew the corrupt motive which had influenced Mr. Hector in the discharge of his office, none of which had he answered. His Learned Friends observed he had answered the charge. He would read the answer from his affidavits, and their Lordships would see what kind of answer it was. The affidavit stated that he had been accustomed at all times to nominate upon the precept, and “caused to be summoned such persons as in due discharge of his office of Steward he had thought most fit and proper to serve upon the same, and that he had exercised such power of nomination in selecting respectable and proper persons.” Then he said that nearly the whole of the inhabitants of the borough are tenants or quit rent payers to Mr. Jolliffe. What kind of tenants? Tenants on leases for 999 and 10,000 years, who paid a shilling quit rent. What dependence could there be of such persons on Mr. Jolliffe? The affidavit further stated, that “the Jury selected on the 14th of January last were of such respectable persons as were most fit and proper according to the judgement of the deponent, and not selected with any view to secure the election of the Rev. W. J. Jolliffe as Mayor of the Borough.” It does not say, “or of such persons only as were the personal friends or most strenuous supporters of Mr. Jolliffe’s interest.” It does not state that he selected them without regard to the individual to be elected Mayor—it does not state that they were fairly and impartially selected—it does not account for the constant selection of the same persons, or for the invariable exclusion of all others. It does not deny that there were many other persons as respectable and as well fitted to be Jurors, except that they might not be so convenient for his patron’s purposes, as those whom he has been in the habit of nominating. Upon all these points I contend he was bound to give specific answers, and that they were essential to satisfy the Court that he had not used the powers of his office for a corrupt and criminal purpose. All that he has done is to deny that he selected the Jury in order to procure in particular the election off the Rev. Mr. Jolliffe. That is not our charge. Our charge is general of a selection to procure the election of some person favourable to Mr. Jolliffe’s views, and to secure the exclusion of all other persons, and it is unanswered. When the Jury was selected, it is possible that he did not know, or that it was not settled who should be Mayor. Upon these grounds, I contend that I am entitled to have any rule made absolute, and that no answer has been given to the charges upon which my application for the rule in the first instance was grounded.
  Mr. GAZELEE and Mr. COLTMAN followed on the same side, and contended that the affidavits furnished the strongest evidence that Mr. Hector had violated the duties of his office by maintaining a standing Jury so support Mr. Jolliffe’s interest; that he had been guilty on several occasions of very violent and improper conduct during the contests in the Borough, and that he had totally failed in answering the charges preferred against him in this instance, and that a strong case had been made out for the interposition of the Court, and for making an example which should secure the fair and impartial exercise of the discretionary powers vested in persons holding offices of public trust and importance.
  Mr. ADAM and Mr. MEREWETHER, in reply, contended that Mr. Hector had rebutted the charge of selecting the Jury with a view of procuring the election of the Rev. Mr. Jolliffe to be Mayor, and that he had shewn it to be the custom of his predecessors to nominate the Jury, and to remain with them during their deliberations; and that he had distinctly repelled the charge of having used any improper influence during that time on the occasion in question, as he only interfered to answer a inquiry of one of the Jury as to Mr. Jolliffe’s being qualified to be Mayor. That he ought not to be visited with the heavy penalties of a criminal information, because he had not gone back to defend his conduct during a period of four years; or, because he had not answered the whole of a general charge, when he had answered that part which applied to the most recent occasion. That the parties making the application ought to be contented, as they had put the questions relating to the points which led to the grievance, and to Mr. Hector’s right of nomination in a course of trial.
  The COURT said that the right to exercise the powers claimed by Mr. Hector, and the mode of exercising them were distinct questions, that at present they had only to consider the latter.
  Mr. MEREWETHER submitted, that with regard to the letter Mr. Hector had answered as much of the charge as was necessary, and he trusted their Lordships would discharge the rule.
  The COURT, after taking upwards of half an hour to consider their judgement said, that as their opinion in the present question, either one way or the other might influence the questions relating to the right which were to be tried at the Summer Assizes, they should suspend their judgement till the first day of next Michaelmas Term.

Hampshire Chronicle

  The sum of £7 5s. was collected at the small parish of Ovington, near Alresford, on Sunday, after a sermon preached in behalf of the distressed Irish—We observe also that the undermentioned sums have been received by the Committee in London, from the following places, viz.:—Petersfield, £15 …

Hampshire Chronicle

Rex v. Jolliffe (S. J.)—This was a quo warranto information, filed against the Rev. W. H. Jolliffe, for unlawfully exercising the office of Mayor of the Borough of Petersfield. There were 18 issues in the pleadings, and the case excited considerable interest. Mr. Adam (with whom was Mr. Frederick Williams, and Mr. Merewether) said, this was an important question, which, a few years ago the Jury hardly would have been expected to decide in that Court, because a more regular mode of proceeding could not be found in any place in the kingdom, which had continued till the year 181, when Mr. Atcheson, a respectable attorney, residing in London, thought fit to make an attempt to overturn the undeviating course pursued in this borough, from time immemorial, and disturb the peace which prevailed in it; but he did not mean to convey any reflection by this remark, and should confine himself to the question upon which they had to decide. In this borough there was a Court Leet, and the question was whether the Jury had been properly appointed or not. When the bailiff assembled the resients, it had been his invariable custom to put the names of those who had served the office of Jurors on the back of the precept. Now Mr. Atcheson contended, that the bailiff, and not the steward, ought to appoint the Jurors; but the custom would be proved always to have been as he had before stated. He should be able to shew, as far back as living memory went, that this had been the unvaried course pursued. The gentlemen of the Jury, in giving their decision on this important subject, he trusted would bear in mind that they were not deciding for Petersfield alone, but in reference to the general law of the land. Another objection made to Mr. Jolliffe’s election was, that the Steward to the Court Leet, on the Jury retiring to make their presentments, had been in the habit of attending them, while they were so doing. The next question was on the necessity of the Mayor’s residence at Petersfield. It was maintained that his place of domicile should be within the precincts of that borough; but if he could show that 20 or 30 years ago there were many Mayors who did not reside in Petersfield, it was proof that it was unnecessary, and he therefore thought that a verdict could not be given against his client on this account. Petersfield is no Corporation—the Mayor is not a Magistrate, by virtue of his office—he exercises no official duty as a Justice of the Peace—his chief duty being to return Members to Parliament for Petersfield; and no one could have supposed that a respectable attorney would have taken so much trouble, to spend his time and money, in endeavouring to unship an old interest, and substitute a new one. He should shew that the Court Leet, in January 1822, was properly appointed, and the Jurors duly sworn, and consisting of as many as the usage and custom of the place required, who were duly nominated by the steward. After some further observations the Learned Counsel called Mr. James Channon, who had been clerk to Mr. Andrews, the late steward of the manor. Being shewn two presentments, dated 18th January, 1822, he stated that they were in his writing, and that he knew the majority of the Jurors whose names were written on them. He corroborated the statement made by Mr. Adam, that it had been generally the custom for the steward to select the Jurors at the Court Leet, and to retire with them after they were sworn, to make their presentments. He knew Mr. Hilton Jolliffe, who is lord of the manor, and brother of the present defendant.—The tenor of his cross-examination was that out of about 200 houses in Petersfield, 80 or 90 are the property of Mr. Hilton Jolliffe; that the Leet Jury was generally chosen from the householders, and selected by Mr. Andrews. Mr. James Seward, clerk to Mr. Hector, was next examined, and his testimony was nearly to the same effect. Mr. Gaselee, in the course of cross-examination, elicited from him that the major part of the persons composing the Court Leet, either rented of or paid quit rent to Mr. Jolliffe.
  Mr. Serjeant Pell, in an eloquent speech, addressed the Jury in support of the prosecution. After some preliminary observations, he said, he had made a little hole and covered it lightly, in the expectation that his Learned Friend, on the opposite side, would fall into it. He had called no witnesses for the prosecution, for he knew that the case would ultimately be a question of law, after the Jury had decided on the facts of this important case—as important a one as ever came on to be tried at these Assizes. The question was, whether Mr. Jolliffe should continue to exercise the office of Mayor of Petersfield or not—and who was to be the returning officer for Petersfield; for the Mayor of this borough had no other duties to perform, except of a nominal nature. His Learned Friend had wandered out of his course when he introduced the name of the prosecutor in the present action, than whom a more respectable & intelligent individual could not be found. His Learned Friend, however, had stated, that till the year 1818, the peace of the borough had not been disturbed till Mr. Atcheson, the attorney from the city of London, came down to Petersfield for the express purpose of interrupting it; but he (Sergeant Pell) would say, let any man come forward and attempt to set that right which was wrong. This borough, he supposed, was to be considered private property; but he would tell his Learned Friend, that it was public property, and every man in the country had a direct interest in every place which sent Members to Parliament; and, forsooth, because a gentleman had thought the return had been illegally made, and the proceedings irregular, was he to be designated as a disturber of the public peace, and an invader of private rights? This was language not consistent with the first principles of the Constitution under which we live; and though no man feared the consequences of innovations upon ancient customs and established rules more than himself, still he would say that man was the best benefactor of his country who brought back, as far as he could, things to that original state in which they ought to be found. Having relieved himself from the imputation of designing to break into that which was the law of the land, he hoped the Jury would be convinced that the course he was pursuing was in order to conform to it. This mode of election had been termed by one of his Learned Friends opposed to him, the custom of the borough; but they had adduced no proof that it came within the legal meaning of the term—having its origin under a prescriptive right. Nothing had done more mischief in this kingdom than the perversion of that which was mere usage into that which was erroneously supposed to be custom. Nothing was more dangerous than confounding these terms which were so widely different in import. If he spoke of custom, he alluded to some remote period of antiquity, and having a reasonable foundation for its origin; but, with regard to the plea of custom, set up in this case, here is the steward to the lord of the manor of Petersfield to issue his precept to the bailiff of that borough, and by that precept he is to obtain the return of a number of persons who are to form the Court Leet; the steward may nominate the various persons whom the bailiff is to warn or summon. This mode of proceeding was utterly inconsistent with the principles of our Constitution, and therefore, were it in usage of 100 years standing, it could not be supported on that account. The Learned Serjeant then called upon the Jury for a special verdict, for although he had not the slightest doubt of his Lordship’s judgement, he requested this, in order that it might have that due deliberation in another Court, which it could not receive there. It was absurd that a Mayor should have no other duties to perform but that of returning members to Parliament; here was a borough and no corporation, which was equally absurd; and here was Petersfield governed by a Mayor, chosen at a Court Leet, having no duties to perform, and his residence in the borough not necessary. Here was a Jury selected, nominated, and appointed, to discharge a public duty, who were taken by that individual who had the greatest interest in the election. This was a perfect mockery, and, without meaning to say that the defendant on the record would do anything improper—
  Mr. Adam here stated that he had misinterpreted what had fallen from the Learned Judge. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to state that he should endeavour to show that this usage which had prevailed a long time, was a reasonable and eligible custom. He had never stated this to be an invasion of private right; he had asserted that Mr. Atcheson had disturbed the peace of the borough, by repeated contested elections; but to impute to him that he had disturbed Mr. Jolliffe’s private rights was not founded in fact, as he had never attempted to deny that they were public rights. The Learned Gentleman then went on to maintain that evidence of an uniform course of usage for 20 years, and he could have proved it much farther back, was sufficient to establish, for the doctrine of presumption had never been shaken. How would they be able to shew their right to the property of their ancestors? He therefore submitted that there could be no ground for saying that the usage of modern times was not to affect their judgement. The point of the contest, in the present case, was, whether the steward or the bailiff was to choose the Jury. Now this was a very important Court Leet, and were the Jury then not to be chosen by the steward, who, of the two, was the most disinterested person? He considered the present mode of election the most eligible, and not at all singular, as it had been termed by his Learned Friend, for it prevailed in many places. If, then, the Jury were satisfied that this mode of election had prevailed for the time he had mentioned, it was sufficient for them to say that it was the legal course. Mr. Adam then contended that the presence of the steward, when the Jurors were making their presentments, was not improper; on the contrary, should any thing out of the ordinary course happen, he was on the spot to direct them, and so far from the circumstance being without precedent, it was well known that the officer of the Court of King’s Bench always attended the Jury in their room. The security of the inhabitants of Petersfield was the certainty of the punishment that would follow any dereliction of duty. The Learned Gent. Concluded a very ingenious and able address by expressing the regret he felt that the misapprehension of what had fallen from his Learned Friend should have made it necessary for him again to trouble them, and trusted that his unintentional error would not be prejudicial to the interests of Mr. Jolliffe.
  Serjeant Pell resumed. Mr. Jolliffe, after this, certainly could not complain that any opportunity was neglected to obtain justice for him. He should maintain that the question for the Jury was, whether this course had prevailed from time immemorial. The period of 18 years could not warrant that construction, and no known law sanctioned it; yet his Learned Friend had laboured to establish this fact, which he could not sustain upon any legal principle. What was the principle in the case of a modus for instance, which in itself was a most unreasonable payment made in respect of tithes? Why, the parties, to establish it, must shew its existence for 100 years, or even so far back as the time of Richard I. which is the date of all immemorial usage; then the argument against its payment must be, that in its nature it was unreasonable. As the contested elections had been alluded to, in consequence of what Mr. Atcheson had done—(The Learned Sergeant was told from the Bench that he was deviating from the regular course of argument.) If so, he forbore to press the observation, or to say whether Petersfield had received any benefit or not from that gentleman’s exertions. Having dwelt on the circumstance, that Mr. Hector had not been called, and drawn an inference that his presence in the witness box would have been unfavourable to the defendant, he asked where were the Court Rolls of the borough before 1802, and the presentments before that period?—Were they all locked up in Mr. Hector’s house? Or, perhaps, they were deposited in his green bag. They had all heard of a green bag, and he suspected Mr. Hector had a very large one. Where were the notable papers on which the Jury were to form an opinion that this was a custom from time immemorial? But was the steward of the manor to warn the bailiff what people were to serve on Juries, and to be present at their presentments? Certainly not. Having noticed the case of the King v. Bingham, in support of his argument, Sergeant Pell proceeded. Perhaps the steward was supposed to be so much more wise in these matters, that it was thought right to vest him with this particular power; but the usage here shewn was no legal evidence of custom, and would not support the principle of immemorial practice. The Learned Serjeant then quoted a passage from a work furnished by Mr. Merewether, in which the author notices the incroachment on the elective franchise, which, he observes, is insidiously and cautiously made, advancing step by step, and too well disguised to arouse the attention of those who are dispossessed by it.—He recollected an instance in Buckinghamshire, though, thank God, it occurred many years ago, where a lady returned two Members of Parliament; and if the doctrine laid down by his Learned Friend were to obtain, they would find that all the old ladies in the kingdom would be sending Members to Parliament. The Learned Serjeant, in conclusion, said that he had stated all the facts of this important case, and if the Jury coincided in opinion with him, their decision would have the effect of bringing things back where they ought to be; they would maintain the purity of the elective franchise, which was the palladium of our liberties.
  The Learned Judge (Burrough), in summing up, said, the Jury must entirely throw out of their consideration, whether Mr. Atcheson had done right or wrong, as that had nothing to do with the question, and they must confine themselves strictly to the record. Something had been said about the steward not having been called. This certainly was a matter of choice, and if the defendant had not thought proper to call him, the prosecutor might have so done. This borough appeared to be constituted by prescription, and not by charter, and all its branches by usage. They would find that there had been Courts Leet, at which the Mayor had been always elected. His Lordship argued in favour of the doctrine of presumption, the principle of which was well laid down by my Lord Coke, who said that, “slight evidence unanswered amounts to cogent proof.” Why then were they to infer that the practice at Petersfield was illegal? If it were proved to have existed 20 years ago, and the contrary not shown, they were to presume that it existed long ago. The evidence was all on one side, and none had been adduced by the other; and if this evidence were correct, and no answer given to it, then Lord Coke placed it in as strong a light as possible. They were pressed very hard to find that it was not a custom, because it had not existed farther back than 20 years; but though this borough sent Members to Parliament, it was highly probable that the Court Leet, with all its privileges, might have existed long before Petersfield sent Members to Parliament. Some years ago, when a Member was returned to Parliament, he was obliged to attend, and the service was considered a burthen and inconvenience. His journey to town was like Sir Francis Wronghead in the play; he took about six weeks to get to town, and the same time to return, but in those times they were paid for the job; now, however, it was widely different; great anxiety was evinced on the subject, as the House of Commons presented so grand a forum for making speeches. His Lordship having commented on the mode of election, and the Constitution of the Courts Leet, adverted to the testimony, which he said, went as far back as 1798; and if they were of the opinion the evidence was unanswered, they would find it was the custom of the borough. The other points would be reserved for the opinion of the Courts above. With respect to the Mayor’s residence, they had no evidence that he was compelled to live within the precincts of the borough. Two instances were known when the Mayor did not so reside; and the other side, to establish this part of their case, ought to have shewn that the residence of the Mayor was imperative; but he was not a Justice of the Peace. In cases where they had various duties to perform it might be necessary because they could not properly exercise their duties without it. They would take these circumstances into their consideration, and return a special verdict, and then he hardly knew how he could put the case in any shape satisfactory to the Counsel for the prosecution.
  The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant, observing they had no doubt as to the usage from custom. The questions at law are therefore to be specially argued, the Learned Judge observing, that this case, which contained so many issues, was like a game at nine-pins—knock the first pin down, and the rest follow of course.

Morning Post
Quo Warranto.—Special Jury.

  This important case occupied the Court upwards of six hours. The following is a brief statement of the trial.
  Mr. CARTER opened the information on the part of the Crown, against the Rev. Wm. John Joliffe, Mayor of the borough of Petersfield: and Mr. Sergeant PELL and Mr. GASELEE followed on the same side.—The issues were 18 in number.
  Mr. ADAMS, Mr. MERRYWEATHER, and Mr. WILLIAMS, conducted the defence; and the Learned Counsel (Mr. ADAMS) submitted that he should be entitled to a verdict in favour of his client, the Rev. Mr. Joliffe. The peace of the borough, he said, had never been disturbed until the year 1818, until Mr. Atcheson attempted to overturn the immemorial usage and custom long established; and contended that the election of the Mayor was good by nomination of the Steward to the Jury at the Court Leet, and put in various presentments to that effect.
  Mr. Sergeant PELL, in a luminous address to the Jury, contended against the usage and custom, because no interruption had been made to the election of a Mayor, who had no duty to perform but to return Members for the borough to Parliament, and that the presentment should be by the Bailiff, and not by the Steward. Several witnesses were called as to whether the Mayor should not have been, previous to his election, a resident, which it appeared the Rev. Mr. Joliffe had not been, although he had a house in the borough; but then it was proved in evidence that two Mayors had before been elected who were not resident in the Borough at the time. Mr. ADAMS contended, that it had always been the custom from 1801 to the present time, a period of a more than 20 years, to elect the Mayor, which constituted a right. The Learned JUDGE, in charging the Jury, quoted Lord Coke and various authorities as to ancient usages and customs, and left them to say whether the law of ancient customs so long established should be altered.
  The Jury found as follows: “We find the usage from custom.” When Serjeant PELL addressed his Lordship, who directed the Jury to find for the Defendant, subject to be turned into a special verdict, with liberty to apply to the Courts above.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth & Petersfield Turnpike Road.
  The next Meeting of the Trustees of the Portsmouth and Petersfield Turnpike Road will be held on Monday the 5th of August, 1822, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, at the Old Town Hall, in Portsmouth, on special business

J. S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

Hampshire Chronicle

  Many of the principal inhabitants of Petersfield, with a view to promote the security and convenience of the town, have laudably entered into a subscription for lighting the streets during the ensuing winter. Nearly fifty lamps have already been provided, and an additional number will be used, as circumstances may appear to require.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  DISGRACEFUL OCCURRENCE.—A Correspondent informs us that a person in Petersfield—we have his name and calling—“actually offered a sovereign to the ringers of the church bells of that town to ring a merry peal in consequence of the lamented decease of the Marquis of Londonderry"! The wretch found his offer spurned at by those to whom it was made.

Hampshire Telegraph

  The Annual Meeting of the Petersfield Agricultural Society was held at Petersfield, on Tuesday the 13th day of August. The Exhibition of Stock took place in a field belonging to John Shackleford, Esq. adjoining the town. The Stock produced was considered to be of the first description, and gave great satisfaction to the company present, which chiefly consisted of Farmers and Breeders of Stock, and it was much regretted that several gentlemen who formerly patronised the Shew by their personal attendance, were absent upon the occasion, and upon the whole, the meeting was thinly attended, and did not go off with that spirit which had been observed heretofore. The utmost harmony prevailed at the dinner, which was served by Deane, at the Dolphin Inn, in his usual excellent manner, and a conversation connected with Agricultural subjects kept up during the day. It seemed to be the prevailing opinion that the capital of the Yeomanry was rapidly declining, and that they were totally unable to sustain the present weight of taxes, tythes, rates and other outgoings; and that an overwhelming crisis was approaching. Several practical farmers gave their opinion upon the subject of Rents and outgoing, and it was stated that if the present tenantry of the country and their families were reduced or annihilated, the land would go into hands unequal in skill and capital either to employ or to administer the necessary relief to the poor, thereby creating not only much local distress and inconvenience, but considerably augment the existing difficulties of the country in general.
  Mr. Ellman, of Glynde, the celebrated breeder of South Down Stock, was present, and addressed the company in a clear and perspicuous speech upon the distressed state of the Agricultural interest, which he attributed chiefly to the great weight of taxation under which the country laboured, and which, in his opinion, entirely prevented the tenantry from getting remunerating prices for their produce.
  After the prizes were distributed by Mr. Jas. White of Paulsgrove, who presided in the absence of Richard Norris, Esq. President of the Society, a Resolution was entered into by the Subscribers (for which see Advertisement), and the company separated under the pleasing hope, that although they could not any longer continue their exertions for the improvement of stock, they might, by their intended meetings, conduce not only to the benefit of the tenantry of the country, but also of the Landed proprietors, whose interests are inseparably connected with those of their tenants.

Hampshire Chronicle
Petersfield Agricultural Society.
  At the Annual Meeting of the Subscribers to the above Society, held at the Dolphin Inn, in Petersfield, on Tuesday the 13th day of August, 1822, the Resolution of the Managing Committee on the 19th of June, stating that from the little prospect of relief from the Government, either as regarded the Agricultural Interest or those of other Classes of Society, it should be submitted to the Members at their next Annual Meeting, to take into consideration, whether, under such circumstances, it would be worth while any longer to continue their exertions; and such recommendation having been read, it was unanimously resolved,—
  “That, under the present existing taxation and other burthens, pressing as they do more heavily on the Landed Interest than on any other class of society, and it being stated by the Ministers that over production was the cause of such depression; and it being the opinion of the Meeting, that as such over production must have been partly occasioned by the great improvement in all branches of agriculture, any longer continuance of societies of this description would rather tend to increase than lessen the evil; and, therefore, it was resolved, that this Society should be discontinued :— but it was recommended that a Club should be formed of such members who were present, and others who choose to belong to it, in order to confer with similar societies in other parts of the country, for the purpose of endeavouring to ameliorate the condition on the Agricultural Interest; and that the first Meeting of such Club be held at the Dolphin Inn, in Petersfield, on Tuesday the 22d day of October next, at one o’clock in the afternoon.”

Saunders's News-Letter

  We adverted, on Wednesday last, in terms of indignation and disgust, to the brutal conduct displayed by a part of the rabble at the funeral of the late Marquis of Londonderry. We stated, also, what we believed to have been the operating causes of that conduct—the writings of the seditious press. The same causes have produced, if not the same, at least analogous, consequences, in other places besides the Metropolis. It is with shame and humiliation we state, upon the authority of a Provincial Paper, and of a private letter, that in two villages, the church bells actually rang a rejoicing peal, when the intelligence of the melancholy catastrophe arrived? This is not a question of political feeling; it is one of a much deeper and a much more serious character. It involves the moral habits and dispositions of the people of this country, and forebodes awful results to us all. The terrific depravity of mind which can savagely exult at such a deplorable event, in every point of view, as that we now allude to, must fit its possessor for the perpetration of any crime, however bloody and detestable, which could be safely committed. We do most firmly and conscientiously believe, that the wretch who can smile in triumph over the bleeding corpse of a good man, whose own frenzied hand had hurried him before his MAKER, is one, who wants that opportunity to riot in blood and murder.—Good God! Let us admit, to its fullest extent, all that is asserted by these miscreants—let us allow, that the late Marquis of Londonderry was, and deserved to be, an unpopular Minister; still he was a man—aye, and a man whom his worst enemies allowed to have teemed with every private and domestic virtue. Is, then, the death of such a man, under any circumstances and, least of all, under such sad ones as terminated his earthly career—to be made a theme for devilish joy? Oh! Shame to England, that she has nourished in her bosom such degenerate sons! The existence of but one such being would be enough to fix a blot upon the country; yet, we fear that there are many, many, upon whom the irreligious and demoralising writings of the present age have worked this fearful change. These too—and let it not be forgotten while we live—these are the men who are seeking to gain ascendancy; these are the persons who tell us we are misgoverned, who call for Reform, who affect patriotism, who cry aloud that till we change our masters, we can have no public prosperity or private happiness.—Courier.
  The following are the two cases to which we alluded at the commencement of this article.—A Correspondent from Portsmouth writes thus :—
  “In consequence of your remarks, in the Courier of yesterday on a very disgraceful occurrence that took place at the funeral of late lamented Marquis of Londonderry, at the door of the Abbey, I send you an account of a similar disgraceful scene that actually took place at Hambledon, a short distance from this.—When his Lordship’s death was first made known in the village, a subscription was immediately set on foot, and the church bells actually rung for a considerable time in the evening, by way of rejoicing. It is worthy of remark that the Rector of the Parish, who resides in the village, is respectably connected, and is one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, yet he suffered the Church to be disgraced in this way. How different did the ringers at Petersfield act. When a contemptible pettifogging Lawyer sent them a sovereign to ring a merry peal on the occasion, they returned it back with disdain, stating, that if they did ring, it would be gratia, with the bells masked, when the funeral should take place.”

Saunders's News-Letter

  We have inserted, in our preceding page, two letters from Petersfield, selected from several others which we have received, relating to the individual who, as we are informed, offered a sovereign to the church ringers if they would ring a merry peal on the melancholy event of the late Marquess of Londonderry’s death.—When we first alluded to that circumstance, we did so upon no anonymous authority, and the communications we have since received, also authenticated by names, leave us little room to doubt that it actually occurred. We are now called upon to give the name of the person who so conducted himself, in justice to the other inhabitants of Petersfield, and we do think we are bound to obey this call. We state, then, that Mr. J. Hector is the individual who has been represented to us as having made the offer in question. If it be in his power to disprove the assertion of our correspondents, he will thank us for giving him the opportunity; if he cannot we leave him to reconcile such conduct, with what should have been the feelings of a liberal mind, upon the occasion alluded to, in the best way he can. Since the affair was first mentioned, we have had several communications, and none of them anonymous, respecting Mr. Hector’s general character, his political sentiments, and other circumstances. With all these, however we have nothing to do. We indulge in no private attacks. The particular transaction which we have reprobated, was a public offence; an offence against public decency and public feeling. To expose to just animadversion such offences, is the duty of a Journalist, for it operates as a wholesome check upon their repetition. We shall only add, that Mr. Hector, of whom we know nothing personally, is described to us as the agent of Hylton Joliffe, Esq. (Member for Petersfield), an attorney, a banker, and a public brewer.—Courier.

Hampshire Chronicle

  The only impediment to making an excellent road from the northern part of Hampshire, into Sussex, by way of Basingstoke and Midhurst, appears to be the want of immediate funds, and an Act of Parliament, either to extend the powers of the Commissioners under the Portsmouth Road Act, or to establish a new trust, to embrace both the road from Alton, as well as from Alresford to Petersfield. It appears that the trustees of the St. Albans, Bilston, and Wolverhampton Roads, and in various other districts, have borrowed money of the Exchequer Bill Commissioners, for the improvement of these roads; and there is no do doubt but that they would lend an adequate sum to make the communication complete between Hampshire and Sussex, which is now so much wanted, from the great intercourse with the Sussex Coast.

Hampshire Chronicle

  Died on Tuesday last, at Bramshot, near Petersfield, deservedly respected, Mr. Walter Butler, solicitor, of Havant, leaving a widow and five children to mourn the loss of an amiable and affectionate husband and father.

Hampshire Chronicle
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That the next MEETING of the TRUSTEES of the above Road, is appointed for Monday the 7th day of October next, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, at the Dolphin Inn, in Petersfield, for the purpose of receiving Tenders from such Persons as may be desirous of Contracting for the CARTAGE of such quantity of FLINTS as may be required for the repairs of the above Line of Road, from the said 7th day of October to the first Monday in the month of July next; and also for the purpose of ELECTING a proper Person to be SURVEYOR of the same Line of Road, in the place and stead of James Jeffries, the late Surveyor; and on other Affairs.
  The respective distances to which the Flints will be required to be Carted, and any other particulars respecting the same, may be known by applying at my office, at Petersfield.

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

  23rd September, 1822

Hampshire Chronicle
  LIST of Persons who have obtained GENERAL CERTIFICATES, at the Rate of Three Pounds Thirteen Shillings and Sixpence each, for the Year 1822.
  …Chase, John, Petersfield, … Greetham, C esq, Petersfield, … Hector, John, Petersfield, … Leer, George, Petersfield, … Meeres, John, esq Petersfield, … Patrick, George, Petersfield, … Whicher, Rev John, Petersfield, …

Morning Post
  The streets of this Borough were publicly lighted with oil lamps for the first time this night. The expences incurred by it are defrayed by the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants; and it is expected the lamps will regularly be lighted every succeeding year, from this period, by the continuance of a spirited and liberal subscription for the purpose.
Morning Post

  BIRTH— …
  On the 3d inst. at Fair Oak Lodge, near Petersfield, the Hon. Lady Paget, of a daughter.

Hampshire Chronicle
Portsmouth and Sheet Bridge
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That the next Meeting of the Commissioners of the Sheet Bridge and of the above Road, is appointed for Monday the 21st day of October, 1822, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon.

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

Morning Post
  …; Roderick Impey Murchison, Esq. Mrs. Murchison, and Mr. De Melet, at Marshal Thompson’s Hotel, from Petersfield; …

Hampshire Telegraph

  Died, on Saturday, at East Barnet, Mrs. Page, widow of John Page, Esq. and Aunt of C. J. Hector, Esq. of Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle
Mrs. Smith’s Subscription, Alton.
  Miss D Wheatley, Petersfield ………………. £1 0
  Miss R Wheatley, Petersfield ………………. £1 0

Morning Post
  Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be had in this case, or judgement given for the Crown. It was a proceeding by quo warranto, before Mr. Justice BURROUGH at Winchester. There were several issues to try by what authority the Defendant claimed to be Mayor of the Borough of Petersfield.—The Jury found a verdict for the Defendant.
  The principal issue was, whether the Court Leet was properly constituted under the following circumstances. Petersfield is a Borough by prescription, and it became a question whether, from time immemorial, the Steward had been authorised to nominate the Jury, by which Mr. Joliffe is returned to fill the office of Mayor.
  In support of the issue the Defendant called a few witnesses, who spoke to facts within the last twenty years.
  It appeared that the Steward of the Manor had been accustomed to issue precepts to warn all persons to attend the Court Leet, putting to that precept the names of the persons whom he wished to constitute the Court Leet. By the Leet so constituted the Mayor of Petersfield was always elected, and the Mayor was returning officer at elections for Members of Parliament. None of the witnesses spoke to any thing done in the borough before the last 20 years. This evidence, Mr. Sergeant Pell contended, was not sufficient to warrant the Jury in the inference of a custom to the effect he had stated. The Learned Judge, in his charge to the Jury, said, the slightest proof un-contradicted was strong evidence. Mr. Sergeant Pell denied the force of that reasoning. Something beyond the slight evidence of 20 years custom ought to have been produced. The Jury, upon the charge delivered by the Learned Judge, found a verdict for the Defendant, and the present application was made on the ground of a misdirection.
  The Court granted a rule to shew cause.

Hampshire Chronicle

  Yesterday, in the Court of King’s Bench, Mr. Sergeant Pell moved for a rule to shew cause why a verdict should not be entered for the Crown in the case Rex v. Jolliffe, instead of for the defendant. It will be in the recollection of our readers that this was a quo warranto information tried at our last Summer Assizes before Mr. Justice Burrough, calling on the defendant to shew by what authority he held the situation of returning officer for the election of the Mayor of Petersfield. The issue was respecting the mode in which persons voted at the Court’s leet. The defendants acted as steward of the manor. On the trial, Mr. Sergeant Pell, contended the evidence of custom was too slight to sustain the verdict for the defendant. The Jury found for the defendant under the direction of the Judge; and the Court was now moved upon a misdirection of the Judge. Objection was taken on the trial to the return being made by the Steward, the Bailiff being the proper person to make the return; by that means, the Lord of the Manor, having authority over the Steward, would exercise that influence which he would not possess over the Bailiff. The Court held that the Steward of the Manor, according to the customs of Courts-leet in general would necessarily nominate those who were to serve on a Jury. Mr. Sergeant Pell contended, that a custom of 20 years, where the plaintiff was nor permitted to give in his answer, was insufficient evidence to sustain the direction given to the Jury by the Learned Judge. In the King and Bingham (2d East.) an objection was taken to the returning officer nominating the Jury. Mr. Justice Bayley observed, if the steward presided as Judge, he would have an opportunity of judging whether the bailiff had chosen proper persons.—Rule granted.

Hampshire Telegraph

  Several graziers who have attended Petersfield Markets these last twenty years, request us to state, that the retail prices of Meat in this County, are much too high, compared with what the wholesale market prices are.

Morning Post
  This was an information filed by his Majesty’s Attorney-General against the Defendants, Hilton Jolliffe, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, and Samuel Twyford, Esquires, the Reverend William John Jolliffe, the Reverend Charles Edward Twyford, John Twyford Jolliffe, Esquire, and the Reverend Thomas Robert Jolliffe, Trustees of Churcher’s College, Petersfield, praying the Court to remove them from their offices as Trustees, and that other fit and proper persons, under the sanction of the Court, who are resident in, or in the immediate neighbourhood of the College, and who are not the immediate relatives or connections of the Defendant Hilton Jolliffe, may be appointed Trustees in their stead; and that the present Trustees may be compelled to render an account; and that the balance due from the late William Jolliffe may be paid with interest, and the scholars may be boarded and lodged within the College, according to the founder’s intention.
  Mr. HEALD, in the absence of Mr. WETHERELL, having mentioned the case, Mr. GLYNN opened the proceedings. From the information it appeared that in 1722 Richard Churcher, of Petersfield, East India merchant, bequeathed 3000l., Bank Stock, for establishing a College in the Borough of Petersfield, consisting of a master and ten or twelve boys, as the trustees should judge most convenient, according to the annual income; the boys to be taken out of, and belonging to, the Borough of Petersfield, of any age from nine to fourteen, that were healthful boys, and whose parents could give security to the trustees to oblige their sons to be bound apprentices unto the masters of ships that made their voyages unto the East Indies, after they had been educated in the arts of writing, arithmetick, and the mathematicks, chiefly that part as related to navigation, and after they had had their diet, clothing, and tutorage free at the bounty of the founder of this College, which was to be called by the name of Churcher’s College; and, in order to purchase an edifice capable of receiving a master and ten or twelve boys, that the trustees might be enabled to perfect the College, and to give encouragement to the pupils whilst under tutorage, or, when bound apprentices, and for convenient clothing, he also gave 500l. for the erection of a proper edifice for the above purpose, and appointed seven trustees to manage the college, with powers to nominate their successors; but to choose the boys from the children of the townsmen only; and he directed that the 3,00l. Bank Stock should remain in that Company, never to be changed for other security, but upon the greatest reason, and with the consent of all the trustees; that out of the annual income arising from this fund, 40l. per annum should be paid half-yearly to the master, 10l. per annum for each boy’s board, 40s. per annum for each boy’s clothing, namely; waistcoats and breeches of such colours as the trustees please; but the upper garment to be a blue gown, having on each a badge of metal with the arms of the East India Company on it; with the addition of shoes, stockings, shirts, and blue caps; and he directed that his silver tankard and his picture should remain as standards in the College for ever.
  The design of the Founder was at first carried into complete execution; but in 1744, it was alledged that the funds, from a change in the times, were inadequate, and that the Town’s-people would not send their children to sea, and, therefore, an Act of Parliament was obtained by the Trustees, to deviate from the intention of the Founder, and to enable them to bind the boys to other trades other than that of mariners, and to reduce the number of scholars, as long as they found the funds inadequate for the support of the number directed to be maintained by the Founder. Soon after this period, the offices of Trustees and Treasurer fell entirely into the hands of Mr. Jolliffe’s family, and connexions. In 1802, Wm. Jollife, Esq. the father of the present defendant, H. Jolliffe, and who was a trustee and the treasurer of the College, (having succeeded his father, John Jolliffe, Esq.) died, leaving a balance to the amount of 1652l. due to the charity, and which now remains unpaid, notwithstanding there was an order given by the other trustees in 1803, to the present defendant to pay into the College account the balance due from his late father to this charity. It also appears from the information, that considerable sums of money had been expended out of the College funds for a large additional school-room, and that other alterations had been made for the accommodation of the private boarders of some of the masters, though for many years private boarders were not admitted.
  The information also states that the Defendants had neglected their duty by not improving the funds of the College, and in not giving the foundation boys those advantages the founder intended, and which the College income could afford; for it appears that the Defendants, until the filing of this information, were ignorant of the actual state and amount of the College funds and income, for in 1818 and previously they only drew on the Accountant General for above 290l. a year, when the income of the College was above 500l. a year; and that it likewise appears they suffered the sum of 1570l. to accumulate and remain unproductive in the Accountant General’s Office, from 1806 to 1819, after this information was filed, when by an order of the Court it was invested in the Public Funds.
  It also appears that in 1784, a CLERGYMAN, Mr. COOKSON, had been put into possession of the College, and allowed to reside in it for about 13 years, and to receive the salary of 40l. a year, as the Master of the College, though contrary to the founder’s will, and that during this period the name of a LAYMAN, Mr. STEELE, was entered and kept on the College book as the actual master, though he quitted the school and the town in 1786 having been allowed the salary for the two years of that period. It also appears from the information, that the Defendants had admitted boys on the charity, who were not, as required by the founder, children of the townsmen of Petersfield, and that the boys were not now boarded at the College, but obliged to live out, whilst the present school-master had been allowed to take in private boarders, to whom every accommodation was given, without any benefit or advantage whatever to the College, or the objects of the Founder’s bounty; and that during the appointment of some of the Defendants as Trustees whilst Mr. Cookson and Mr. Trimmings were Master of the College, it had been let out in Lodgings for the benefit of the Masters—in some instances to Ladies who kept boarding schools for girls, and even to some of the Trustees themselves who had taken up their residences there.—It is alleged by the relators, that if the annual cash balances in the hands of the late treasurer, William Jolliffe, Esq. and the Defendant H. Jolliffe, had been regularly invested, the funds of this charity would have been greatly augmented; and it was further stated, that none of the Defendants, since their appointments, had ever attended any examination of the scholars, and that the funds of the College were sufficient to board, clothe, and educate the boys, and execute all the intentions of the benevolent founder.
  Mr. E. SKIRROW then read the answers of the Defendants to the information. Mr. Hilton Jolliffe there made a declaration, which, if true (the Learned Counsel said), was highly creditable to him. He stated that his father did not leave him sufficient assets to pay his debts; nevertheless he (Hilton Jolliffe) was willing to pay any allowance that the Court might find to be due from his father to the Charity. The answer of the Trustees denied generally any wilful mismanagement of the funds, and declared that they had never admitted, with their knowledge, any but the sons of the townsmen. They declared that the funds of the Institution were inadequate to carry into effect the intention of the founder, and that the same number of scholars could not be boarded as heretofore. The salary for the master was so small, that no competent person could be found who would undertake for it to instruct the boys. A master of skill had, therefore, been permitted to take in private boarders, in order to make up a competency; and the College boys had greatly benefitted by the change in their education. The Trustees admitted having refused to shew Mr. Atcheson and the other relators, who were inhabitants of the town, their accounts, as they conceived they were not bound to shew them, unless upon an order from the Court.
  The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he would hear the arguments upon the cause on Monday. He thought it necessary, however, to state, that he could only enter into an inquiry as to the conduct of the present trustees, and not as to any former management. It would be of much importance that it should be shewn whether the father of the present defendant, Hilton Jolliffe, did or did not leave a sufficiency to pay the balance due from him to the charity. It was a serious charge against the defendant, H. Jolliffe, that he had, as treasurer, omitted to hand over the property in his hands as executor to the charity. It would also be important to show whether the funds really were or were not sufficient to fulfil all the intentions of the testator. He did not consider that the circumstances of allowing the introduction of boarders was sufficient to disqualify the trustees, if it were proved that the other scholars had not been injured by it. His Honour directed the particular attention of the parties to these points.

Morning Post
  The following are the details of this interesting case, of which we had only room to state the result yesterday :—
  The VICE-CHANCELLOR, on the sitting of the Court, addressed Mr. Wetherell, the leading Counsel for the relators, and made some observations on the nature of this case, and the course he was inclined to adopt, stating it to be his wish to bring it into the narrowest compass possible, as it appeared to him that the points laid in a very narrow compass, and desired to know whether the Counsel from the relators were disposed to acquiesce in the directions he had suggested.
  Mr. WETHERELL—It is my duty to narrow it also. I had been in hopes, being strongly impressed with the idea, that this Charity has been very grossly abused; notwithstanding, I am bound to regard the distinction between a Trustee originating a breach of trust and continuing one commenced before his time. I had hoped, that when your Honour had a full view of this case before you, you would say that these trustees ought no longer to act. It does happen, that there is no trustee of this valuable institution, the income of which is upwards of 600l. a year, who has not two L’s and two F’s, compounded into the form Jolliffe as his name. There is literally not one of them in whose name those four consonants, arranged as I have mentioned, do not happen to occur. Sir, what you have pointed out undoubtedly forms a great part of the directions which would be of course. In addition to those there would be another, to inquire what balances the trustees from time to time had in their hands, and also what balances they suffered to remain unreceived at the Bank.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—I understood from the opening of the proceedings, that the trustees could have no balance in their hands—that there is a Treasurer, and that it is conveyed to the Treasurer.
  Mr. HEALD—There is a mistake in that throughout. It is true they have appointed a Treasurer; but they have no power to do it under the will nor the act.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—Yet if in point of fact he is the only person who has received, I can direct no account against them.
  Mr. HEALD—I beg pardon, if it had been so in point of fact, it would have been impossible to direct more than that account; but there is no power under the will or the Act to appoint any Treasurer.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—That would not signify one farthing, if it has been the constant habit to appoint one of the Trustees Treasurer, how can these Gentleman be blamed. They, finding practice established, adopt it. If they have not personally received, there can be no personal account against them.
  Mr. WETHERELL—Your Honour called our attention to the circumstances, how far you could fix upon the Trustees a knowledge that there did not exist that balance unappropriated. That is brought home to the Treasurer in this way—that he goes to the Bank and receives a part, and does not receive the rest. There is voluntary negligence of that Trustee.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—That would be a most extraordinary knowledge; who ever heard of it? A man, going to the Bank to receive dividends, goes to the Bank and receives part, and refuses to receive the rest. That is a sort of negligence which very seldom occurs in common life, and can hardly have occurred here.
  Mr. WETHERELL—It is so charged here, and proved.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—The charge is that he was not aware of it. It was an accumulation growing; he continuing to receive what Treasurers before him had received—the dividends upon the original stock. He could not be aware that it had been increased from time to time, in consequence of the increase of the dividends and the bonus.
  Mr. HORNE, for the defendants—On pronouncing the decree upon the other information, a power of attorney was given to Messrs. Hammersley, to receive the dividends in the name of the Charity. They went on to that, no information being given to the Accountant-General that there had been any increase.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—It is a whimsical sort of corrupt negligence, that a man declines to receive money.
  Mr. WETHERELL—It may appear singular, and so it is; but I should not have persisted in it, unless I had been satisfied the fact had been so.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR—What motive could there have been for a man going to the Bank and receiving 500l. if he could have received 600l., and leaving that there for no motive whatever?
  Mr. WETHERELL—The fact is, that the money was not received. The Trustees knowing from time to time what the dividends were. There has been an increase of 200l. a year, and a certain bonus added to the original Bank stock of 3,300l.; it is impossible but that Mr. Jolliffe must have known from time to time what the amount of the dividend was. It is undoubtedly singular that a man shall receive a part, and leave the rest unreceived. But this information circumstantially sets forth, at each period of each division, the balances in cash from time to time in the hands of the Trustees, and also the sums that were from time to time left unreceived at the Bank. Undoubtedly, if it should turn out that this Trustee did not know there was that balance, that would to a degree mitigate his misconduct; but I think it will appear from this account, that the Trustees or Mr. Jolliffe must have known what the actual amount of the dividend was; and if it be so, the question is, whether a Trustee who will not receive at the Bank a sum of money, is not just in the same situation as if he had received it and kept it in his own pocket? The charges in this information have pointed out the difference between the sums left from time to time unreceived in the Bank, or in the hands of the Accountant-General, and the sum the Trustees received. I will give you one of the charges, as a specimen of the mode and the ground upon which they were founded, namely, upon papers obtained from the other side—for instance, from the year 1747 to the year 1769. This is an example of the very accurate mode in which this is stated. The charge is, that “from the month of April, 1747, down to the month of November, 1769, during the whole of which period the said John Jolliffe, deceased, was the principal acting Trustee of the said Charity; he, the said John Jolliffe, had in his hands, at the end of each year, over and above all charges and expenditures of the said Charity, an average balance of 165l. 11s. 9d., or thereabouts, and suffered part of the dividends arising from the stock-funds and securities belonging to the said Charity, amounting to 92l. 8s. 3d., to lie unproductive at the Bank of England, and South Sea House, and which cash-balance, added to the dividends so suffered to be unproductive at the Bank and South Sea House, amounted to an average annual balance of 258l. or thereabouts;” and so the information has gone on, making a second charge, from the year 1769 to the year 1782, when William Jolliffe was the treasurer; and again from 1802 to 1806, during the period when Hylton Jolliffe has been treasurer. Now, as your Honour has said, it does appear singular that a trustee should not receive the whole of what is receivable; but, if the fact is that he has not received it, and it appears from the accounts that these sums were not received, then arises the question, whether this was real ignorance on the part of the trustee, or negligence: Then, supposing it to be a question of ignorance, is that excusable ignorance? If you, the trustee, received a part, and not the whole, was not it your duty to know that there was a larger dividend, it was your duty to receive it, and to render it available to the purposes of the institution. The charges are founded upon papers procured in consequence of the order of the Court.—The charges distinctly state what balance there had been in cash from the period when this account is sought, from 1747, when John Jolliffe, whose representative is Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, was Treasurer, down to 1818, when this information was filed. I will never persevere in maintaining a point when I think I have not grounds on which to maintain it; but, as I understand this case, these Trustees did know, and could not fail to know, from time to time, that these balances were left unreceived at the Bank. If I am wrong on that ground, the help that I ask for cannot be given. If I am right, then is it voluntary or involuntary ignorance? If it is involuntary, then it might be a case for not removing these gentlemen; but if it is that species of inattention which the Court considers equivalent to blameable inattention, it would impose upon me the necessity of praying for their removal on this ground, or I should ask either an inquiry in general terms, or with special directions, to know why, and under what circumstances, these sums were left from time to time unreceived at the South Sea House and the Bank, and to state special circumstances why they were unreceived.
  Now, with regard to another part of the case, it is impossible not to feel the difference between a man beginning to abuse a charity, by violating its rules, and a man passively and silently continuing a violation commenced previous to his appointment. There is undoubtedly a shad of difference in the degree of guilt. The question here is, whether, when we find the persons selected as trustees to this charity, constituting the whole family of the Jolliffes—when we find that many of them have never attended any meeting—that Thomas Samuel Jolliffe for twenty years never attended any meeting—when we find that the whole mal-administration of this charity is to confine it to one family, to one person indeed, who is to act or not as he pleases—the question is, whether there is not something to call for some animadversion on the part of this Court? It is true, that the practice has existed of taking boarders into the School, and of excluding the College boys; or, to use a homely but not unappropriate phrase, turning the School inside out, as is frequently the case with these valuable institutions, where the boys who ought to be best attended to, are the worst—where the school is made a resort for boarders, and where the boys belonging to the school are totally disregarded. Another charge is, that a room was built on purpose to receive the boarders; there ought to be again, among others, a special enquiry upon that subject, as an improper expenditure of the Charity funds. The there is another charge, that the sums to be given to the boys, and their clothes, have not been properly and regularly given, nor the premiums for apprenticing them. One of the rules is, that the boys shall be examined, and if found fit, so many shall go to sea, and that they shall have a premium of 30l., and those that go to a trade shall have 20l. It is also charged, that the Trustees have never examined the boys—it is not pretended that they have. Now, although you may draw a distinction between a man continuing the violation of an ancient regulation, and himself being the author of it. Still, the question is, whether this has not been a continued, habitual, and supine inattention on the part of the Trustees of this Charity, the whole trust of which is confined to this family, not one of which will undertake the duties of the office?
  When I see the disposition of your Honour runs one way—when I see your Honour’s disposition to dispatch business, it is a very disagreeable thing for Counsel to find it necessary to occupy ten moments of your Honour’s time, but I have here a duty to perform, and I should not persevere, if I did not feel a strong impression of gross misconduct. The next instance I must allude to, is the nomination of these Trustees. By the original constitution of the founder, there were to be seven Trustees, and they were to name others in the room of those dying. These regulations appear to me to have been kept up in the schedule of rules which were annexed to the Act of Parliament. Now, as I understand this case, these seven Trustees are all of the name of Jolliffe, but I do not know that any one of them has been regularly appointed. Mr. Jolliffe is named Treasurer, not by the act of all the Trustees, but by the nomination of one or two. Then as to Mr. Twyford Jolliffe, and the Reverend Charles Twyford, if they were named by one or two persons, when there were more who ought to have appointed, I must contend that they have been irregularly appointed; for though in case of death, or the retirement of a Trustee, the majority of the survivors, or continuing Trustees, can name, yet, toties quoties , a Trustee has been named by one or two only, his appointment is not a valid appointment. And one ground, therefore, on which I should have taken upon myself to have pressed for the removal of the existing trustees, if it had been your Honour’s pleasure. Irregularities certainly do appear to have taken place in the mode of appointment, and the individuals so erroneously appointed are not, in my opinion, the legal trustees who have a right to administer the funds of this institution.
  There is another very material breach of the trust to which I must now call your attention. Your Honour recollects that a layman was to be master; now it turns out that this direction of the founder has been violated by an irregularity of a very gross description. Let us see what the contrivance is to keep up the appearance of conformity to the will of the founder. Mr. Steele was nominated master in 1784, he acted till 1784, and then went to Winchester or Alresford to carry on his tutorial functions, but his name is actually continued as master down to 1796. During the whole of that period, James Cookson, a clergyman, is de facto master, residing in the college from 1784; while Robert Steele is apparently and ostensibly master, That is an act of very great irregularity, which ought, I conceive to come within the description of that supineness or inattention which would justify the dismission of the trustees.
  Sir, with respect again to another circumstance, namely, the selection of improper objects to this charity,—Mr. Churcher, the founder, insists that the rules of his Institution shall be, that the children of the town, and not foreigners, shall be admitted to the school. There is a charge here, which is not disputed, that thirty-four or thirty-five children have been appointed who were not belonging to the town—It is also charged, that at other times, when it is convenient to remove a boy that he is removed. There is a charge that Henry Goldring was removed;—a solitary example of obedience to this law, whilst in other instances it has been most grossly violated. It is upon these grounds, if it should be your Honour’s pleasure not to have the whole of this case gone into, that I submit, with great deference, generally, the nature of this case, as establishing the very great irregularities of these gentlemen, the defendants, in their mode of appointing trustees and conducting this charity. I had been in hopes your Honour would have thought it right to give some special directions upon these particulars, in order that upon the Report, you should exercise your opinion, whether the Trustees should, upon a more full view of the facts, be removed. Your Honour has not, I think, upon that part of the case, said how you may or may not be impressed, when these facts, imputing this conduct, are more fully before you. I have felt a strong impression upon my own mind.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What is Mr. Dusutoy? Is he in orders?
  Mr. HORNE—No, a layman.
  Mr. WETHERELLL.—There is another charge which I would shortly touch upon—that this College was let out to lodgers? a part of it was adapted as a seminary for girls, instead of being appropriated to the purposes contemplated by the founder.—This is the general nature of the case; it is not insinuated that there has been any personal misapplication, or malversation of funds, but that there has been unjustifiable neglect in not giving to the children all the advantages they were entitled to receive; though I advert to the distinction your Honour mentions, of originating an abuse, and continuing it, the question is, whether the abuses of this establishment have not gone on in so glaring a degree, that it was the duty of the Trustees to rectify them, though some of them originated before their appointment? Upon these grounds I had certainly hoped I should satisfy your Honour, recollecting the very valuable nature of this institution, supported by a fund now productive of 601l. 11s. 6d. per annum, that this phalanx of Trustees of the name of Jolliffe might, at present and immediately, give up the conduct of the establishment to some other persons to whom you might commit the interim management, till you finally decide the question, whether this Court can continue the Defendants or not? Sir, there is another thing which I cannot help noticing—I apprehend it is an abuse of the trust, for one part of a family to elect another. I do not say that an uncle shall not elect a nephew, or the nephew his cousin, or go through all the table of consanguinity; but I say it is an attempt to exclude the interference of strangers, by one of the family electing another, and in those two electing a third, which must excite observation. It does seem to me an attempt which cannot be justified, merely on the ground that it is the wish or the disposition of one member of the family supinely to acquiesce under the misconduct of another. I shall therefore by and by, if it should be your Honour’s opinion, that these special directions should not be given, press very strongly that there should be some alteration, and that strangers, who do not partake of this blood of the Jolliffes, should be introduced; and if they have conducted themselves so well, and with such merit, that they are not to be removed, that other persons may be introduced, who may also have the opportunity of conducting themselves with equal merit.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—You talk of misconduct in the Trustees—What is the misconduct of which you complain?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—Not receiving money, and keeping balances in their hands——
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—You state the case as if you had made out misconduct in the Trustees. I have not heard it imputed that any of these Gentlemen have applied a single shilling of these charity funds to any purposes of their own, or that they have not faithfully and honestly applied every shilling they have received. All I have heard stated is, that before the year 1796, with which these Gentlemen had nothing to do, instead of employing a Lay Master there was a Clergyman actually employed. Was that misconduct? One may very well doubt the discretion of that direction in this Founder’s will, that there should be a Lay Master; because in all modern experience there is a much greater probability that a far more proper master would be found in a Clergyman. It is, to say the most of it, an act of irregularity, but not an act of charge. Then you say, that they have been guilty of great negligence, that they have not boarded these boys. The answer given upon oath is this, that the funds were absolutely inadequate to it. Every shilling has been employed for the purposes of the Charity, but they have been inadequate to board these boys. Then again you say, that this Founder provides, that all the boys shall be the sons of inhabitants of Petersfield. These Gentlemen swear upon oath, that it has been their intention faithfully to execute that direction of the Testator, and that, to the best of their belief, they have executed that direction; and if at any time it has happened otherwise, it has been without their knowledge. You go back fifty or sixty years, you might as well go back five centuries; it has nothing to do with the case. They swear that they have not appointed a boy whom they did not believe was a resident of the place; you should not make a charge against these respectable Gentlemen, when the information furnishes no instance of the kind.
  You have just now opened a part of the case, of which I had before heard nothing. You now state to me, for the first time, that these Gentlemen ought to be removed as not being duly elected. You have stated another point of which before I had heard nothing, and to which I call your attention—that is, that these trustees ought to be removed, because they have in truth wholly deserted their duty, and left the entire management of this concern to some one of their family. I will not say there may not be a case, in which, if it does appear that they have entirely neglected their duty, I shall say they ought not to continue in the execution of that trust which they have deserted. As to those two points I should be very glad to hear you. First, that they are not duly elected; and next, if duly elected, that they have entirely deserted their duty, and have, in point of fact, constituted a particular person the sole trustee. That is not right. The Act of Parliament directs, that seven persons shall be trustees, in order that there may be discretion and vigilance of those persons exercised in the administration; therefore, that will be an important consideration.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I have always made it a part of my duty at the Bar, and always shall make it a part of my duty, not to cast imputations upon any person where those imputations are not upon the Record.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—We do wrong to impute to Gentlemen, when the Record does not sustain it, any charge of misconduct. It is always a painful thing to persons in this situation of life to have these insinuations thrown out.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—It is upon that ground that I have avoided, in my opening, making a charge against these Gentlemen of appropriating a shilling of this fund to their own use. I never will in my practice add a word to what is contained in the record. I did not, and I had no right to say, that these Gentlemen had made any personal advantage of the funds of this charity. The nature of the charge I have made is a salva conscientiæ ;—you have not properly applied this money for the benefit of the charity—not that they have applied it for their own use; but that they have not disposed of it for the benefit of the Institution. Personal imputations of gross immoral conduct I have never made or intend to make.
(To be continued to-morrow)

Morning Post
(Continued from yesterday’s Paper.)
  MR. WETHERELL.—Now, with respect to the first point, to which my attention is just directed, it will appear from the books, that these Gentlemen were not named by the majority of the Trustees. If they were not so named, every one of the existing seven, who has presumed to act as a Trustee, not being actually named by the majority, is not a Trustee; and with respect to all of those, I should presume that they would stand before your Honour as no longer Trustees. If all of them turn out to have been so named, there is no Trustee who can act.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Is that made a substantive part of the information?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—Yes, Sir.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Do you pray to have it declared that they were not duly elected?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—It charges as a distinct ground, that they were not properly elected.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What do you pray—that it should be declared that they were not duly elected.
  Mr. SHADWELL.—That the Defendants may be removed from being Trustees.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—It does not point to any irregularity in the election.
  Mr. HEALD.—There is a charge of that, and I had intended to confine myself to that fact—that it appears upon the evidence in the cause, as well as forming a charge in the Bill, that all the Trustees have been improperly appointed; and although there was an answer to be given as to some from the former suit, there were two who have been appointed since.—In 1806, Mr. Hylton Jolliffe files and information as Relator, and he made Thomas Samuel Jolliffe the sole Defendant. It was then undoubtedly thought that the appointment was irregular. It must have been so thought, because Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, the Trustee, prayed by his Bill, and it was decreed accordingly, that it should be referred to Mr. Ord, one of the Masters of this Court, to appoint six new Trustees to be added to the said Defendant, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, the surviving Trustee, whose appointment was of a very ancient date—he was the contemporary of William Jolliffe. The Master did appoint the persons to be Trustees who had been named in the Bill. No other persons were carried in, and then the Master appointed them; and therefore it did appear to me, that whatever objection might be made now to the appointment of Hylton Jolliffe, his original appointment and confirmation by this Court must have put an end to that question; but that will not do with respect to the illegal appointments that have taken place since that order.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—There are some that have been appointed since.
  Mr. HEALD.—Two at least. One appointed by two, and the other by three, there being six Trustees at the time. The Act and the Will are pretty nearly in the same terms, and they say, that upon the death or resignation of a Trustee, the new Trustee shall be appointed by the surviving Trustees, or the major part of them.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Who are those two?
  Mr. HEALD.—John Twyford Jolliffe, whose appointment took place in 1807, and the other appointment is the Reverend Charles Edward Twyford, whose appointment took place in 1814.
  Mr. GLYNN.—Thomas Robert Jolliffe also, who was appointed in the year 1815.
  Mr. HEALD.—Oh yes, you are right; but he was appointed by the major part, I think. Thomas Robert Jolliffe who was appointed in 1815, was appointed by four Trustees, but if any of those Trustees have been illegally appointed themselves, that would effect his nomination. I have looked at the usual number of Trustees who have appointed the other Gentlemen—there were only three Trustees who appointed John Twyford Jolliffe.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—I have not got the names you mention. I ought to have the names of all the Defendants.
  Mr. HEALD.—Their names are Hylton Jolliffe, the Rev. William John Jolliffe—they were the sons of William;—then comes Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, their uncle and his two sons, John Twyford Jolliffe, and the Rev. Robert Jolliffe;—then come the cousins, Samuel Twyford, and Charles Edward Twyford. Then there is the fact of one living at a hundred miles, and others at a great distance from the Charity. One cannot be surprised that the ting should be open to dissentions in the town as to its being properly managed. John Twyford Jolliffe is appointed upon the 23d of September, 1807, by three trustees—those were Hylton Jolliffe, William John Jolliffe, his brother, and one Richard Eyles, who did not find himself of the same family, and chose afterwards to retire.—There are only three there, when the number of Trustees was full. That seems to be irregular. Then comes the Rev. Charles Edward Twyford. He was appointed in October, 1814, he is appointed by Hylton Jolliffe and Samuel Twyford, how that appointment can be supported I do not know;—to me it seems quite unnecessary to argue the case. Then comes the appointment of the Rev. Thomas Robert Jolliffe, the sone of Thomas Samuel; and he is appointed on the 19th of June, 1815, by, amongst others, Charles Edward Twyford. Now Charles Edward Twyford could not elect him, if he had been improperly appointed himself. The appointment was by Hylton Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, Charles Edward Twyford, and William John Jolliffe, and therefore those three, it appears to me, are illegal appointments altogether.
  Mr. HORNE.—As Counsel for the defendants, I cannot object to an inquiry into this.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—As to the attendance of the Trustees, two of them admit they have never attended. One of them, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, has been a Trustee during the whole of this period of time. I have opened generally the outline of the case; it is very far from my wish——
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What do you say as to that part of the case where you say that these Gentlemen have neglected their duty, and left the management of the Charity to one member of the family? What do you charge in your bill, and what do you pray?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—They have admitted that they have never attended.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Read your charge, and then read the admission which you consider as evidence.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—“That the said defendant, Thomas Sam. Jolliffe, never attended at any meeting of the said Trustees during a period of twenty-three years, that is to say, from the 12th of February, 1785, to the 19th June, 1818.”
  Mr. GLYNN.—The admission in the last answer is in the words of the information.
  Mr. HORNE.—The Defendant, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, saith “that at the time of his election, which was in the year 1769, he resided at Petersfield, but that for the last twenty years, he has resided at Amerdown, in the county of Somerset, which is distant eighty miles from the borough.”
  Mr. WETHERELL.—These Trustees are filled up like what we call burgage tenures, to which we give the nick-name of Faggots. When a Trustee is to be appointed, a man’s name is put in who lives so far off that he can never attend. That is the thing complained of.
  Mr. HORNE.—That is not to be supposed from what I have read. He says that he resided when he was elected, within seven miles of Petersfield.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The first information filed here was in 1785 (could be 35), at the relation of John Jolliffe against the surviving Trustees. Two Trustees retired in consequence of their living in London, and being unable to attend to their duty, a circumstance which shews, though I do not say they must be resident in Petersfield, that it has been understood that the persons to be Trustees were those who could conveniently attend; and that circumstance among others I must say, ought to have impressed more strongly upon those Gentlemen, the duty of attending, and not nominating persons who could not, nor would not attend. I feel very unwilling upon any occasion——
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—You have not yet read to me any thing that proves that any one of these Trustees has neglected to attend the Meetings of the Trustees.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The rules stated in the will are these :—“To meet once a year and settle and audit the accounts,” and that they have not done. I do not find from the answer of these Gentlemen that they, in any part of it state, that they ever did meet. I do not find a single instance insisted upon by them as a settlement of the general account of the Trustees. There is quite enough charged upon the Bill, to put them upon proof of that. There is a charge that the accounts have never been settled and audited by the Trustees. There is also a charge which applies to the Trustees never meeting. I shall not occupy your Honour’s time further. I say these two branches of misconduct appear to me to be made out—not from a single fact but the general conduct and the whole purview of the case. We say there has been that sort of inattention and misconduct, not mixing in those imputations which I think are made out, any of malversation which consists of taking money to their own use. That is not insinuated. It is not that sort of insinuation upon which the case proceeds; but that there has been a continued, studied misconduct in all the instances I have mentioned, and when we recollect that these funds are now upwards of 600l. a-year, and for many years past have been four or five hundred pounds; it does not appear to me that this Institution might have been made subservient to public utility. I think I may say there has been an abuse in the management of it which ought to be continued no longer.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What have they done with the funds?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—They have remained unproductive.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—That is the fund in Court. What have they done with the fund received?
  Mr. HORNE.—There is a schedule to our answer.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—In point of fact has it been expended?
  Mr. HORNE.—Upon the Charity.
  Mr. SKIRROW.—I will tell your Honour how the fund arose. In 1745, your Honour will find that the fund consisted of 3,000l. Bank Stock, and 800l. South Sea Annuities. The income from those two funds amounts to 182l. a-year. The income from the South Sea Annuities would be 32l. at four per cent.; the Bank Stock comes to 150l. that would be 182l.—The funds became, in 1772, 3,300l. Bank Stock, and 800l. South Sea Annuities, with an additional 200l., a saving made by the Trustees. You will then find that the next acquisition is made in the year 1806.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What was the whole income then?
  Mr. SKIRROW.—The whole income then became increased upwards of 200l. a year.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—£279 and a fraction. The Bank had increased their dividend from seven to ten per cent. and the subsequent bonuses make it now 600l. a-year. I shall shew your Honour that the Trustees have done their duty most meritoriously to this Charity.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—It will appear in one year, that there were two boys added, but that does not keep pace with the funds of this ill-managed charity, which now produces 600l. a year; if any boys have been added, it is a worthy instance of what Mr. Skirrow calls capital good management; but a little knowledge in arithmetic would shew, that with all this bank bonus up to 600l. a little more might have been done than the admission of two boys. My Learned Friend offers to demonstrate to me something not very apparent. I will not anticipate with what success he will shew the management of this Charity to have been praise-worthy; but I say the whole res gestæ shews, not a personal mis-application of the money, but that supine inattention of the Trustees, from which it is evident, that the administration of this Charity has been monopolised in this family—that nothing has been done which ought to have been done,—and that they have gone on, I do not say originating departures from the trust, but continuing departures from this trust, which they have had plenty of time to set right. And although I recognise a distinction in point of degree between supine continuance under a breach of trust, and more strongly illegal criminality, ye admitting that distinction, it does seem to me this is a case which, considering the magnitude of the funds, and all the circumstances of it, calls for some special interposition of your Honour.
  Upon the question whether these Trustees ought not to continue to act—those who have been illegally appointed, cannot continue to act; and if this family party have been united on purpose that strangers should not be admitted, and that no eye should cast itself over these accounts and that they should have no opportunity of seeing what these Trustees themselves have not seen, and that the management of the Charity should be kept secret in this family—it does not seem to me a studiousness of mal-administration sufficient to call from your Honour some direction, that even now the management should not be where it is. When the Report is made up on all these subjects, your Honour will judge whether, although continuing a breach of trust and beginning a breach of trust is a distinction which I am bound to recognise—there has not been a supine inattention and mismanagement requiring the dismissal of these Trustees. But, in the mean time, I do ask that some direction may be given, that some persons, other than the members of this family, respectable I admit, may have a share in the administration of this Institution.
  Mr. HEALD.—I shall not trouble your Honour at any great length, as I have already taken the liberty of submitting my view of the point on which I had intended to address your Honour; namely, the irregular appointment of the defendants as Trustees, which, as I conceive, renders their removal unavoidable. This seemed to me to be so clearly made out that I conceived my duty was very short; and after what has fallen from your Honour, and my Learned Friend it has become much shorter.
  I shall now only submit to your Honour’s consideration, a very few observations on the balance of 1,650l. due from the late Treasurer, Mr. William Jolliffe, and unpaid by his successor and Executor, and on the sum of 1,500l. which was allowed to remain unproductive in the hands of the Accountant-General; for although it is true they have appointed a Treasurer, the question is, whether that can exonerate them from investigating the accounts and acting as if there was no Treasurer.
  In the Act your Honour has referred to, we do not find a word about the appointment of a Treasurer. It is entirely a new office. Formerly the Trustees did not confide the management of the Institution and its funds to any single individual, but all actively and diligently fulfilled the duties of their office; and as the appointment of a Treasurer is not by any authority, it cannot now, I conceive, exonerate them from looking into the accounts, or relieve them from any consequences of negligence in that respect. In 1803, I find this entry in the book kept by the Trustees, which I read :—

“Saturday, Feb. 5, 1803.   

  “We, the undersigned, being the major part of the Trustees of Churcher’s College, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament for regulating and making more effectual certain Charities given by the Will of Richard Churcher, deceased, for the use and benefit of the Town and Borough of Petersfield, in the County of Southampton. Do nominate and make choice of Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. to be Treasurer, for the said Charity, in the room of William Jolliffe, Esq. deceased: And we do further order and appoint the said Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. to receive the balance due from the said William Jolliffe, Esq. to the said Charity, and to be accountable for the same.”
  Now I read this entry to shew, that Hylton Jolliffe, when he was appointed Treasurer, was directed to pay the balance due from his father, amounting to 1600l. exclusive of interest, from the year 1803 down to the present day; and that not being paid, seems to be something more than mere neglect on the part of the Trustees; it is the result of a system which has been pursued with regard to this Charity. If they had not been all relations, which they admit they are, they would not have placed that confidence in each other. I do not impute to this family, any wilful misconduct, arising from improper motives. It arises from neglect—they seem to have taken for granted that he would pay that sum—he has taken for granted, that the College Fund was sufficient—he has not paid it; and that is the mildest view I can take of it. That these Trustees have not called upon him, is enough for the Court to direct the removal of them; the question is not the motive of this neglect of their duty, or whether they have wilfully misconducted themselves, or whether they have applied any part of this money to their own use—that is not charged. The fund itself is not large enough for it, and I cannot suppose that any sum is large enough for it; but we look to the Trustees without any reference to their names, and see whether they have conducted themselves in such a manner as Trustees ought to conduct themselves. From the year 1803 down to the time of the filing this information, not a word is said as to the settlement of this account. It is said, indeed, that funds are forthcoming, and that it will be accounted for, with interest perhaps; but that does not answer what the Court requires. These two facts, therefore, with respect to these two sums, are what I mean to trouble your Honour upon; but we conceive that the circumstance of not investing the one thousand five hundred pounds in the Accountant-General’s hands, because they did not know of it, is but a bad excuse in a Court of Equity. It was within their power to know it. We do not impute any corrupt motive, and I have taken pains to say that—but we say that they have been negligent. If they had made the inquiry which every Executor and Trustee ought to make, and which he would be answerable in costs for in this Court if he did not make, the sum of 500l., which, by the accumulation of the dividends, afterwards amounted to upwards of 1500l., would not have remained unproductive from 1806 until after the institution of this suit in 1818. All these things certainly do make out a case of negligent conduct. I do not wish to state it higher. That they have been guilty of negligent conduct, and although they may attempt to justify themselves upon the ground of not knowing, it cannot avail them, as the Court has been in the habit of removing Trustees upon that ground only—that of gross neglect from time to time. I therefore submit to your Honour that all the Trustees should be removed, but particularly those who have been illegally appointed, and that upon all other points there must be a reference to the Master.
  Mr. GLYNN.—I shall not address your Honour upon those points as to which you have directed an inquiry by the Master, but submit to your Honour some observations upon some other points, which ought also to form a ground of consideration on the part of the Master.
  Sir, unquestionably, we do not impute to these Trustees any corrupt motive, but, in order to lay the foundation for saying, that it is not fit they should be continued as Trustees, I apprehend we are not bound to shew, that there has been corruption on the part of the Trustees, but that neglect of duty, that want of care in the management of the funds, and that want of care in the due administration of the trust, by which the Charity has been materially prejudiced. I apprehend, that it will be sufficient for the removal of Trustees if that be shewn. For this purpose the Court will permit me to advert to the funds in the hand of the Accountant-General; for though it may be said, it is a singular instance, in which imputation is cast upon Trustees, that they have not received what is due to the estate, I apprehend it is a part of the case which we are entitled to make either as a ground of removal, or as a ground to show, that there have been balances not received. Looking into the state of the balances, it is impossible not to advert to the strange nature of the information which was filed in 1806. What was it? It appears that, at that time, there were seven Trustees—five acting Trustees besides Mr. Hylton Jolliffe the then Realtor, and the defendant, Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe. That information is filed at the relation of Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, upon an allegation that Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe is the sole Trustee; for that is the ground upon which the relief is sought; namely, for six Trustees to be added to Mr. Samuel Jolliffe. Whatever might be the motive of such an information being filed, whether for the purpose of preventing other persons coming with an information to the Court, or for any other purpose, I pretend not to say: but it was founded upon a wholly untrue allegation, there being at the time seven Trustees, the whole number was complete. Mr. Hylton Jolliffe standing before the Court as a disinterested person, he being a Trustee and Treasurer, yet he filed that information for a reference to the Master to appoint six fresh Trustees, with Mr. Samuel Jolliffe, who declined to elect new ones, as he considered he could not do so by the Act of Parliament. I submit that that was a very singular information to file, when there were already seven Trustees, and at the time when this balance was said to be due from Mr. William Jolliffe, and which still remains due, and admitted to be so to a certain extent; and when there wasa considerable balance even remaining in the hands of Mr. Hylton Jolliffe. Yet that information never prays any account for that which was so due by Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, the relator, but treats in all, as if all the balances were quite correct, and as if nothing were due, and nothing to be received by the Charity, and calls upon the Court to appoint six new Trustees. With such an information, the funds are transferred to the Accountant-General, and a reference is made to the Master to approve of six other Trustees. Now t does not appear what was further done under that information—probably, as Mr. Hylton Jolliffe was the realtor, he would get the other persons, with Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, together with himself, appointed Trustees; but it was suppressed that there were these existing Trustees, who had acted as such, and the subject of these balances was not mentioned.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Pray, Mr. Glynn what was the intention of that information. I take it for granted, that you know that the election of these six Trustees had been wholly irregular, and that they were not in truth Trustees, and that it was impossible to make a regular notice of Trustees under that Act of Parliament without the authority of the Court. Therefore Mr. Jolliffe most properly filed that information, to have the trust filled up by the authority of the Court.
  Mr. GLYNN.—If that was the object of the relator in filing the information, he ought to have stated to the Court that there were at that time those Trustees acting, which fact was entirely suppressed.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—There would have been no harm in acknowledging they had been acting under a mistake, and there could not be any others appointed except by the authority of the Court. There was nothing criminal in not stating to the Court that fact; for we must not, Mr. Glynn, shut our eyes to the real nature of the case. There could be no possible motive for the application to the Court, but that the trust might be filled up properly under the Act of Parliament; therefore we must not throw a cloud over the facts as if there were some mystery about them. There could be nothing but a proper motive for the filing of that information.
  Mr. GLYNN.—But still I think it would have made difference, if that circumstance had been mentioned to the Master. But notwithstanding the bonus was given by the Bank at that time, and the interest on Bank Stock was increased from 7 to 10 per cent., they did not receive the whole amount of dividends, but left a large balance totally unproductive, which furnishes us, as we submit, with a ground for contending, that on their part they have been guilty of gross negligence. Notice had been given them by their bankers, Messrs. Hammersleys, as appears from an entry in their proceedings, of a bonus which had been added to the Bank Stock, and the amount of dividends, yet still they took no steps to avail themselves of this increase of funds, or to invest the large balance in the hands of the Accountant-General, by which negligence a considerable loss, we submit, has been sustained by the Charity. Then, with regard to the balance in the hands of Mr. Wm. Jolliffe——
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Can I do more for you upon that than I have already stated.
  Mr. GLYNN.—Your Honour sees that at the time that Mr. Hylton Jolliffe is appointed Treasurer, an order is actually made upon him by the other Trustees, and of which he is cognizant, for we have proof of that fact—an order was made upon him in 1803, to pay that balance, he having received it from himself as executor. Now your Honour sees, in the twofold character which he sustained of debtor as executor, and creditor as Treasurer, it was his duty to retain that out of the assets of Mr. W. Jolliffe. He swears, however, that there was not sufficient assets; but I submit it was his duty to retain any assets which came into his hands from his father’s estate for that purpose. He ought, I submit to your Honour, to have retained that sum out of the assets in his hands.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Do you mean to contend, Mr. Glynn, that he ought to have retained that sum out of the assets which might come into his hands, for the payment of this balance, in priority to any other creditor?
  Mr. HORNE.—My Learned Friend knows very well that the Gentleman to whom he has alluded died insolvent.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—I ask Mr. Glynn, upon his own argument, whether he means to contend here, that Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, who, after his father’s death, became Treasurer of this Charity, could, as executor to his father, in priority to any other creditor, retain out of the assets, satisfaction of this deed?
  Mr. GLYNN.—No, but having notice of this being due, he ought to have applied the assets to that debt.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—He ought to have done his duty as Executor, and to have applied the assets equally. For what other creditor could he or ought he, to have retained the assets? But because he became, by virtue of his capacity as Trustee, the person to receive the debt, you contend that he ought to have given priority to this debt which was due to the Charity.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I am told that the Will of Mr. Wm. Jolliffe was proved under 10,000l.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—That was a fact, which I confess, Mr. Wetherell, startled me to the outset, when I heard the pleadings opened, and I then stated, that you were entitled to an enquiry, what was the balance due from Mr. William Jolliffe to Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, on account of the Charity, and whether his Son possessed assets sufficient to satisfy the debt, or any and what part of it. If so, it was his duty to have detained it: but if the fact turn out, that the father, Mr. William Jolliffe, died insolvent, if there was nothing to pay, it follows of course that there was nothing to receive.
  Mr. GLYNN.—He offers to pay it.
  Mr. HORNE.—Yes, subject to the assets; take it as you find it.

(To be continued to-morrow)

Morning Post
(Continued from yesterday’s Paper.)
  Mr. GLYNN.—There is another point which has been suggested by Mr. Wetherell, upon which I think, we are entitled to an inquiry—that is, that unqualified boys have been admitted in this school. I dot mean merely at a late time, but even now, there are some boys in the school of that description, and, I have reason to believe, other boys also, who are not children of persons inhabitants of Petersfield. Unquestionably, it was sworn that that was done ignorantly; but still, I think, that circumstance furnishes strong argument to shew, that these Gentlemen were negligent in the discharge of their trust, and that they did not make those inquiries which would have enabled them to ascertain, whether the children so admitted did belong or did not belong to Petersfield. On the qualification of the Trustees, I apprehend it is not necessary to say any thing. I apprehend that the majority of them, not being residents, were not properly appointed. With regard to some of the Trustees, it is admitted, that three of them have resided, as it is sworn, eighty miles from the place—the other two Mr. Jolliffe’s forty miles, leaving only two residing within any moderate distance, to perform the duties of the trust; and with regard to those two, we have the consequence following, which might be expected, that they scarcely attended at all. It is alleged that Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, the uncle, never attended any meeting of the Trustees from the 12th of February, 1785, to the 19th June, 1818, that is for the space of thirty five years, though filling up the place of a more efficient Trustee, he has never attended during that time, and the other never attended at all!
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Where does that appear?
  Mr. GLYNN.—From the time of his being nominated in 1807 until the month of December 1818.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—And from 1785 Samuel Jolliffe?
  Mr. GLYNN.—He was appointed a Trustee in 1769.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—He was the oldest Trustee.
  Mr. GLYNN.—That down to this period, 1818, he never attended at all, and the other Trustee has never attended from the very time of his nomination down to the time mentioned in the information.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Do you admit, Mr. Horne, that Thomas Samuel Jolliffe has not attended for thirty-five years.
  Mr. HORNE.—Never personally—there have been communications, but never personally. I beg to assure your Honour that I do not object to any inquiry you may think proper to direct.
  Mr.WETHERELL.—I have said just otherwise, Mr. Horne. I said that neither the Will not the Act of Parliament directed that Residents only should be selected; but it appears by the history of the Charity, which the Trustees do not wish to go into, that in consequence of the information filed in 1732 by Mr. Willes, when Attorney-General, that two Gentlemen retired from the office in consequence of that suggestion.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—From what time does Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe say he has not attended?
  Mr. SKIRROW.—From 1785 down to 1818.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What has he done since then?
  Mr. SKIRROW.—I believe he has attended since that time.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Which is the other?
  Mr. GLYNN.—Mr. John Twyford Jolliffe; he is related to the other.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—When was he elected?
  Mr. GLYNN.—In 1807.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—What does he say in his answer, Mr. Glynn?
  Mr. GLYNN.—He never attended or was present at any meeting of the Trustees.
  Mr. SHADWELL.—We have no objection to an inquiry.
  Mr. GLYNN.—They have admitted, that for 33 years, down to 1818, he has not attended any of the meetings of the Trustees. Mr. HORNE.—I do not object to any inquiry your Honour may think proper to direct.
  Mr. GLYNN.—The Court, I hope, will think, that the non-attendance of these Defendants furnishes a strong argument in our favour, not meaning to impute corrupt motives to these Gentlemen.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Mr. Horne, it is not necessary to trouble you. I shall direct certain inquiries, and you will have the goodness to suggest whether you have any objection to the inquiries I propose to have instituted. It is undoubtedly the duty of this Court, whenever it is imputed to Trustees for charitable purposes that they have employed themselves in the execution of that office from corrupt motives, either with respect to the property of the Charity, or to the authority and influence which they enjoy as Trustees of that Charity, to listen to the complaint with a most jealous attention. On the other hand, if it is imputed to such Trustees that they have not used the property of the Charity, or the influence derived from their situation as Trustees, for corrupt purposes, but have failed in some irregularities, in some of the rules and orders which belong to the Charity, through mere error—I say, through mere error—it is the duty of the Court to listen to the complaint with great attention, and with great moderation; and, instead of visiting such persons, either with reflections, or consequences to affect their characters in the world, as far as it can, to protect them. The greater part of the complaints made upon this information are entirely of the latter description. It is not imputed to any person concerned with this Charity, that he has used the property or power of the Charity with any corrupt motive. I state this with one single exception, and that exception undoubtedly is a very important one.’ It is answered, in point of fact, by the oath of the party; but those who have filed the Information have a right to have the fact tried—not by the oath of the party charged, but by such an examination as shall prove or disprove the truth of the charge. It will be easily anticipated, that the charge to which I refer is, the charge made upon Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, a person filling a respectable situation in life—a person of great property, and who, in 1803, succeeds to that property upon the death of his father. His father, living in or near Petersfield, had been an active member among the Trustees of this Charity. He had been what is called, in the course of these proceedings, Treasurer—certainly an office unknown to the intention of the original founder, as undoubtedly it is unknown to the Act of Parliament which passed at a later period for the purpose of regulating the objects of the Charity; but still an office that very properly grew out of the administration of its trusts. This property was property wholly invested in the public funds, and probably it was invested in the names of the whole of the Trustees. Each, therefore, of the Trustees was competent to receive what was due from the property so vested, so that any single person acting as one of the Trustees, under such circumstances might receive the dividends. Now to obviate any inconvenience arising from the number of persons, in whose names the property was vested, a particular Trustee was nominated to receive the income of the Charity, and he is called Treasurer, and that is the whole amount of the office. From 1803, Mr. Hylton Jolliffe succeeding his father, he became a Trustee, and that Trustee who received the dividends—and, in that character, the name of Treasurer. As Treasurer, it was his undoubted duty to inquire whether any and what balance was due from his father, the preceding Treasurer. It was his bounden duty so to do. There would have been no difficulty for him to have ascertained that such a balance was due, or probably what the exact amount of the balance was: for I take this for granted, that there would be found on the books of this Charity certain settlements, which would have disclosed what the actual balance was that was due from Mr. William Jolliffe at the time of his death to the Charity estate. Now Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, filling the character, not only of being Treasurer to this Charity, and thereby bound to receive the sums due from his father’s estate, but also that of executor to his father’s estate. In that character, having the distribution of that estate, he ought, if he possessed assets, to have paid what was due to the Charity to himself.
  It is charged in this information, that there being a large balance of 1,650l. due to this charity from the father, his son the Executor and Treasurer, instead of performing his duty to the Charity by paying that sum, never took any notice of such balance being due; and from that time, namely 1803, down to the filing of this information in 1818, never did call for or pay a single shilling of that sum so due to the Charity, he being the person to call for and pay it. Now, if the fact was so, that Mr. Hylton Jolliffe did possess property of his father, but of which he could have paid the debt so due by his father to the Charity estate, and which he did not, it would be my duty to say here, notwithstanding the respectable situation which he fills, and that very honourable character which he has hitherto maintained, that he has failed in his duty to the Charity, and that I can no longer permit him to remain one of those persons who is to protect its interests, and administer its property. Mr. Jolliffe is called upon to answer this charge, and he alleges upon his oath and admits, that this balance, as there stated, or some very considerable balance was due to this Charity—stating, at the same time, that he has never retained on the part of the Charity one single shilling. Admitting that fact, he says he had had nothing to retain—my father, he says, died insolvent. As his Executor, I never possessed one single shilling, which could be applied to the purposes of this Charity, and therefore no imputation falls upon me for not retaining that which I had not.
  Now, whatever may be the private impression which the oath of this Gentleman may make upon my mind, that impression cannot conclude this question. They who filed this information have a right to have this fact established or negative, not merely by the oath of the party charged, but they have a right to call upon me to send it to the Master, which I must do, to inquire whether Mr. William Jolliffe died indebted to this Charity, in any and what sum, and I must send to the Master a further inquiry whether Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, his son and executor, did possess assets of the father applicable to the payment of the debt, or to any and what part of that debt. When I have an answer to that inquiry, then will be the time to consider whether this part of the information makes it the duty of the Court to remove him from this trust. It is said, if this fact be true, that it is not only this Gentleman who ought to be removed from his office, in respect of this charge, but that the other Trustees ought to be removed also; for it is contended, that the other Trustees were cognizant of the fact, and partook of the guilty negligence of Mr. Jolliffe in not seeing that the money was paid; and so, participating in that guilty negligence, they are not persons proper to be concerned in the administration of the trust. It is not necessary, however, for me at this time to dispose of that question. If the Report of the Master should fix Mr. Hylton Jolliffe with any part of the imputation this information makes upon him, undoubtedly it will then be the time to consider how far that imputation is to be shared by the other persons mentioned on the record with Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, namely, on account of their being cognizable of the criminal neglect of that Gentleman. The whole of this part of the case, however, must remain undisposed of, until the Master’s Report raises the fact on which the Court must proceed.
  With the exception of that single fact, there is nothing that imputes corruption to these Gentlemen; but there is a great deal in the information which imputes irregularity. It is said, that by the will of the Founder the boys to be educated in this school should be furnished with clothing and board and lodging, whereas in the present administration of the Charity, and for many years, it is said, the boys have not been boarded and lodged, and, as I believe, for I hardly collected from the statement whether they have been clothed or not——
  Mr. HORNE.—They have been clothed.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—The charge is, that though directed to be boarded and lodged, it has not been so done, and though it is not imputed that that has not been done from any corrupt motive, still it is said, this is a degree of negligence in the performance of their duties, which renders them unfit to remain Trustees. To this charge they make this answer, that the funds of the Charity were totally inadequate to the clothing and lodging of these boys. They say, we have duly administered every shilling received for the purposes of this Charity—we have not been able to board them, our funds not being able to meet the expense. It is very true there have been boarders in the house, but they have not been boarded at the expense of the Charity, but at the personal expense of the parents of the children; and we have considered, as our predecessors did (for it is not pretended this is a new practice,) we have considered that it was extremely beneficial for the purposes of the Charity, as intended by the will, of the Founder, that the Master should receive boarders, because the salary of forty pounds a year, which is provided by the will of the Founder, as must be quite obvious, is totally inadequate for the support of a person qualified to give the instruction required. Therefore as the sum which was allowed was inadequate to provide a suitable Master, it was thought a fit thing by us and by our predecessors, to let the Master increase his income of that sum of 40l. per ann. by granting him permission to receive boarders into this house, which was intended for the boarding and lodging of the charity boys, but who could not be boarded for want of funds. Permission was given to receive other boys, that by the profit arising from the receipt of these boarders, we might be able to support an adequate Master for the education of the children. This is the statement made upon oath. In this respect they have followed the example of their predecessors, and it appears to me that in thus following the example of their predecessors, taking the facts to be as stated, they have exercised a sound discretion. It is obvious, that 40l. a year is a sum not sufficient to maintain a Master, and they have resorted to those means, which are resorted to by all the great Charities of this description in the kingdom, and which by so doing, have distinguished this country with respect to those Institutions from every other country on the Continent of Europe. This, therefore, forms no matter of imputation. With respect to the scheme, which the Master will approve, for I must send it to the Master under the present circumstances of this Charity, for since the date of the Act of Parliament, the property has increased from 182l. a-year, to 600l. a-year. Therefore, I must call the attention of the master to the present state of the Funds, to approve a scheme by which the present income of six hundred pounds a-year may be so applied, as best to answer the intention of the Founder. It will be a part of the inquiry to have it considered, whether it is possible to board any number of boys, or whether boarders shall be permitted only for the profit of the Master. That will be part of the scheme to which the attention of the Master will be directed, and his discretion will be guided by what may be stated by all the parties in this suit; for I believe there are none of the parties now before the Court who do not desire beneficial administration of the Funds of this Charity; and, if all do so, they will equally concur in giving the Master such information as is within their power, having regard to the sort of population which belongs to this town of Petersfield, for the purpose of enabling him to carry into effect the charitable purposes which the original Founder had in contemplation.
  There are other irregularities complained of. It is said about forty years ago, I do not profess to be very correct in this date, but about forty years ago, Mr. John Jolliffe, a Member of this family, died, and he died indebted to the Charity in the sum of 690l. It has been stated that that sum has never been paid to the Charity, and that it ought to be paid to the Charity with the accumulation of interest from that time. Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, the aged Gentleman referred to, has been a Trustee from 1769; it seems he was the executor of this Mr. Jolliffe, his father, and he swears that so far from this sum of 169l., the balance admitted to be due, at the time of his father’s death, being still due to the Charity estate, he states that he paid it himself to Mr. Wm. Jolliffe, the succeeding Treasurer to the Charity. I must assume that the debt, there being nothing said to the contrary, has been duly paid; but it is not presumption merely on the part of the Court, for there is a positive statement of it on oath, and I cannot hesitate to give full credit to it. The Charity will have the benefit of this statement for Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I did not open that part of the case. We do not charge that the balance on the death of Mr. John Jolliffe was not paid by his executor to his successor.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—No, you did not; but I think you are rather intitled to some relief upon this point, though not to the whole extent of that which you seek, what you pray is, that a large sum may be paid in respect of this debt and interest—that I cannot do for you, but the oath of Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe may induce the Master, must induce the Master, to believe that William Jolliffe did receive this money, so that in taking the account of the estate of Mr. William Jolliffe, you will have a right to increase the balance against him by adding the sum of 169l., the sum stated to have been paid to ???? in that way, the Charity will have the full benefit of that ???? ???? balance due from Mr. John Jolliffe.
  There is another irregularity, on which I can only ????? the observation I have already made. A Mr. Trimmings ???? few years since he was appointed Master; it is state that he was a person whose conduct was not consistent with his duty as schoolmaster, and for that reason that the Trustees removed him. It is stated, that upon his removal he was reduced to the utmost poverty; and they admit that, from a mere attention to the misery of this man, they did recommend to the present Master of the school, his successor, that he should out of his salary, it being only 40l. a year, the other profits being derived from scholars who were boarders, make some little provision for this miserable man, to whose situation he was appointed; and the present Master, Mr. Dusatoy, under that recommendation, not considering himself bound to do it, positively swearing he entered into no engagement that could bind him, that it was no part of the stipulation, positively swearing that he was induced, from motives of feeling only, to pay to this miserable man 20l. a year. I concur that that recommendation was irregular. These Trustees, although it was matter of feeling in them, and though there is no imputation upon them for it, had no right to indulge those feelings at the expense of the Charity; and if they thought the giving of this 20l. a year was calculated to save this man from the bitterest distress, they had no right to do it out of those funds, which were destined by the founder to other purposes. But it is not an irregularity of that character to induce a Court of Justice to say, that persons who should be carried away by their feelings to this extent, should not continue in the administration of the trusts of this Charity.
  Another irregularity is of a very old date—I do not recollect it precisely—but it appears that a layman was appointed many years ago Master of this School, the will of the Founder and the Act both requiring that there should be a Lay Master and not an Ecclesiastical Master.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—Mr. Robert Steele.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—That person, Robert Steele, went to reside at Winchester, and instead of appointing a new school-master to succeed him, who must have been a layman; the Trustees from between 1784 and 1796 continued his name as the nominal schoolmaster, but did in truth appoint a clergyman of the name of Cookson, who, for a considerable time actually performed the duty of a schoolmaster. Whatever irregularity there was in that respect, it then ceased. I agree that it was an irregularity, but it does not touch the conduct of the present Trustees, and therefore for the purpose of this information I have nothing to do with that.
  It is said, if we look to the actual Trustees of the Charity, they are all of one family—they are either Jolliffes, or nearly connected with that family; for they are all named Jolliffes, Twyford Jolliffe, Hylton Jolliffe, or some such names. Therefore, this trust, it is said, has not the advantage of such Trustees as the Founder meant, or the Act of Parliament meant, when seven Trustees were provided. Seven Trustees were provided, in order that their vigilance might be directed to the interest of this Charity; but here all the Trustees being members of one family, in truth have committed the whole management of the Charity estate to the head of the family; and that in fact it is but a nomination under different names of a single Trustee. Now, when that was stated to me, I was anxious to know whether there was evidence to support that fact; for, if the Trustees were all named out of the same family, and gave no attention to the duties of their office, but left it to the head of the family, who becomes thereby the only acting Trustee, though no imputation was to be cast upon him, he took upon him an office which this Act of Parliament never contemplated. It required seven Trustees, and the Court could never permit that any one Gentleman should defeat the intention of the law, and embody the whole powers of the trust in his own person. I called for evidence of the fact—it is stated that Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, a gentleman, who has been a Trustee since 1769, for thirty years has never acted as a Trustee—now I think he cannot within the meaning of this Act of Parliament, be continued as a trustee. I must now make an order to that effect, unless, as he probably will, to save the Court any declaration to that effect, probably being a gentleman of such advanced age, under all the circumstances, he will tender his resignation; and it would be extremely agreeable to me, that I should have here to state that he consented to retire, rather than be compelled to make an order to that effect.
  Mr. HORNE.—Certainly, Sir, he will retire.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Then the Master should appoint a new Trustee in his place, suspending the appointment till further directions are given in this cause; for if the others are to be removed, no new appointments can take place at present. It is said another Gentleman of the name of John Twyford Jolliffe was elected a Trustee, a brother, I believe.
  Mr. HEALD.—A cousin of one of the Jolliffe’s, and a son of Mr. Thomas Samuel Jolliffe.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—This Mr. John Twyford Jolliffe was elected in the year 1807, and it is said he never has acted as a Trustee since his election in 1807. I requested to have read to me the evidence on which that is founded, and it appears that it is only to be found in the answer of Mr. Hylton Jolliffe. That is extremely good evidence against himself, but it cannot affect any other defendant. Therefore, if Mr. John Twyford Jolliffe, against whom this is charged, the election being fifteen years ago, does not make the same declaration by his Counsel that his father has done, that he is willing to retire from the trust, if he does not make the same tender, all I can do is to send it to the Master to inquire, whether, and in what respect, he has acted as Trustee since 1807?
  Mr. HORNE.—I believe he has not acted.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Then do you desire an inquiry to go to the Master upon that point.
  Mr. HEALD.—They admit he has not acted from 1807 to 1818.
  Mr. HORNE.—We have no objection, Sir, to make a tender of his resignation also.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—If he does not shew (for I shall presume that he was a Trustee), that the duties were performed by him, and that they were not left to be performed by the head of the family, who has great interest in the Borough——
  Mr. HORNE.—You may consider, Sir, his case in the same manner as that of the father.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—If he makes the same offer to retire from the trust, then it will be for the Court, after the Master has made his Report, to say what new Trustee shall be appointed. I believe I have now gone through the whole of the case, and if Mr. Horne does not think he can say any thing to induce me to alter my opinions, I will make such directions as I have mentioned.
  Mr. HORNE.—No, Sir, I do not think I have any thing further to offer.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—With respect to the irregular appointment of the Trustees, perhaps your Honour would express an opinion as to that.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—I cannot give any opinion whether any of these gentlemen were or were not unduly elected, for that does not depend on any abstract proposition, but upon matter of fact; and I must therefore send it to the Master, to inquire whether A, B, or C, were duly elected, and the Master to be at liberty to state any thing specially which may occur to him. You will not extend that inquiry to Mr. John Twyford Jolliffe, he having resigned.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—But to inquire with respect to all the others.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—No, not to any person who has been appointed by the Master under the direction of the Court; but the inquiry to apply to any others.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—Whom do you say the inquiry is not to be made against.
  Mr. HORNE.—Mr. Twyford and the Reverend William John Jolliffe.
  Mr. WETHERELL.— I would beg to ask your Honour, whether you would not direct an inquiry with respect to what has been the attendance of all the other Trustees? I think we have furnished pretty good evidence that the other Trustees have attended so seldom, as clearly shew that they never intended to act as bona fide Trustees; if they have attended so seldom, the question will be, whether they have not neglected their duty?
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—You must read to me some evidence as to that point; I cannot direct such an inquiry except it is founded upon evidence. A general charge will not be sufficient to induce me to direct an inquiry.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—There is a general charge, but I have not been able to hit the bird in the eye, as to the evidence on this point. With respect to the other Trustees, the question is, whether the general charge does not in the case of a public information, authorise your Honour to institute such an inquiry as I have suggested. We have thrown a pretty good sample before your Honour of these Trustee. We have shewn to the Court, that two out of the seven have no more acted in this Charity than I have,—then the question is, whether that is not ground enough to sustain a general charge, and to warrant your Honour in directing an inquiry.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—You know I cannot infer because A. has been guilty of neglect that B. has been guilty also. You must read some evidence. In the evidence you have read to me, I do not find any thing which is sufficient to warrant such an inquiry.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The only evidence I can offer is what I have states. I own it does not seem to me, as far as I have cast my eye over the book containing the minutes of the proceedings of the Trustees, that they have so often attended as to shew that they were acting bona fide; perhaps Mr. Heald may have examined the book with more attention than myself, I will hand the book to Mr. Heald.
  Mr. HEALD.—Indeed I cannot speak to it, for I had not seen the book till I came into Court.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—On the other complaint, in which it is said that the boys have not been boarded, I doubt whether this Act of Parliament ???? not removed from the Trustees the power to board ????? ys. I say nothing about it determinately at present, ???? ill be very important for you when you come to committee ???? scheme, to have the attention of both sides called to it. H?????? exes to the original order a schedule of the rules and provides 10l. a year for the board of each boy, and likewise, a certain sum for the clothing of each boy; and the Act of Parliament, which is to stand in the place of the Founder’s deed, also annexes a schedule of rules. If you take the trouble to examine it, you will find it makes no provision for the board of the boys, and my doubt is, whether your case does not wholly fail in that respect; and if it shall be found, Mr. Wetherell, that the Trustees, without the Act of Parliament, would have boarded the boys—
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I admit, Sir, that there is that difficulty; but it appears to me that the real meaning is, that the rules annexed are to be embodied with the preceding rules, except, pro tanto, any alteration which has been made.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Yes, that is what you will have to contend.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I suppose your Honour will give us permission to apply to the Court as to the manner in which the minutes are to be drawn up, should any thing occur.
  Mr. HORNE.—I hope your Honour will give no such permission with respect to the formalities and so on.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—You had better take down the directions on each side, to avoid any future application.
  Mr. SHADWELL.—As I understand your Honour, you are pleased first to direct an inquiry as to what balance was due from Mr. Wm. Jolliffe.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Whether at the time of death there was any, and what balance due from him to the Charity.
  Mr. SHADWELL.—And whether he possessed any assets to discharge the same.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—Applicable to any or what part, and the Master to be at liberty to state any special circumstances—then to refer to the Master to take an account of the property of the charity possessed by Mr. Hilton Jolliffe, and his application of the funds. I do not direct an account against the Trustees, for it is plain they never received——
  Mr. WETHERELL.—For the balances received and which are in his hands, and those not received.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—That must be an application after the Master has taken the account, Mr. Wetherell. If, after the account, it appears Mr. Hylton Jolliffe had such balances in his hand, if he ought to pay interest you must again apply to the Court.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I apply to your Honour for an inquiry as to the balances which he omitted to receive.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—That point cannot arise until I know that he has no omitted to receive balances.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I understand the schedule shews the fact which I am now stating: I am seeking for balances which he did not chuse to receive.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—No; I cannot do that, unless you lay a ground for it.
  Mr. HORNE.—My Learned Friend seems to me to coming back again to the argument of the Bank Stock, which question was disposed of by your Honour early in the discussion.
  Mr. SHADWELL.—Then your Honour goes on to direct, that the Master is to inquire, whether any boys shall be boarded? As two of the Trustees have consented to retire, your Honour does not make the order to remove them, but that the Master is to inquire whether other Trustees were duly elected, and to reserve the consideration of the appointment of the new Trustees until after the Master’s Report.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The Bill charges a loss upon the balances, and the account admits, that those balances have not been received from time to time.
  Mr. HORNES.—To what balances do you allude?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I allude to balances which stand in the Accountant-General’s name.
  Mr. HORNE.—Which his Honour has disposed of long ago.
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—I meant to do so. I cannot think this Gentleman was aware of having to receive these sums of money, and wilfully neglected to receive them.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—With respect the bonuses, if the gentlemen did not know the fact your Honour has just stated—that at least was matter of public notoriety—if it be so—if he did not know—I say no more. I should like to have it inquired into, what boys are upon the foundation who do not belong to Petersfield?
  VICE-CHANCELOR.—I cannot direct such an inquiry—when you have new Trustees, they will do their duty, I presume.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—That is one of the subject which I should have wished to be inquired into.

Windsor & Eton Express
  This was an information filed (nominally) by the Attorney-General against the defendants, Hylton Jolliffe, Thomas S. Jolliffe, J. Twyford Jolliffe, Thomas R. Jolliffe, Wm. J. Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, and Charles Twyford, at present acting as trustees of Churcher’s College, Petersfield, praying that the Court would remove them from their offices, and appoint other trustees in their places. The application was grounded upon alleged improper conduct.
  Mr. Heald, Mr. Wetherell, and Mr. Glynn appeared in support of the information: Mr. Horne and Mr. Shadwell for the defendants. The circumstances of this case, as they were stated by counsel, were afterwards very clearly detailed in the judgement pronounced by the Court, which in substance was as follows>— The VICE-CHANCELOR said, that whenever a charge was made against the trustees of a charity, of having acted corruptly in the execution of their office, either by the improper application of the property, or in the influence of their power, it became the duty of the Court to examine it with the most jealous attention. On the other hand, when it was not imputed to trustees that they had employed the property or influence vested in them for corrupt purposes, but had administered all that belonged to the charity with the utmost exactitude, and had failed only in fulfilling some regulations, rules, and orders through inadvertence or neglect, the Court was inclined to come to a consideration of the question with the greatest moderation. The greater part of the complaints against the trustees in the present information were of the latter description. The single charge of corrupt conduct was made against Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, a gentleman of large property, and filling a high situation in life. In 1803, the father of this gentleman died, and he succeeded him as acting trustee and treasurer of the charity. When Mr. Hylton Jolliffe became treasurer, it was his duty to inquire whether any and what balance was due to the charity from his father, the late treasurer. It could not have been difficult for Mr. Hylton Jolliffe to have ascertained these points. But Mr. Hylton Jolliffe filled a double character; he was not only treasurer and trustee to the charity, but also executor to his father. It was charged in the information that a large balance of 1600l. was due to the charity from the former treasurer, of which Mr. H. Jolliffe had not paid a single shilling down to the present moment. Mr. Jolliffe answered the charge brought against him by stating that he believed there was a balance due to the charity from his father, of which he admitted he had not paid a shilling, but he added, that his father died insolvent, and that he, as his executor, never possessed any property which he could apply in liquidation of his debts. The Court must send it to the Master to inquire whether the former treasurer died indebted to the charity, and in what sum; and whether Mr. Hylton Jolliffe was possessed of any assets applicable to the payment of his father’s debts, or any part of them. When the result of their inquiry should be known, the Court would determine whether it would allow the defendant to continue in his situation or not. It had been argued that the other trustees had been guilty of negligence, inasmuch as they were cognizant of the balance due by the former treasurer, and yet had never called upon his successor to pay it over to the charity, whereby they had proved themselves to be unfit for the situation which they filled. The present was not the proper time for the Court to decide that question. If it should appear to be necessary when the report of the Master should be made, the Court would then perform its duty. With the exception of the before-mentioned charge, there was nothing in the information which imputed corruption to any of the defendants; but there was a great deal which imputed irregularities to them. ‘Since the Act of Parliament had been passed for regulating the affairs of this charity, the income had increased from 180l. to 600l. per annum: it would therefore be necessary to refer it to the Master to approve of a new scheme of management by which the increased funds would be applied so as best to answer the intention of the founder. It had been said that the trustees were all members of one family, and that they neglected to attend to the duties of their offices, but deputed the head of the family to manage the concerns of the charity. If it had been proved that the trustees had thus defeated the intentions of the founder of the charity, the Court would not hesitate to remove them; but there was no evidence of the fact. It did appear, however, that two of the trustees, namely, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe and John Twyford Jolliffe, had never attended the administration of the affairs of the charity. The Court must take an order for the removal of these gentlemen, unless they would themselves tender their resignation, which would be much pleasanter to the Court. Mr. HORNE stated that those gentlemen would resign.

Hampshire Telegraph

  Married at Petersfield, on Thursday last, Mr. Henry Mills, Miller, of Heyshott, Sussex, to Miss Mary Maxwell, daughter of the late Mr. Thos. Maxwell, of Harting, Sussex

Hampshire Chronicle

Churcher’s College, Petersfield.—An application was on Monday made in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, praying his Honour to direct that Hylton Jolliffe, Thos. S. Jolliffe, J. Twyford Jolliffe, Thos. R. Jolliffe, Wm. J. Jolliffe, Sam. Twyford, and Charles Twyford, at present acting as trustees of Churcher’s College, Petersfield, be removed from their offices, and others appointed in their places. The information against the defendants was nominally at the instance of the Attorney-General, and the application was grounded upon alleged improper conduct. The Vice-Chancellor said, it was not imputed to any of the defendants that they had used the power or property which was vested in them for any corrupt purpose, with one exception, and that was an important one. This single charge of corrupt conduct was made against Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, a gentleman of large property, and filling a high situation in life. In 1803, the father of this gentleman died, and he succeeded him as acting trustee and treasurer to the charity. When Mr. Hylton Jolliffe became treasurer, it was his duty to inquire whether any and what balance was due to the charity from his father, the late treasurer. It could not have been difficult for Mr. Hylton Jolliffe to have ascertained these points; for he apprehended that the books of the accounts of the charity would afford the necessary information. But Mr. Hylton Jolliffe filled a double character; he was not only treasurer and trustee to the charity, but also executor to his father.—It was charged in the information that a large balance, £1,600, was due to the charity by the former treasurer, of which Mr. H. Jolliffe had not paid a single shilling down to the present moment. If the fact should appear to stand as it was charged in the information—if it were proved that Mr. H. Jolliffe had not paid the balance owing by his father, although he possessed property from his father to pay his debts, the Court, notwithstanding the high character of the defendant, would perform its duty to the charity by declaring that he should no longer continue one of those persons who were appointed to protect its interests and administer its property. Mr. Jolliffe answered the charge brought against him by stating that he believed there was a balance due to the charity from his father, of which he admitted he had not paid a shilling; but he added, that his father died insolvent, and that he, as his executor, never possessed any property which he could apply in liquidation of his debts. This statement, which was upon oath, did not, however, determine the question. The persons who had filed the information had no right to have the fact established by the mere oath of the party accused, but by judicial evidence. The Court, therefore, must send it to the Master to inquire whether the former treasurer died indebted to the charity, and in what sum; and whether Mr. H. Jolliffe was possessed of any assets applicable to the payment of his father’s debts, or any part of them. When the result of their inquiry should be known, the Court would determine whether it would allow the defendant to continue in his situation or not. It had been argued that the other trustees had been guilty of criminal negligence, inasmuch as they were cognizant of the balance due by the former treasurer, and yet had never called upon his successor to pay it over to the charity, whereby they had proved themselves to be unfit for the situation which they filled. The present was not the proper time for the Court to decide that question. If it should appear to be necessary when the report of the Master should be made, the Court would then perform its duty. With the exception of the before-mentioned charge, there was nothing in the information which imputed corruption to any of the defendants; but there was a great deal which imputed irregularities to them. For instance, the founder of the charity provided by his will that the boys educated in the school should be provided with clothing, board, and lodging, out of the funds of the charity. Now it appeared that during the present administration of the charity, and for many years previous, the scholars boarded and lodged at the college. The trustees accounted for this seeming abandonment of their trust, by stating that the funds of the charity until lately have been totally inadequate to provide for the boarding and lodging of the scholars, and that they have duly administered every shilling. It was true, they observed, that boarders were kept in the college; but these children were maintained at the personal expense of their parents, and not at the cost of the charity. The practice of admitting boarders of this description had been sanctioned by their predecessors as a means of increasing the income of the master of the school, whose salary was only £40 per annum, which was a sum totally inadequate to the support of his family. This statement was made upon oath, and was not contradicted, and he (the Vice-Chancellor), was of opinion that the trustees had exercised a sound discretion in permitting the master to augment his salary in the manner described. The means which had here been adopted for increasing the income of the master had been resorted to in all the great charities in the kingdom, and it was to that in some degree that it was owing that the youth of this country were better instructed than that of any of the continental nations. Since the Act of Parliament had been passed for regulating the affairs of this charity, the income had increased from £180 to £600 per annum: it would therefore be necessary to refer it to the Master to approve of a new scheme of management by which the increased funds would be applied so as best to answer the intention of the founder. He would now allude to another irregularity which was imputed to the defendants. Some years since a person named Travers was appointed master of the school. It appeared that in consequence of this individual’s conduct being considered very improper, he was deprived of his office, and thus reduced to a state of extreme poverty. The defendants admitted that they recommended to the successor of this miserable man to make some little provision for him out of his salary, and consequently the present master had annually appropriated £20 to this purpose. It certainly was improper on the part of the trustees to recommend the present master to devote a part of his income to the relief of his predecessor; but it did not appear that in doing so they had been actuated by any corrupt motive; therefore a Court of Justice could not declare that by such an act they had proved themselves unworthy of administering the affairs of the charity. It had been said that the trustees were all members of one family, and that they neglected to attend to the duties of their offices, but deputed the head of the family to manage the concerns of the charity. If it had been proved that the trustees had thus defeated the intentions of the founder of the charity, the Court would not hesitate to remove them; but there was no evidence of the fact. It did appear, however, that two of the trustees, namely, Thos. Samuel Jolliffe and John Twyford Jolliffe, had never attended to the administration of the affairs of the charity. The Court must make an order for the removal of these gentlemen, unless they would themselves tender their resignation, which would be much pleasanter.
Mr. Horne stated that those gentlemen would resign.
The Vice-Chancellor, on the application of Mr. Wetherell, directed that it should be referred to the Master, to inquire whether Mr. Thomas Twyford Jolliffe and Mr. Chas. Edward Twyford had been duly elected trustees.

Hampshire Chronicle
Winchester Turnpike.—Lower District.
  NOTICE is hereby given, —That on the twenty-fifth day of November instant, an order was signed by William Nevill and Charles Græme, Esquires, two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, in and for the county of Southampton, for diverting and turning a certain part of a highway, within the parish of Avington, in the said county, lying between the turnpike road leading from the city of Winchester to London, and certain roads, branching off in three directions, one towards Petersfield, another towards Southampton, and the other towards Alresford, commencing at the south side of the said turnpike road, near unto a certain place called Avington Lodge, and running along and over a certain down called Avington Down, into the roads branching off as aforesaid for the length of one thousand and eighteen yards, or thereabouts, and particularly described in a plan to the said Order annexed; the course proposed for the new highway in lieu thereof, being formed and set out through the lands of the Most Noble Richard Grenville Chandos Temple, Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, K.C. and Anne Elizabeth, his wife, commencing at the said south side of the said turnpike road, immediately opposite to a certain other road, leading from the village of Avington, at the distance of three hundred and seventy-eight yards, or thereabouts, from the commencement of the said part of the said highway to be diverted and turned, and ending at the termination thereof, at the roads branching off as aforesaid, which said course so formed, set out, and proposed, for such new highway, including the said three hundred and seventy-eight yards, the further distance along the said turnpike road, is of the length of one thousand one hundred and ten yards, or thereabouts, and of the breadth of twenty-four feet, or thereabouts, and is also particularly described in the said plan to the said Order annexed; and that the said Order will be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace of the said county, at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden at the Castle of Winchester, in and for the said county, on the fourteenth day of January next; and also, that the said Order will, at the said Quarter Sessions, be confirmed and inrolled, unless upon an appeal against the same, to be then made, it be otherwise determined.
T. and J. WOODHAM,

Solicitors, Winchester.  

Hampshire Chronicle

  A numerous and respectable meeting of Farmers was held on Tuesday last, at Petersfield, for the purpose of forming an Agricultural Society on the plan proposed by Mr. Ellman, at the breaking up of the last Annual Petersfield Sheep Show, when a number of resolutions were entered into, and those present concurred in the expediency of establishing such a Club as should afford the means of correspondence with societies of a similar description in this and other counties, thereby enabling the agriculturalists to combine their efforts for obtaining relief under the present melancholy distress.

Hampshire Chronicle
  AT the First Meeting of the FARMERS CLUB, held at the Dolphin Inn, PETERSFIELD, on Tuesday the 3d of December, 1822, pursuant to public advertisement, for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements for the establishment of the Club;
Mr. Jas. WHITE, of PAULSGROVE, in the Chair;
  It was unanimously Resolved,
  That a Committee be appointed to take the Management of the Club, to whom all suggestions and applications are to be made on subjects connected with Agriculture, and particularly in which the Members of this Club are concerned.
  That the Committee do meet every Petersfield Market day, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, at eleven o’clock.
  That Mr. John Lipscomb, the Secretary to the late Agricultural Society, be appointed Secretary, to whom all communications be addressed.
  It was also unanimously resolved,—That the steps which have already been taken by the Yeomanry of this County, in promoting a Requisition to the High Sheriff, for a County Meeting, to consider a remedy for the existing Agricultural Distress, have the entire concurrence of this Meeting, and that each Member will promote the same to the utmost of his power.
  It was also unanimously resolved,—That the exertions now making in other counties for effecting relief to the Agricultural Classes, are worthy attention, and that it is hoped similar measures will be adopted throughout the kingdom, for the purpose of combining the efforts of the Agricultural Interest upon every occasion. And it is particularly recommended that Clubs be formed at all Market Towns in the kingdom, by Farmers who frequent the same.
  Resolved,—That these Resolutions be signed by the Chairman on behalf of the Meeting; and that the Meeting be adjourned till the 25th day of February next.


Hampshire Chronicle

  At the end of last Term, a rule was obtained in the Court of King’s Bench, against Mr. C. J. Hector, an attorney of Petersfield, to shew cause why he should not pay the costs of an ejectment, brought by the Lord of the Manor of Liss, against Knowles, a pauper, for defending the action without his authority.

Hampshire Telegraph
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That the next Meeting of the TRUSTEES of the above Road, will be held on Monday the 30th day of December, 1822, at the Dolphin Inn, in Petersfield, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon.

Clerk to the Trustees.  

Morning Post

  On Thursday last Miss PARR, of Petersfield, gave a dinner to fifty poor children, of roast beef and plum pudding.


Salisbury & Winchester Journal
  AN experienced WRITING MASTER, versed in the Mathematics, is wanted in an old-established Boarding School. Stipend 40l.
  Letters (post paid) may be addressed to A. B. to be left at the Post Office, Petersfield, Hants.
Hampshire Telegraph
  THE Rev. THOMAS HOWES, M. A. late of Magdalen College, Oxford, offers to take under his care THREE, or FOUR YOUNG GENTLEMEN, whom he would carefully instruct in the first rudiments, or the higher branches, of a Classical Education. His terms would be regulated by the age and previous attainments of the Pupil; and he confidently refers to the President of his College, and his Contemporaries at the University, for the character of his literary qualifications.

Hampshire Chronicle
  A Meeting of the Subscribers of the Hunt is appointed to be held at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, on Saturday the 25th day of January inst. for the purpose of entering into arrangements for the ensuing Season, at which all Subscribers are particularly and earnestly requested to attend.
  ☞ Dinner on Table at half-past Five o’clock precisely.

The Hon. W. M. GAGE, President.  

Hampshire Chronicle
  THE Creditors of RICHARD ATTREE, late of Selborne and Greatham, in the county of Southampton, farmer, an Insolvent Debtor, are requested to meet the Assignee of the Estate and Effects of the said Insolvent, at the Dolphin Inn, at Petersfield, in the said county, on Saturday the first day of February next, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, to assent to or dissent from the said Assignees selling by Private Contract the said Insolvent’s Interest in a Freehold Messuage, Tenement, or Dwelling House, situate in Russel-street, Brighton, in the county of Sussex, at or for the price of Two Hundred Pounds, which has been offered for the same. And also to peruse the several Bills and Accounts of the Debts due and owing from the said Insolvent, previously to making a first and final Dividend of his Estate and Effects; and such of his said Creditors as have not already delivered in to the said Assignee the particulars of their respective demands, are requested to do so on or before the said first day of February, or they will be excluded the benefit of the said dividend.
  Dated this 11th day of January, 1823.

Hampshire Chronicle

  PETERSFIELD.—Monday last was the annual Court Leet and Court Baron of Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. Lord of the Manor of Petersfield, for the choice of Officers for the ensuing year, when Mr. Holland, a respectable tradesman, and a resident of the town, was elected Mayor. A number of friends were invited on the occasion by Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq. to dine with him, at the Red Lion Inn, and about seventy gentlemen and tradesmen of the town and neighbourhood, sat down to an excellent dinner, served up in Holdaway’s best style. The usual loyal and appropriate toasts and sentiments were done ample justice to, and the old subjects of Emancipation, Liberty, and Independence, were not forgotten, when the health of the Chairman (Mr. Atcheson) was drunk with enthusiastic plaudits. In returning thanks, the worthy Chairman went over the grounds so frequently repeated in our paper and elsewhere, on the subject of the borough. He said he could not invent new words to convey his sentiments, but would renew all he had ever used towards the town and its inhabitants, assuring them that nothing should ever be wanting on his part to ensure their independence; and indeed he considered it almost completed by the recent decision of the House of Commons, as the right of election, which has now placed within the power of every man, and the borough, from its servile state, was become as free and as open as any borough in the kingdom, Weymouth not excepted. Though there were other minor and contingent questions to be decided connected with the affairs of the borough, he considered the principal point was set at rest for ever, as the decision he alluded to, he was most confident, could never be shaken, and a little patience would reconcile every thing to the entire satisfaction of the people. He pledged himself to take every fair advantage of his adversaries, which the laws of the country would give him; at the same time sacredly observing every moral and honourable tie, which one gentleman, or one man, owed to another in Christian society, and which he hoped he should never infringe to degrade himself in the eyes of honest or good men, or lessen that character as a gentleman, which he and all men ought most anxiously to uphold and maintain. He said he had no personal enmity to any man, and he recommended all who heard him to avoid any ill will, but treat even those who differed from them in opinion, as friends. In reviewing the business of Churcher’s College, he hoped that, in a short time, the charity, instead of merely educating twelve boys, would board, lodge, and educate eighteen at least. The worthy chairman afterwards proposed as a toast, amongst others, “The memory of Sir William Jolliffe, one of the ancestors of the present Member for this Borough, who placed the statue of William III in the Market Square,” in doing which he took occasion to say that Sir Wm. Jolliffe had placed that statue there as a momento of the Revolution of 1668, to remind the inhabitants of the liberty which that event restored to them, and to stimulate them always to preserve it, though he was very sorry to observe that the descendants of this worthy gentleman had been the first to disregard the sentiments thus entertained and expressed by their great ancestor, and to involve the inhabitants in distress and slavery of the worst description. This was drunk with three times three. Several gentlemen addressed the meeting on the same topics, in a very able manner—The gentlemen of the glee club attended, and added not a little to the harmony of the meeting, as did several other persons, with some excellent songs, &c. A hogshead of beer was rolled out to the populace by one of Mr. Atcheson’s friends. The wine flowed freely in doors; and the afternoon and evening passed off very pleasantly; harmony, conviviality, and good humour pervading the numerous assembly.

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Saturday last an inquest was held before Mr. Longcroft, at Havant …
  On Monday another inquest was held before the same coroner, at Petersfield, on the body of A. Knight, who had gone into Mr. Small’s shop in full health to purchase a pair of stockings, and in act of walking out of the shop fell down, and instantly expired. … The verdict returned by the Jury, in each of the above cases was —Died by the Visitation of God.

Morning Post
  A requisition, containing upwards of 500 signatures, was lately sent to R. SHEDDEN, jun., Esq., High Sheriff of Hants, requesting him to call a County Meeting on the present Agricultural Distress. On the Requisition being presented to him, Mr. SHEDDEN started various objections to the Meeting, and finally refused to convene the same. The following was the High Sheriff’s reply to the Requisition :—

“Brooklands, 17th Jan. 1823. 

  “Gentlemen—After giving every consideration to the Requisition presented to me on the 15th instant, from certain owners and occupiers of land in the county of Southampton, “To call a Meeting of the County, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of petitioning Parliament on the subject of a remedy for the evils they indure, and for greater evils, which, if not prevented, appear to be inevitable.” I am of the opinion that I should not be acting consistently with my duty to the county, in complying with the requisition, and therefore I decline to call the Meeting.

“I am, Gentlemen, your most humble Servant.
  “ROBERT SHEDDEN, jun., Sheriff.
  "To C. J. HECTOR and J. GOLDSMITH, Esqrs.”

Messrs. HECTOR and GOLDSMITH have in consequence of the above refusal, published the following notice :—
   :It is not for us to dictate to our brother requisitionists what course they should pursue after the very extraordinary, and, in our humble opinion, unconstitutional conduct of the High Sheriff, in endeavouring to prevent so respectable a body of men, from laying a statement of their complaints and grievances before the Legislature; but we cannot refrain from expressing our hope, that the County of Hants is not yet reduced to that state of thraldom and degradation but that five Magistrates may be found willing and desirous to come forward to enable us, in a legal and constitutional manner, to exercise the undoubted and inalienable right of the people to assemble for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances.

“We are, Gentlemen, your very obedient Servants,
  “Petersfield, 23d Jan. 1823

Hampshire Chronicle

  Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq. On Monday last, distributed a donation of £25 (in money) amongst the poor of Petersfield, for which they return him their sincere thanks.

Morning Chronicle
The Attorney-General v. Jolliffe
  In this case, where an information has been filed by his Majesty’s Attorney-General, at the relation of Mr. Atcheson, an attorney, against Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, and others of the same family, seven in the whole, the Trustees of the College of Petersfield, for mismanagement of their trust
  Mr. WETHERELL applied to have the minutes altered, and to have a longer account directed the defendants, that would take in the whole period of Mr. Hylton Jolliffe’s management.
  Mr. HORNE opposed the application, and an argument of great length took place.
  The VICE-CHANCELLOR refused the application, on the ground that it would be putting the Charity to a great expence, without any reasonable probability that any thing would be produced by it.

Morning Post
The Attorney-General v. Hylton Jolliffe, Esq. and others.
  Mr. HORNE.—This is a motion to vary the Minutes as they are called, about which Minutes, however, there is not any doubt that they are as your Honour pronounced them on the hearing.
  Mr. WEATHERELL.—In this case, Sir, of the Attorney-General v. Jolliffe, the parties differ in some degree with respect to the substance of the Minutes which your Honour had the goodness to pronounce, I have a copy of the Minutes as we conceive they stood.
  Mr. HORNE.—I believe the better way will be to have the Minutes your Honour was pleased to pen, and give to the Registrar—the Registrar’s copy is in conformity to them.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I be I may be permitted to proceed.
  Mr. HORNE.—I make a preliminary objection to your moving to vary them, except on the ground that they are not conformable to the Decree pronounced.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Did I prepare those Minutes myself?
  Mr. SKIRROW.—Your Honour was pleased particularly to direct the Minutes, which were taken down by Mr. Croft at the time.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—This is just assuming the whole question. If the Gentlemen will have the goodness to permit me to make my motion, then they may answer it.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—First, it is said your Honour did pen the Minutes, then it is admitted your Honour did not. We know your Honour is in the habit, in particular cases, of penning your Minutes; but in cases where that has been done, and the Registrar has committed them to paper, we know there has sometimes been a slip between the cup and the lip—between the language the Court uses, and the pen of the Registrar. In putting down that language, the principal and sometimes the specific direction is not quite understood. It is sufficient to say, perhaps, without the slightest disrespect to the Judge, that in directing Minutes, unless observations are made, the person who dictates them may, at the moment, if his reflection is not called to the subject, not embrace every view in which the words are used, and therefore, without assuming too much on the one side or the other, it may be as well to bestow a few words upon the Minutes as they now stand. We are agreed that the copy we have is the same the Registrar has; it stands thus:—“Whether the father of the Defendant Hilton Jolliffe died indebted in any, and what sum, to the Charity in question?” Those are the words which stand in the Minutes; the question I have to submit to your Honour’s attention is, whether, in those words you intended to exclude our right of having an account against the late Mr. Jolliffe. We contend, that he stands in the situation of an ordinary trustee of a Charity who has been dead some time, and the account goes back to a period of some years since—whether your Honour intended, that we should not have as against Mr. Jolliffe, the ordinary account sought in a charity information against a trustee. Now I do not find any ground in the answer or in point of law to prevent the relators having that account.
  Mr. HORNE.—He became a trustee in 1769.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—They say he became a trustee in 1769. His son raises a question in his answer, whether he had assets or not, and generally speaking (certainly as far as argument goes) raises a question whether the balance is considerable, but admits, as I understand his answer, that some balance was due from his father. Then, what is the ground in point of law on which we are not to have THE ORDINARY ACCOUNT against him. If it be said (as perhaps it will be by and by) that he cannot render that account, or that the Charity documents are not sufficient to charge him, and so forth—that is a matter of investigation in the Master’s office, but why are not the relators to have against him the ordinary account as against a trustee of a charity? It is said, your Honour, in your dictation to the Registrar, used the word indebted, “whether Mr. Jolliffe died indebted, in any, and what sum?” If those were the precise words which fell from your Honour—if it is in your Honour’s recollection that you used those words, it is not possible for me to give a negative; or if any Gentleman shall pledge his recollection that those precise words fell from your Honour, the question still is, whether your Honour did not intend by those words that the ordinary account should be taken.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Does the information pray any such account against all the parties.
  Mr. GLYNN.—It prays an account against his assets.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The bill contains all the usual charges, and is applied to the case or requiring an account against Mr. Jolliffe.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Give me a copy of the information.
  Mr. HORNE.—It is unfortunate that the matter should have been suffered to have lain so long; the decree was pronounced the 18th November, and what passed is forgotten. Your client has been urged over and over again to proceed.
  Mr. HEALD.—The other side have delivered us Minutes varying from the Registrar’s.
  Mr. SKIRROW.—Just the contrary: we have conformed to the Registrar’s Minutes—the variance is on your part.
(A copy of the bill was handed up to his Honour.)
Mr. HORNE.—There was a great deal of discussion upon it at the time, and every thing was supposed to be settled in the framing of the Minutes.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—When did this Gentleman die?
  Mr. HORNE.—In 1803, Sir.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—For how long was he trustee of the Charity?
  Mr. HORNE.—He was appointed in 1769.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What is the account that it is sought to take?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The ordinary account.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—From the year 1769?
  Mr. HORNE.—Your Honour will see the object of all this.
  Mr. HEALD.—I do not know what we are disputing about here.—If the question is whether he died indebted, does not that leave it open to us to charge him from the beginning. There is no magic in the words.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—The reason I always pronounce those words if I can, is to prevent the necessity of a FORMAL account in the Master’s Office. You get at the same conclusion, but at one-tenth part of the expense. If the Court directs an account, all the accounts must be regularly taken; but if it directs an account—what was he indebted—you state the facts by affidavit.
  Mr. HEALD.—But in that mode of doing it, we are entirely at the mercy of the party who makes the affidavit
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Yes, unless you can make an affidavit yourselves.
  Mr. HEALD.—We can charge them.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—I take for granted it will appear, as it must appear by the accounts of the Charity, what the rents and profits of the Charity have been every year the Gentleman held the office, and that it will be eventually apparent what were the disbursements on account of the Charity.
  Mr. HEALD.—I believe it will not save one shilling expence whether it is in one way or the other for the matter never can come to an conclusion on his being indebted, without knowing what he has received, and what he has paid.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Mr. Heald you do not consider the matter when you say that.
  Mr. HEALD.—I have considered it, Sir, out of Court with great attention.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If he is directed to take an account, there must be carried in a regular account of receipt and discharge before him. Now if he is directed to enquire whether the party was indebted—every person states by affidavit what appears with respect to the payments and receipts, and the Master takes no account at all, but is, from the same materials as if he had taken the account, to draw a conclusion on affidavit. It is not attended with one twentieth part of the expence.
  Mr. HEALD.—But we object to that. We say that it is not the usual language of the Decrees of this Court.
  Mr. HORNE.—It is the language frequently adopted by the Court.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—What are you struggling for? Is it any thing more than a struggle that will necessarily increase expence?
  Mr. HEALD.—If your Honour will be kind enough, instead of asking so many questions, to hear one answer, I will tell you the object of our application. Supposing this Gentleman to have had in his hands, during the last ten or the last five years of his life, a large balance, and an increasing balance—suppose we say 1000l. increased to 1200l., 2000l., 2500l., and he died indebted 2500l. how are we, on further direction, to shew to the Court that this Gentleman had had a balance in his hands which entitles us to charge him with interest? All we should get on out inquiry would be, that he died indebted 2500l.; but, non constat , he had it in his hands ten years.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Mr. HEALD, I foresaw that case, and provided for it in the Minutes; for I directed the Master should be at liberty to state special circumstances, with the very view of meeting the case you put. Really, Mr. Wetherell, the more you consider it, the more it appears you are struggling for nothing but an increase of expence.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—We have considered this, I assure your Honour, and do not bring it forward lightly.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Consider now for a moment whether you do not see it to be, as I now put it. Supposing I direct an account, you must carry in a charge before the Master; from whence will you get materials for that charge? The son can know nothing of it. That is impossible. It is a matter with which he could by no possibility have connection. You must find materials for that charge in the Charity accounts; therefore, either they must appear as items in the account, as you must collect them from the account of the Charity income, with which you will have a right, prima facie, to charge them. Then there are to be discharges. I take it for granted those discharges must of necessity appear on the Charity account. That what the trustee expends for Charity purposes, of necessity finds its way into the books for the Charity; for his own sake that must be done; then some way or other all the materials must appear in the accounts. Cannot you make that the subject of an affidavit, stating in the affidavit that the annual income of the Charity such a year was so much, and such a year so much, and so on, and that Mr. Jolliffe must be taken to have received such a sum—that it appears, on the contrary, on the books of the Charity, that he expended only so much, and so much, and so much, and that there is so much due—and must not the Master draw that conclusion precisely the same as if it were matter of charge and discharge in his office, unless it is opposed by evidence of a contrary nature; but if it be opposed by evidence of a contrary nature, it would affect the conclusion, whether it is by charge and discharge, by affidavit, or by account in the office. It is a great advantage when you have the party himself before you; but we have not the party to examine in this case.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I perfectly comprehend the way in which your Honour states it. We have given the best consideration to it elsewhere, and I agree with Mr. Heald in the importance of it.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If you can state to me any possible way in which benefit will accrue to this trust estate from putting it in the way you propose, instead of this way, I will take every care I can; but I will never consent to an alteration of the minutes, when the only difference, as I conceive, will be the charging this Charity property with ten times the expense which would be incurred by the forming of the minutes as they stand.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The saving of expense is a great object to both parties; but it occurs to me that the mode of taking the account in the way your Honour states cannot attain the object, because I do not scruple to say that our object is to charge Mr. Jolliffe’s estate with interest upon the balances de anno in annum in hand. Now, if that applied only to the receipts and payments of one year, it does seem that there would be strong countenance for saying you must simplify it by affidavit: but if your object is to charge him in each year, we must have an affidavit of the state of the account every year. As the minutes stood, the Master was not to have an affidavit of what the receipts and expenses were in each year de anno in annum, but there is to be an affidavit of the ultimate and final balance.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Why so? I had in view that there might be special circumstances, and I authorized the Master to state circumstances specially. If you mean to require the Master (as I permitted you to do), to state what the annual balances were, you must frame your affidavit accordingly; and instead of drawing a general conclusion, you must state it each year. I am only anxious you should have all the justice which belongs to you. In a case of charity one is most anxious for that, but that you should have it at the least possible expense to all parties. I think I have had a good deal of experience on these subjects, and I have always considered that I nest served all parties to a suit by framing the Minutes in that way; and every body who attends here knows I constantly do that whenever I can. I know how much it saves in point of expense, and in point of time. You get all the matters on affidavit, and the Master draws his conclusion from the affidavit, whereas the accounts perhaps take 20 meetings. I have no doubt those accounts would take 20 meetings before the Master at a most enormous expense, instead of having one meeting only, by calling upon the Master to determine on affidavit.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—As the Minutes stood, I think it would have been a doubt whether the Master was to state the annual balances in Mr. Jolliffe’s hands; or whether he should merely state the ultimate balance.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—That was not my intention. I meant he should state every thing that would aggravate the charge, and state every thing in his opinion special.
  Mr. HORNE.—Do we consider this as settled then?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—No, his Honour will give his opinion when I have closed the few sentences I have to state. Another thing which has occurred to us, is the mode of taking the account. We mean to contend that a great many articles of discharge are not to be allowed. How is that to be gone into? Is that to be gone into in this mode of taking the account by affidavit instead of taking it in the usual manner of charge and discharge? For instance, there is a sum laid out in building; there are, indeed, various sums misapplied, not applied to the objects of the charity. Those matters of discharge which Mr. Jolliffe will contend for must be examined, not in the usual mode; how is that to be done? As far as the saving of expence is concerned, it does not occur to me that expence will be saved. We are in a difficulty to know whether, as the Minutes stand, we should have the liberty of contesting with Mr. Jolliffe’s representatives his title to all those matters of discharge which mean to contend are not to be allowed to him; and that must be conducted in as expensive a mode as if it were the ordinary mode of taking the account. Are they to be allowed the same opportunities of conducting the matters of discharge, as they would in the ordinary mode or not? If they are to be allowed the same opportunity of making out his discharge in this mode of taking the account as in the ordinary mode, I do not see how the expense is abridged? I think your Honour seems to be of the opinion we are entitled to the same remedies as in the ordinary mode. If so, the whole must be gone through. These are the difficulties which occur to our minds; and we submit, first, That we are to take the account charging Mr. Jolliffe de anno in annum, and to have the Master’s Report of the balances in his hand de anno in annum; so that your Honour may be enabled to say, whether, under all the circumstances, interest should be paid upon those balances or not. Secondly, we claim a right of taking the account in the usual manner, so as to contest with the Trustees every matter of discharge. Your Honour’s judgement seems to be, that those modes, in point of substance, of charging the Trustees, may be better obtained in the mode of affidavit than in the ordinary mode. If that is your Honour’s ultimate judgement, your Honour will pronounce that opinion; but I do not scruple to state, having looked at the account, that there are many items of considerable importance, and some of considerable amount, which we propose to deny to this Gentleman, as matters that he can legally set up as a discharge; and we think, that the same mode of ultimate charge was not equally available to us, as the Minutes stand, as it would be in the ordinary mode of taking the account. Your Honour’s opinion does not seem to think we are entitled to the same ultimate result of charging the trustees as he ought to be charged, though it is not according to the ordinary mode of taking the account. We have in our humble judgement thought we should be deprived of those opportunities. If your Honour’s opinion is to the contrary, we must submit to your Honour’s judgement.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—You now suggest that there may be items of discharge, which, although actually expended, ought not to be allowed. Where is the difficulty of making that case by affidavit. I do not understand how that creates any further difficulty; you must by affidavit explain the circumstances why that item of expenditure, though incurred, is not to be allowed to the late Mr. Jolliffe’s estate. How does it make any difference?
  Mr. WETHERELL.—The interpretation which I put upon these Minutes, was, that in consequence of the contracted expression—“whether he was indebted in any and what sum?”—the Master would not feel himself at liberty to take the usual account of charge and discharge.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If you have in your information stated any items which ought to be disallowed, inquiries may be directed in reference to them.
  Mr. WETHERELL.—I have not got the information here, but by my recollection there are all the usual charges,—there is the case of building I recollect.
  Mr. HEALD.—Yes, there are charges of that sort.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If there are special charges, I would direct special inquiries as to the items of expense you admit to have been incurred, but which you say, on some principle, ought not to be allowed, but it was not stated at the hearing that there were any such charges.
  Mr. HORNE.—No, Sir, certainly not.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Will Mr. Heald have the goodness to read those charges.
  Mr. HEALD.—Your Honour has got my brief, and I do not know that I could refer to them at the moment. There is a payment made to an unqualified Master. The parties I am sure would go hand in hand with the Court in the endeavour to save expence; but I verily believe this question will come before the Court in another form by those who will say this is not the regular practice of the Court; though it answers the purpose of the other side to say, that it attains the same object; and if the language of the Decree is not altered, we shall ultimately spend more time in exceptions and in appeals than can be gained by it. The object of the alteration which I feel it my duty to ask for, is to make the Gentleman pay ultimately the interest on the balances which we say he improperly kept in hand. I believe the cheapest way will be to take the account; it will not be attended with any great expence, for the accounts are set forth by way of schedule to the answer.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—The account of the father’s receipts? That cannot be I should think.
  Mr. HORNE.—Every thing which is known by every man living is set forth.
  VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Has Mr. Jolliffe set forth in his answer a schedule of his father’s receipts and payments?
  Mr. HORNE.—Yes; in all he knows he has set forth on oath; they required it, and we did it. They would not be content without it. We referred to the books, stating, that they contained every thing, but they insisted on our setting out I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of folios.
  Mr. HEALD.—I do not know any thing about that, but I speak of this as fact; it appears by these schedules that considerable balances were in hand from year to year. I know the Court on a Bill filed against an executor, in the common and ordinary way, directs an account to be taken, but it does not direct rests to be made until it shall appear how the account stands, and if it shall appear that there were balances from year to year, it directs it to be referred back to the Master; now these very schedules appear upon the record just the same as they would on the Master’s Report.

(next two columns partially illegible to end)

Hampshire Telegraph
  THE SUM of £400 wanted on Mortgage of a small FREEHOLD ESTATE, containing about 32 Acres of Land, in a good state of cultivation, with a comfortable Cottage thereon, valued at nearly 1500l. situate in the neighbourhood of Petersfield.—Apply to Mr. Long, Solicitor, 5, Union-street, Portsea.
  N.B.—Several small SUMS, not exceeding 200l. ready to be advance on Mortgage Security.
Hampshire Chronicle

  In the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, on Wednesday, Mr. Wetherell, on the part of the Charity, at Petersfield (Churcher’s College), applied to the Court to vary the minutes in the case. His Honour had directed a reference to the Master “to inquire whether the father of the defendant (Mr. Joliffe) died indebted to the charity in question.” The point now to be decided was, whether by this order his Honour intended an account being taken as against the late Mr. Joliffe’s estate. He submitted that the relators for whom he appeared, might claim a right to the ordinary account. The Vice-Chancellor said, that he had directed the reference to the Master in the form stated especially to save parties the enormous expense of taking the accounts. By the inquiry at present directed the material point would be shewn. Mr. Wetherell said, that the object was not to load the charity with expense. He had no difficulty in stating that it was intended to charge Mr. Joliffe’s estate with interest upon the balances in that Gentleman’s hands. There were also many items which, although expended, ought not to be allowed. The Vice-Chancellor would alter the minutes by directing the Master to state special circumstances, to enable the relators to raise any question with respect to interest upon any balances that might be found due from the estate.

Hampshire Telegraph

  Last week N. Atcheson, Esq. distributed 25l. among the most necessitous Poor of Petersfield.

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by JOHN CAWLEY, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, in the County of Southampton, on Thursday the 5th day of March, 1823, between the hours of three and five in the afternoon,—2154 OAK TREES, and 196 ASH TREES, standing in the Parish of Harting, in the County of Sussex, in eight Lots, as follows:—
  Lot 1.—282 OAK TREES, and 12 ASH TREES, in Garrett’s Plantation, marked 2 with white paint.
  Lot 2.—445 OAK TREES, and four ASH TREES, in Latchett’s Plantation, marked 1 with white paint.
  Lot 3.—345 OAK TREES, and 37 ASH TREES, on Rivall’s Farm, marked X with white paint.
  Lot 4.—149 OAK TREES, and 63 ASH TREES, on Hill Ash Farm, marked 1 with white paint.
  Lot 5.—234 OAK TREES, and 44 ASH TREES, at Down Park, marked 2 with white paint.
  Lot 6.—201 OAK TREES, and 11 ASH TREES, on Hill Ash Farm, marked 3 with white paint.
  Lot 7.—217 OAK TREES, and 17 ASH TREES, at Down Park, marked 1 with white paint.
  Lot 8.—281 OAK TREES, and eight ASH TREES, at West Heath, marked A with white paint.
  The Timber may be viewed by applying to Thomas Pink, the Woodman, at Harting; and further particulars known on application, if by letter, post-paid, to Mr. Richard Pink, at Hambledon; and Messrs. Hector and Mitchell, Solicitors, Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Tuesday the 11th inst. an inquest was held before Mr. Longcroft, at Broad-halfpenny Hut, near Hambledon …On the same day another inquest was held before the same Coroner, at Petersfield, on view of the body of William Inwood, who was found lying in the middle of the turnpike road, between Rake and Sheet, on Saturday night, in a dying state, and totally insensible. The deceased did not survive an hour after he was found, and on examining him, it appeared that a wheel had passed over his body. From the circumstance of the deceased having been seen going home from Petersfield late on Saturday evening, very much intoxicated, it was presumed he must have fallen down in the road, and being unable to get out of the way, had been run over by some carriage passing, perhaps without the knowledge of the driver, the night being very dark. The Jury returned a verdict That the deceased met with his death by accident.

Hampshire Chronicle

  The Commission for holding the Lent Assizes for this county will be opened on Monday evening, preparatory to opening the Courts on Tuesday, after the Judges have attended Divine Service. Mr. Baron Hullock will preside at the Crown Bar.—The undermentioned prisoners will take their trial for the offences with which they stand charged.:—
  …T. Gregory, for stabbing Richard Louch, at Petersfield;

Hampshire Telegraph
  The Assizes for this County, which commenced on Monday (see the preceding page), concluded this day at noon; soon after which the Judges left the city for Salisbury. There were sixty-six prisoners on the Calendar for trial, twelve of whom were sentenced to suffer Death, but were all respited; four were sentenced to seven year’s transportation, six to lesser periods of imprisonment, thirty acquitted, the remainder “no bills, admitted evidence,”, &c.
Thomas Gregory, charged with having stabbed Richard Louch, at Petersfield, with a prong, with intent to murder him, was acquitted, it appearing that the prisoner had broken into Mr. Dusautoy’s house, and that he committed the offence in defending himself, but that he was in such a state of mental excitement as not to know what he was doing. [The Judge stopped the proceedings upon this ground.]

Sussex Advertiser
March 10, 1823
  On Tuesday, the Imperial Ambassador, the Ambassador of the Netherlands, Lord Greaves, and Sir Arthur Paget, were in the Place departure list, the latter, for his seat, near Petersfield in this county.
Hampshire Chronicle

  At a Meeting of the PETERSFIELD FARMER’S CLUB, held at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, on Tuesday the 25th day of February, 1823 (pursuant to adjournment);

Mr. JOHN LIPSCOMB, in the Chair;
  Resolved.—That it appearing from the declaration of one of the Ministers of the Crown, lately made in his place in the House of Commons, that they cannot see their way so as to give any relief to the Agricultural Interests of this kingdom, and that therefore the Agriculturalists have nothing to expect at their hands; and regarding the proposed reduction in the Assessed Taxes as not likely to render any material relief to the extreme distress under which the Farmers and Labouring Classes are at present suffering. It was unanimously agreed,—That nothing but an effectual Reform in the Commons House of Parliament can be of any real utility either to the Agricultural Interests, or to those of any other class of society; and it is therefore earnestly recommended to all persons connected with agriculture, zealously to co-operate by all lawful means, and to form Associations in large market towns, for the purpose of corresponding with each other, in order to bring about so desirable an object.
  Resolved,—That the thanks of this Meeting are justly due to Sir Thomas Baring, and the other Magistrates of the County, for their manly and patriotic conduct in coming forward to give the County an opportunity of meeting, in consequence of the refusal of the Sheriff.
  That this Meeting stand adjourned until Friday the 23d day of May next, at this place; and that any communications be in the mean time addressed to Mr. Lipscomb, the Secretary.
Signed, by order of the Meeting,

JOHN LIPSCOMB, Chairman.  

Hampshire Telegraph
  The principal Growers and Buyers of Corn, who attend Petersfield Market, have entered into Resolutions to establish a pitched Market for Corn and Seeds; and next Market-day, Wednesday the 26th instant, is fixed for opening the Market, when it is expected there will be a large quantity of Corn and Seeds for sale.
  A considerable advance took place at Petersfield Market, on Wednesday last, upon the prices of Corn at the preceding Market—Wheat fetched from 12l. 10s. to 18l. per load; Barley 32s. to 36s.; Oats ??? to 23s. per quarter; but very little business was done.—Beef remained at our last quotation, but Mutton was somewhat advanced.
Hampshire Chronicle

  An inquest was held on Tuesday last, at the White Hart Inn, Purbrook, before Mr. Longcroft, Coroner, on view of the body of John Ferrett, who had been sent by his master, Mr. Tho. Ford, of Portsmouth, the day before with a load of coals to Petersfield, and on returning with the waggon to ride, as the horses were coming down a hill near Purbrook, at a trot, he fell off the shafts under the wheels, which passed over his body, and he died within half an hour. The deceased was a young man, and had been married only a week. Verdict—Accidently killed.

Hampshire Telegraph
  The LAST SUBSCRIPTION ASSEMBLY will be held at the Red Lion Inn, at Petersfield, on Wednesday the 2d April, 1823.
  ☞ Dancing to commence at Eight o’clock precisely. Non-Subscribers Tickets, to be had at the Red Lion.—Ladies 5s. Gentlemen 7s.
  No Non-subscriber to be admitted unless introduced by a Subscriber.
Hampshire Telegraph

  WANTS a Situation,—A GAME KEEPER, who can have an undeniable Character.—For particulars, apply to William Eames, Trayford, Sussex, near Petersfield, Hants; if by letter post-paid.

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, on Wednesday the 23d day of April, 1823, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield.—A Lot of OAK TIMBER, standing on Cooks Farm, in the parish of Steep, near Petersfield, in the occupation of Mr. Powell.
  For a view of the above, apply to Thomas Eames, at Ridge Green; and for particulars, to Mr. Thomas Jarman, Sheet, near Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle

  Married on Tuesday the 29th ult. Mr. Metcalf, spirit merchant, of London, to Miss Holdaway, of the Bear Inn, Havant, daughter of Mr. Henry Holdaway, of the Red Lion, Petersfield.

Hampshire Telegraph

  A Society has been recently established at the Red Lion Inn, Petersfield, by the most respectable tradesmen of that place, for the purpose of supporting the sick, and providing for the widows of its deceased members.

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by Mr. CAWLEY, on Friday June 6, 1823, at the Dolphin Inn, Petersfield, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon:—
  Lot 1.—The above beautiful FREEHOLD RESIDENCE, admirably adapted for a small genteel Family, having convenient Out-Buildings, and about one Acre and a half of LAND, partly in an Orchard, with a walled-in Garden, planted with the choicest Fruit Trees, in full bearing, in a good Sporting Country, abounding with Game.
  Lot 2.—A capital MEADOW, nearly adjoining Lot 1. About nine Customary Acres, Copyhold, with extensive Common Rights. For viewing the above, and for further particulars, apply to the Auctioneer, Petersfield, Hants; if by letter, post-paid.
Hampshire Telegraph
  FOR SALE by PRIVATE CONTRACT,—A most desirable COPYHOLD ESTATE of INHERITANCE, called TANKERDALE, nearly equal to Freehold, in the Parish of Steep, Hants; comprising a substantial Farm-House, Barns, Stables, and other suitable Offices, and 110 Acres, Customary Measure, of Arable, Meadow, and Pasture LAND (more or less), with extensive and valuable Common Rights, abounding with Game, and the River Rother running through the Estate affords most excellent Trout Fishing.
  The Estate is calculated for the growth of Turnips, the Soil being sandy loam, lies in a Ring Fence, and in a high state of cultivation.—The Timber to be taken at a valuation.
  Steep is 53 miles from London, two miles from Petersfield, within half a mile of the Turnpike Road.—Fox Hounds and Harriers are kept in the neighbourhood.
  N.B. One Moiety of the Purchase Money may remain on Security.
  For particulars enquire of Mr. John Cobb, the Proprietor, on the Premises; or to Mr. Greetham, Solicitor, Petersfield, Hants.

Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser
  The Solicitor General stated, that the plaintiff is a master tailor, and the defendants proprietors of a Portsmouth mail-coach. This action was to recover a compensation in damages, for the negligence of the defendants’ coachman, by which the coach was overturned, and the plaintiff, an outside passenger, received such injury, that he was obliged to go upon crutches.—The defendants had already discharged his surgeon’s bill, but refused any other compensation.
  J. Brown—Was a passenger from Portsmouth, on the 21sr of May last, by the Nelson stage-coach. They changed horses at Lidbrook; the mail at Petersfield. Our coach going sometimes at the rate of 11 miles; the mail-coach keeping in sight behind. It appeared they were running in opposition. The mail made several pushes with intention to pass, and, coming in contact with the Nelson, the mail upset. From the situation in which witness’s coach was, there was not room for the mail to pass. The plaintiff was a passenger by the mail. He was thrown down, and his leg broke.
  Mrs. Irving—Was an outside passenger by the mail, and sitting behind the coachman. When they came to Lidbrook, overtook the Nelson, the mail stopping at the Post Office; the Nelson went off first. After this, they came up with the Nelson; the mail endeavouring to pass the Nelson. There was a bank upon the right hand side of the road; the horses and wheels of the mail went upon the bank, and then went over; witness was dreadfully bruised. The coachman of the Nelson whipped his horses, as did the driver of the mail, just before the accident happened.
  Mr. Clubb a surgeon in Norfolk-street, attended the plaintiff; his leg was broke, and had not been restored to its original soundness. It is nearly two inches shorter. There were several exfoliations, and will be more. Mr. Astley Cooper has been also called in. Cross-examined—There is nothing unusual in a broken limb taking 12 months or two years to recover.
  J. Burgess, the foreman of the plaintiff said, that his master employed 12 or 14 men; the business, in consequence of the plaintiff’s illness, fell off one-half. This witness calculated that plaintiff had a profit of 6s. per day on each workman; after this accident several of his workmen were unemployed.
  Mr. Scarlett in defence contended, the defendants having paid the surgeon’s bill in the country to the amount of 120l. was no admission of liability. His case was this :—Every body knew the mail was bound to arrive at its destination according to fixed time to a minute; he was bound therefore to pass all ordinary stages; and no man who travelled by the mail had a right to complain of its travelling too fast. The Nelson, he contended, was not tied to time like the mail, and under no necessity to drive fast. It naturally followed, if the mail was bound to arrive in London, before six o’clock, it must pass the Nelson, which should not arrive till eight or nine as its proper time. It was proved the mail-guard sounded his horn, and therefore it was incumbent on the Nelson to give way. The Portsmouth-road was known to be one of the best in England; how came it then that the Nelson should have kept so much of the road as not to permit the mail to pass on its own side of the road. The fault was in the driver of the Nelson whipping his horses, just when the mail leaders were passing his coach, his whip coming right in the eyes of the mail leaders, startled and drove them in upon the bank by the road side. Was the mail to keep behind the Nelson when-ever the coachman of the Nelson chose to whip his horses so as to keep the lead, when the mail was bound to make greater dispatch and speed? If there ever was a case in which mail-coach proprietors could ask a verdict of a Jury, under a charge of negligence in their driver, this was that case. They paid the plaintiff’s surgeon, not as any admission of negligence, but in order to mitigate the plaintiff’s misfortune, without going into the question of their liability. The driver of the mail, he should shew, was not exceeding his ordinary pace, and that he was a manof unquestionable character as a driver.
  Mr. I. Germain—Is a book-binder at Portsea; was a passenger by the mail to London on the day in question; the mail left Portsmouth at eight, and arrived in London, at the General Post Office, at six o’clock the following morning; the Nelson left Portsmouth soon after seven; witness was outside of the mail with one female and a Gentleman; it was the regular and steady pace of the mail which brought them up to the Nelson; it made an attempt to pass twice, the guard sounding his horn; the Nelson then advanced forward and kept the middle of the road, the guard sounding his horn a second time, just before the accident; there was room to pass if the Nelson had kept the right side.
  John Dennet, part proprietor of a coach called the Rocket, saw the plaintiff the day after the accident, who, in a conversation with him, acquitted the coach-man of the mail from blame.
  R. Hill, the coachman of the mail produced a release. He has been a coachman upwards of nine years. The mail-coach, on the night in question, was going at a steady regular pace, and the accident was owing entirely to the conduct of the driver of the Nelson. A son of one of the defendants, stated that he was sent by his father to see the plaintiff, who told him that the coachman of the mail was free from all blame in regard to the accident.
  The Jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 40l.—Cost, 40s.

Bell’s Weekly Messenger
  This was an action on the case against the defendant, proprietor of the Portsmouth mail coach, for the negligent driving of his servant, whereby the plaintiff’s leg was broken.
  The case for the plaintiff, a tailor by trade, was an outside passenger by the mail from Portsmouth to London. In the night time, between Petersfield and a place called Mow’s-hill, the mail came up with a post-coach called the Nelson, when they began racing against each other. In a narrow part of the road, the mail attempted to pass the Nelson, but there being insufficient room, the horses started, and got upon a bank, which had the effect of overturning the carriage, and in the fall the plaintiff had one of his legs fractured in two places. Part of the blame was attributed to the driver of the Nelson, but the accident was principally imputed by the two witnesses called, to the misconduct of the driver of the mail. The plaintiff was confined a considerable time, suffered great pain, and was wholly unable to attend to his business until he got quite well. The defendant had paid the surgeon’s bill and other expenses, amounting to 160l., but having made no allowance for the plaintiff’s loss of time and personal suffering, this action was brought.
  The defence set up was, that the defendant’s servant was blameless, and that to the misconduct of the driver of the Nelson, the accident was wholly to be attributed.
  Verdict for the plaintiff, Damages 40l.
Hampshire Chronicle

  The Lord Bishop of this Diocese will, we understand, hold Confirmations in the present and ensuing month, at Alton, Alresford, Lymington, Christchurch, Fordingbridge, Romsey, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth, Havant, and Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle
  This was a quo warranto information, calling upon the defendant to shew by what authority he held the office of Mayor of Petersfield. The objection to his appointment was that he was nominated by a Court Leet not duly nominated, in as much as the Leet had been nominated or selected by the Steward of the Court after they had been summoned by the Bailiff. At the trial before Mr. Justice Burrough, at the last Summer Assizes for Hampshire, the first question was, whether there was a custom in the Manor so to nominate the Jury by the Steward; and second, whether, supposing such a custom to exist, it was a good custom in point of law? The Jury found the custom to exist in fact, and, under the Learned Judge’s directions, a verdict was entered for the defendant. In Michaelmas Term a rule, nisi, was obtained for a new trial, or for entering a verdict for the Crown, notwithstanding the finding of the Jury.
  Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. ADAM, Mr. WETHERELL, and Mr. C. A. WILLIAMS, now shewed cause against the rule; and Mr. GASELEE, Mr. COLTMAN, and Mr. CARTER were heard in support of it.
  The Court were clearly of opinion, first, that as there was no evidence on the part of the Crown to negative the custom, which appeared to have existed for at least 40 years, there was no ground for a new trial; and second, that there was nothing in the custom itself inconsistent with the general principles of law.—Rule discharged.

Hampshire Chronicle

  WANTED—A Situation, as BAILIFF, by a Person accustomed to manage considerable Corn and Stock Farms, who is well acquainted with the systems of Agriculture that should be pursued for the advantage of his employer.
  For reference, as to capability, apply either to Mr. White, at Paulsgrove Farm, near Cosham, or to Mr. Lipscomb, Weston Farm, near Petersfield, Hants

Hampshire Chronicle

  On Tuesday afternoon as Mr. Thos. Webb, cornfactor, and Mr. Henry Holdaway, of the Red Lion Inn, Petersfield, were proceeding to Godalming, in a one-horse chaise, when descending the hill at Hammer Pond, the horse dropped down suddenly, to all appearance dead. They were both thrown out with great violence: Mr. Webb escaped unhurt, but Mr. Holdaway received a dreadful fracture of the arm, the bone protruding through the skin, near the shoulder. One of the coaches passing just as the accident happened, a passenger (Dr. McKetterick, army surgeon of the Depot, at Newport, Isle of Wight) stopped, and reduced the fracture. Had it not been for the very skilled and prompt assistance of this gentleman, which he rendered gratuitously, the consequence might have been serious; but we are happy to say that, after the operation, Mr. H. was well enough to return home, and is at present doing as well as possible.

Hampshire Telegraph

  TO be LET, and entered on immediately,—A new-built RESIDENCE, situate in New-street, Petersfield, Hants, having, in the basement, a good cellar; on the ground floor—a parlour, kitchen, wash-house, and a covered gateway; on the first floor—a drawing-room, and two bed-rooms; in the attic—three bed-rooms; in the back, are a paved court, a well of excellent water, and a pump to ditto, a walled-in Garden, and every requisite necessary.
  For particulars and to treat for the same, apply, if by letter, post-paid, to Mr. Francis Brewer, Builder, Dragon-street, Petersfield, Hants.

Hampshire Chronicle
Valuable Little Farm, in Hampshire.
  TO be LET, for a Term of Ten years from Michaelmas next,—The valuable Little FARM, called WITHAM, in the parish of Liss, pleasantly situated, three miles from Petersfield, seven from Alton and Alresford; consisting of a Farm House, and all necessary Farm buildings, with 113 acres of arable, meadow, and wood land, in well apportioned Inclosures, connecting each other.
  For a view of the premises, &c. apply to Mr. Bridger, the present tenant, and for further particulars to Mr. James Comely, Compton, near Winchester.

Sussex Advertiser
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That all Persons willing to Contract for the Cartage of such quantities of FLINTS, as may be required from this time till the 1st day of July next, from the Turnpike Gate at Sheet, to the 12th mile-stone from Portsmouth on the above Road, are requested to deliver sealed Tenders in writing, stating the prices for which they will carry and deliver Flints to certain parts of the said Road within the above-mentioned places.
  The Tenders to be delivered on or before the 9th day of August next.—An account of the several distances and other particulars, may be had on application at the Office of C. J. HECTOR, Solicitor, Petersfield
Clerk to the Trustees.
Hampshire Chronicle
  WHEREAS two Black Pony MARES, about 12 hands high each, with hog manes and long tails, the property of two poor men, were STOLEN from Blissford, in the parish of Fordingbridge, on Monday night the 28th July, or early the following morning, one of which is three years old, branded on the near shoulder with the letter D ; the other aged, and branded on the near shoulder and hip I R.
  The above ponies were sold at Petersfield on Wednesday the 30th July, by James Chalk and Stephen Plumbley, who were immediately apprehended, on suspicion of the ponies having been stolen, but were again liberated.
  A reward of Ten Guineas, and reasonable expenses to be paid, on conviction, is hereby offered by the Parish Officers of Fordingbridge, to any person or persons who will apprehend the said men, and lodge them in Gaol, or Five Guineas for either of them. They are both inhabitants of Godshill, near Fordingbridge, and Chalk is 24 years of age, 5ft. 6½in. high, fair light hair, and hazel eyes; Plumbley, 23 years of age, 5ft. 7in. high, brown complexion, light brown hair, hazel eyes, and dimple in his chin.
Fordingbridge, Aug.15, 1823.

Hampshire Telegraph
In the Press, and speedily will be published,
Dedicated by
  THE HISTORY of CHURCHER’S COLLEGE, Petersfield, Hants, with a Biographical Sketch of the Founder, and an account of the progress of the Institution from its Foundation, to the present time, with observations on its management,—the extent of its funds,—and the means by which it may be made more extensively beneficial to the Children of the Inhabitants of Petersfield, by adhering to the design of the benevolent Founder, and the provisions of the Statute for regulating the same. The profit arising from the sale of this publication will be added to the Fund for the maintenance of the Sunday School which has been recently established at Petersfield, on the Principles of the Church of England.
The Examiner

  In the last Will of Mary Cave, late of the Borough of Petersfield, Hants, widow, deceased. Dated 7th February, 1814, is as follows:—
  “I give to the aforesaid Joseph Hardcastle, esquire, the present Treasurer, or to any other Treasurer for the time being, of a certain Society called, ‘The Village Itinerancy, or the Evangelical Association for the Propagation of the Gospel,” two thousand pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, free of all duties or taxes whatsoever, in trust, to be applied to the uses of the said Society.
  “And further to pay to the Rev. Andrew Reed, of Chiswell-street, London, one thousand pounds of like lawful money.
  “Proved at London, 10th of March, 1814, before the worshipful Samuel Pearce, Parson, Doctor of Laws and Surrogate, by the oaths of Joseph Hardcastle, Esq. and Benjamin Neale, two of the Executors to whom Administration was granted, being first sworn duly to administer. Power reserved to John Calvert, the other Executor.

“NATH. GATLING,          
“R. C. CUSNELL, Deputy Registrars.”
“E. JOINER,          

Hampshire Chronicle

  Married at Croydon, on Wednesday the 27th inst. Mr. Robert Davies, jun. surgeon, of Holborn Hill, to Mary, only daughter of the late Thomas Booker, Esq. of Petersfield, Hants.

Hampshire Chronicle

Committed to the County Gaol.—John Sanderson, charged with having, on the 8th inst. at Petersfield, uttered and published a certain bill of exchange for £39 7s. purporting to be drawn on the house of Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smith, bankers, London, well knowing the same to have been forged and counterfeited, with intent to defraud the said Messrs. Smith and Co. or Messrs. Hector and Co. of Petersfield.

Hampshire Advertiser

  We understand that Mr. Kentish and his operative assistants have been put to considerable inconvenience by the disappearance of a flag staff, erected by them on Butser Hill (near Petersfield) for their use, in the trigonometrical survey of this county, in which they are actively proceeding. This circumstance has occasioned much fruitless toil to the parties engaged in the survey, and the loss of much valuable time, as on their arrival on Portsdown Hill, and Bursledon Hill, near this town, and other eminences from which it was necessary to take angles to the same, in order to determine the true situation of this important station, the flag and staff were gone. We have not learnt whether they were wantonly removed, but we think no one would be guilty of such an action, who knew the purpose for which the pole was erected, (which was explained on a paper affixed to it).

Hampshire Chronicle
GAME LISTS.—County of Southampton
Persons who have obtained
GAME CERTIFICATES for the Year 1823.
  …; Chase, John, Petersfield; …; Greetham, C esq, Petersfield; …; Humphreys, Samuel, Petersfield;…; King, Fielder, Petersfield; …; Meeres, John esq, Petersfield; …; Nelson, George, Petersfield; …; Rogers, Rd, Petersfield; …; Whicher, Rev J, Petersfield; …;

Hampshire Telegraph
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That the FAIR for CATTLE and SHEEP, which is held Annually on the 6th October, WILL TAKE PLACE AS USUAL.
  N.B.—The Cattle Fair will be held on Petersfield Heath, and the Sheep Fair in a Field very contiguous. Coops may be obtained on reasonable terms, by application to John Cawley, of Petersfield.
  Subscription has been entered into for the purpose of promoting the Establishment of the above Fair, it being considered the situation is most eligible and centrical, and likely to render much advantage to the Seller and Buyer of Stock, in this neighbourhood, and the Eastern and Western Parts of England.
  PETERSFIELD, Sept.11, 1823

Hampshire Chronicle
  MESSRS. EVANS, COLLYER, and FITZWILLIAM, most respectfully inform the Gentry and Inhabitants of Petersfield and its vicinity, that they will have the honour to perform a VOCAL CONCERT, in the Ball Room of the Red Lion Inn, in that town, on Monday the 17th day of November instant, which will consist of a Selection of the most admired and favourite Songs, Duets, Catches, and Glees, several of which have never been performed in public.
  Further particulars will be announced in a few days, and may be had of Mr. Wm. Minchin, bookseller and printer, Petersfield.
&  **** The Concert will begin at seven o’clock precisely.—Tickets, 3s. each.
Hampshire Telegraph
This day was published, price 20s. in extra boards,—
  THE HISTORY of CHURCHER’S COLLEGE, Petersfield, Hants, with a Sketch of the Life of Mr. Richard Churcher, the Founder; and observations on its Management; together with a Report of the Case now pending in the High Court of Chancery between the Trustees and several of the Inhabitants of Petersfield.
  London: Sold by Joseph Butterworth and Son, Fleet-street; William Minchin, Petersfield; and all other Booksellers.
  [The profit arising from the sale of this Publication will be added to the Fund for the maintenance of the Sunday School, recently established at Petersfield, on the Principles of the Church of England.]

Hampshire Telegraph

  THOMAS SAVAGE, Proprietor of the WHALE, respectfully offers his humble Thanks to the Public generally, for the liberal encouragement they have bestowed on him, and begs to inform them, the Caravan being now finished, he intends proceeding on Wednesday next, to Petersfield, where this interesting Animal will be shown for a few days; from whence, at very particular request, he will proceed to Southampton and Winchester, &c.

Hampshire Telegraph
  THE FIRST ASSEMBLY for the Season, will be held at the Dolphin Inn, at Petersfield, on Friday the 21st of November, 1823.—Tickets to Non-subscribers—Ladies, 5s; Gentlemen, 7s. (tea included) to be had at the Dolphin.—No Non-subscriber to be admitted, unless introduced by a Subscriber.
  Quadrilles and Country Dances alternately.
  **** Dancing to commence at eight o’clock.
  The SECOND ASSEMBLY will be held at the Red Lion Inn, at Petersfield, on Monday, 15, Dec. 1823.

Hampshire Telegraph

  Married, on Monday last, Mr. William Woods, Tailor, Woollen Draper, &c. of Petersfield, to Anna, third daughter of Mr. Walker, Grocer, Mealman &c. of Chidingfold.

Hampshire Advertiser

  MARRIED—On the 22d ult. at Petersfield, Charles Bott, Esq. of Edgeware-road, London, to Caroline, youngest daughter of Edward Patrick, Esq. of Petersfield.

Hampshire Chronicle
Petersfield to the Alton Turnpike Road.
  NOTICE is hereby given,—That the next Meeting of the Trustees for the said Road, is appointed to be held on Monday the fifth day of January next, at the Dolphin Inn, at Petersfield, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, at which meeting the Proposal of Mr. Hoper for making the intended Line of Road up STONAR HILL, through his property, will be taken into consideration.

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees. 

December 26, 1823.

Hampshire Telegraph
  TO be SOLD by AUCTION, by Mr. JOHN CAWLEY, in two Lots, at the Red Lion Inn, Petersfield, Hants, on Monday the 9th of February, 1824, at four o’clock in the afternoon, under Conditions of Sale to be then produced, unless sooner disposed of by Private Contract, of which due Notice will be given :—
  Lot 1.—All that very convenient FREEHOLD DWELLING-HOUSE, in the occupation of the Rev. Mr. Howes, very pleasantly situated in a dry and healthy spot at Sheet, near Petersfield, on the West-side of the Turnpike Road from London to Portsmouth; comprising two good front parlours, with good kitchen, pantry, good under-ground cellars, brew-house detached, four good-sized chambers, large garrets, and store-rooms, a coach-house, a three-stall stable, wood-house, large garden, shrubbery, walled court, &c. in good repair, and fir for the residence of a genteel family.
  These Premises are to be sold subject to a Lease for fourteen years, from Lady-day, 1817, but determinable at Lady-day, 1826, on Six Months’ notice.
  Lot 2.—A convenient DWELLING-HOUSE, with a large parlour and kitchen in front, wash-house, under-ground cellar, with three good chambers, and garrets over; stable for four horses, barn, an excellent garden and orchard adjoining.—And, also, a convenient TAN-YARD, with forty-five tan-pits, mill-house, kiln, lime-pits, beam-house, and other conveniences for carrying on the Tanning Business, supplied with a constant stream of water.—Also, an excellent Piece of MEADOW GROUND adjoining, containing four acres, more or less.
  ☞ The Premises comprised in Lot 2, are situate at Sheet, aforesaid, and are now in the occupation of Thos. Jarman, who has had notice to quit the same at Michaelmas next, 1824.
  **** Sheet is one mile from Petersfield, 19 from Portsmouth, and 53 from London.—The Roads are excellent, and Stage Coaches pass to and from London at convenient times in the day.
  Further particulars may be known on application to Messrs. Clement and Sons, Solicitors, Alton, Hants.