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

  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.

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

  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.

  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.

  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 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.

  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.

  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.

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

  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.

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.   

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.

  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.

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

JOHN S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

J. S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

J. S. SHUGAR,    
Clerk to the Trustees 

  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.

  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 …

  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.

  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.

J. S. SHUGAR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.”

  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.

  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.

  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.

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

  23rd September, 1822

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

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees.  

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

  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.

  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.

  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

Solicitors, Winchester.  

  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.

JAS. WHITE, CHAIRMAN.  

  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.

Clerk to the Trustees.  

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

The Hon. W. M. GAGE, President.  
Mr. GEORGE BUTLER, Vice.  

  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.

  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.

“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.

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.

  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.

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

  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.

  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;

  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);

JOHN LIPSCOMB, Chairman.  

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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

  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.

  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.

  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,          

  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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

  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.

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

C. J. HECTOR, Clerk to the Trustees. 

December 26, 1823.