Viewing page 114 of 285

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

174] ANNUAL REGISTER

[[2 Columns]]

great principle common to all Protestant Dissenters, they hope for the unanimous concurrence of their brethren in the ministry, in so interesting an affair.
 You are, therefore, desired, if you approve the design, to meet your brethren at the Library in Redcross-Street, on, &c. to consider of the best means to chuse a committee for that purpose.
 I am, in the name of many of the brethren, &c.

——————————————————————————————

Some particulars of the proceedings in the great cause between Mr. Alderman Townsend, and the collector of the land-tax.

ON Tuesday, June 7, at eleven, came on before Lord Mansfield at Westminster-hall, the cause between Mr. Alderm. Townsend, and Mr. Hunt, collector of the land-tax. 
 The business was opened by Mr. Davenport; who informed the jury, that this action was brought by Mr. Townsend against Mr. Hunt, for distraining a large quantity of hay, amount to the value of 130 l. belonging to Mr. Townsend, upon his refusing to pay his assessment of the land-tax. Mr. Serjeant Glynn next entered more fully into the question, and, in a speech which lasted near half an hour, laid before the jury the motives which had influenced Mr. Townsend to bring the matter in agitation, and the grounds upon which he had framed his action.
 He said Mr. Townsend had not brought this action into that court from any pecuniary motives, but from an anxious care of the rights of the electors of the kingdom in general, and of the county of Middlesex in particular. He said Mr. Townsend grounded his refusal of paying his assessment of the land-tax, upon his not being fully represented in the assembly who had imposed that tax, which therefore he thought an illegal imposition.
 Mr. Townsend admitted the commissioners and the officer to have done no more than their duty, according to the land-tax act; but he contended that that act was so defective, as not to give authority to the commissioners to levy the tax.
 This defect he proceeded to prove. he said, that to constitute the legality of all impositions of that kind, it was necessary they should have the consent of all the representatives of the people. That this act had not such consent; that the county of Middlesex, in which Mr. Townsend lived, was not fully represented. Here he entered into a detail of the several Middlesex elections, stated the numbers of the poll on each, recited Mr. Wilkes's different expulsions, rejections, and final incapacitation, the admission of Mr. Luttrell, &c. &c. (all which particulars are well known) and concluded with saying, that "Mr. Wilkes was by force withheld from his seat." He then expatiated upon the dreadful injuries the right of election might sustain from this power assumed by the commons of incapacitating Mr. Wilkes. "God knows (he said) how far these incapacities may be multiplied: they may be carried so far as even to annihilate the mode of election." As this subject has been so thoroughly discussed, it was impossible for the serjeant to offer any thing new

For the YEAR 1772.   [175

[[2 Columns]]

new upon it. After telling the jury, therefore, that if they co-incided in opinion with him, that the county of Middlesex was not fully and fairly represented, they would find for the plaintiff; but that if they thought the present House of Commons had authority to impose such a tax, then the defendant was justified: he concluded with saying, he should produce the evidence of the poll-books, the sheriff's return, the clerk of the petty-bag-office, &c. to prove Mr. Wilkes was the legal representative for the county of Middlesex.
 On the part of Mr. Hunt were retained the attorney-general, (who, however, was not there, though the cause was postponed from nine to eleven, in expectation of his coming) Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Wallace answered Serjeant Glynn no otherwise, than by shewing the act of parliament by virtue of which the collector had acted; and this was likewise the only argument urged by the other gentlemen. 
 Lord Mansfield told the jury, that the question before them was, in fact, no other than, "Whether there was any legislative power in this country?" If they acknowledged there was, then they must find for the defendant; and that, as to the evidence offered to be produced by the serjeant, it was his opinion, "That it was not by law competent, and was inadmissible."
 In less than two minutes after his lordship had done speaking, the usual question was put to the jury by the proper officer, when answer was made, that they found for the defendant; upon which the officer proceeded to record the verdict, when Mr. Reynolds the undersheriff interrupted him, by calling out, that one of the jury was not of that opinion. The officer stopped; and the jury were ordered to confer together again; when in about five minutes the same verdict was given as before, viz. for the defendant.
 Mr. Townsend was in court all the time; and after the whole was over, said, that the affair should end here.

——————————————————————————————

Summary of the trial of James Bolland, for forgery.

ON Wednesday, February 19, came on the trial of James Bolland, who was indicted for feloniously forging and counterfeiting on the back of a promissory note for payment of money, drawn by one Thomas Bradshaw, and indorsed by one Samuel Pritchard, a certain indorsement in the name of James Banks, with intent to defraud Francis Lewis Cardineaux, against the statute. He also stood charged with uttering and publishing, as true, on the back of the said promissory note, the said false and forged indorsement in the name of James Banks, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit.
 The note was produced in court by Sir John Fielding's clerk, with whom it had been left by Mr. Levi.
 Mr. Levi was examined; and it appeared that he had been informed concerning the note by Mr. Pritchard; that he received it from Mr. Morris, in the presence of Mr. Cardineaux; and that, knowing it to be a forgery, his intention in getting possession of it was to prosecute Bolland. It also appeared, that