Friday, May 4, 1764

London Lloyd Evening Post

Location: London, Middlesex

Page: 1

Other pages in this edition:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Who (or what) are you looking for?

Find old articles about anyone, in the World’s Largest Newspaper Archive!

Other Newspapers from London, Middlesex

Loading...

Other Editions from Friday, May 4, 1764

Loading...

Text Content of Page 1 of London Lloyd Evening Post on Friday, May 4, 1764

Lloyd's Evening Post (Newspaper) - May 4, 1764, London, Middlesex S EVENING POST. Vol. XIV.] From FRIDAY, May 4, to MONDAY, May 7, 1764. [Numb. 1064^ SATURDAY, May 5. IRELAND. Dublin, April 2%. HE Lord Lieutenant has given iool. towards fitting up a chapel in the work-houfe of this city. " ' ' ftantMr. lied and ^P^/=t Thomas Nefbitt ki 1r^J*1*MS brought into Teelen Bay, near Killybegs, one of the largeft whales ever feen in thofe feas, being in length above 80 feet, and the circumference upwards of 62 feet. LONDON. Yefterday morning, about ten o'clock, the important caufe depending betweenMr. Beard-more and the King's Meflengers, came on before the Right Hon, the Lord Chief Juftice Pratt, at Guildhall; in the courfe of which it appeared, that Mr. Beardmore had been taken into culiody on the nth of Nov. for a fup-pofed connection with the Mo sitor, and confined till the 17th, two days of which he was not fuffered the ufe of either pen or paper, nor permitted to converfe with any of his friends, but in the prefence of the Meffenger: nay, it was mentioned, that when application was made by the then Lord Mayor of London to bail him, the proper Officer who was to examine him, neglected it, on this confident and reafonable account, that the Monitors were much too voluminous to be infpecled. Mr. Jonathan Scott, the former Publilher of the-M�*�iroR , in order to prove the juftice of Mr Beardmore's commitment, prefented a paper to the Court, fitting forth, that this Gentleman, together with the Rev.Mr.Entick, Dr. Shebbeare, and others, were the Authors; that the two latter had a falary of one hundred a year for their writings; and that he himfelf (Mr. Scoti) was allowed the profits of the fale for his trouble, after the necelfary expences attending the publication were difcharged. Such being the groundwork of the charge and defence, the examination of witneffes, and the pleadings on both fides, continued till about a quarter after four, when it appearing inccnteftably evident, that Mr.Beardmore had fufferedveiy confiderably,in being confined for fo long a fpace, at the beginning of Term,when he had a number of important caufes to conduct; and his principal Clerk, who tranfacled the buiinefs in his abfence, being alfo taken up by the fame warrant with himfelf, and in the cuftody of another Meffenger, the Lord Chief Juftice proceeded,with his ufual candour "and good fenfe, to give the charge, in which he obferved, that the leizure of Mr. Beardmore's perfon and papers was illegal ; and that the S-of S-fhculd always be particularly careful to hear with their ears open, and fee with their own eyes: He recommended moderation, however, in the damages, as the Meffengers were nothing but fervants, and coniequently could net be confidered as materially culpable in intent.-The jury then withdrew, and returned inabout fifty minutes, with a verditr. of iocoh in favour of Mr. Beardmore, highly to the fatisfaclion of the Court, and the wifhes of the fpc&ators, who teftified their approbation with the lourieil burfts of applaufe. The Council for the Defendants were, the Attorney and Sollicitor-General, Serjeants Davey and Naires, and Mr. Wallis; and for the Plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant Glyn, the Recorder of London, Mr. Stow, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Gardner. The following are the names of the perfons who compofed the Jury. Francis Helton, Dyer, Foreman. Edward Eames, Carpenter. William Clemens, Peruke-maker. Noah Bliflbn, Broker. John Salter, Plumber. Rowlins Her�n, Taylor". Daniel Machin, Plumber. Francis Jofeph, Flatter. Thomas Hazlehurft, Smith. Thomas Pearfall, Wiredrawer. Philip Barenger, Watch-maker. JohnBufh, Mathemat. Inftrument-maker. Yefterday at a numerous meeting of the Eaft India Proprietors at Merchant Taylors Hall, the queftion recommended at the laif. General Court, for empowering the Directors to agree with the Right Hoti. the Lord Clive, about the payment or his jaghire for the fpace of ten years, in cafe his Lordihip fhould live fo long, and the poffeflions out of which it iflues continue for that period in the hands of the Company, was determined by ballot, when upon counting the numbers there appeared, In the Affirmative 514 Negative 4.53 Majority 6i Sixteen of the Proprietors being undetermined in their opinions, did not choofe to give any vote. The Opinion of the Hon. Charles Yorke, touching LordClive's Jaghire, taken by the Court of Diredors, and read to the General Court of Proprietors, held at Merchant-Taylor's Hall, m Wednefday, May 2. " THERE are two queftions to be confidered in this cafe. The firil (in order) is the jurifdiclion of the Court of Chancery. The fecond is, upon the merits of the demand. I will confider the merits of the demand in the firil place; becaufe if Lord Clive is intitled in juilice to the rent iiTuing out of the lands granted by Meer Jaffier to the Company, they will (as they ought) turp Chancellors againil themfelves, and not think it for their honour that the relief prayed ihould be denied, merely upon a defect of jurifdiclion in the Court of Chancery. " And I muft own, after cenfidering this queftion, upon the pleadings and papers laid before me, I have no doubt upon the right of Lord Clive to the rent or Jaghire demanded. The grant of the lands to the Company was made by'Meer Jaffier in the year 1757 (out of which the rent was nferved to him, as Nabob of the province.) The rent fo referved was affiencd by the Nabob to Lord Clive in 1759. Both grants flowed from the fame authority ; and therefore in a queftion between the Eaft India Company, as Grantee of the lands from IVleer Jafner, and Lord Clive, as Grantee of the rent, it appears to me immaterial to enter into fuch objections as might be made cither by the Mogul, or the fuccef-fors cf the Nabob Meer J.ifiier, to the form or [Price TY*o-pr.ce iialfpnny.] fubftance of thofe grants. They both claim and derive under the fame Grantor; and the Eaft India Company cannot raife an objection againil the grant to Lord Clive, founded on. the want of right and power in the Nabob, whkh will not impeach their own. If Lord Clive, as a fervant of the Company* had. beert bound by covenants or bye-laws not to accept any rewards from the Indian Princes,- or inferior Sovereigns in the Mogul Empire, or from the Mogul, without licence of the Company or Court of Directors (even for fervices performed to thofe Princes, not immediately relative to the commerce of the Company) I (hould have thought that he would have been bound, by fuch covenants or bye-laws, to renounce and relinquish fuch rewards or advantages ; and he might have be n liable, in fuch cafe, to damages at law, cr to an account in a Court of Equity. But I am of opinion, that the queilion of right, in this initance, is to be confidered not upon the Uriel absolute merits ("according to the laws and con-ftitution of the Mogul empire) but relatively, as between the Eaft India Company, the Grantee cf the lands from Meer jr.frier, and Lord Clive, the Grantee of the fame Nabob, of a rent iiTuing and referved out of thofe lands, when granted to the Company. And I am alfo of opinion, that this queilion ought to be determined between his Lordfhip and the Company, upon the fame principles .-h the like queftion would be determined arifing between the Owner of the lands in England fubjeel to a rent, and the Grantee or Affignce of that rent, in a cafe where both parties derived from the fame original Grantor. As to the queftion of jurifdiclion, I have already faid, that \ am fatisfied, if the Directors and Proprietors fee the merits of Lord dive's demand in the fame light in which it ilrikes me, they will turn Chancellors againil themfelves. It is for the honour of that great Company to acl upon fuch principles, not only with foreign Merchants, trading Companies, and foreign States and Sovereigns, but with their own fervants. I muft fay, however, that 1 have no dcubt upon the point cf jurifdiclion in Chancery. That Court, as a Court of Equity, acls by its decrees, not in rem, but in pirjonam ; and therefore if the Defendant (the Eaft India Company) againil whom an account of the profits of the land is prayed, is amcfnsble to the procefs and juftice of Chancery (as moft certainly the Company it) the only queflion to be confidered will be, Whether the relief prayed by the Plaintiff is fuch as can be given by the Court againft the Defendant. Now the relief prayed is merely by way of account of rents and payment of the Jaghire, in a cafe where it is not fuggefted or pretended, that: the fervants and receivers of the Company in* India are or yet have been interrupted in the receipt and reception of thefe rents ; and: therefore the bill is brought by Lord Clive iri Chancery, in the fame manner, and upon the fame grounds, and may be entertained by the Court upon the fame principles, as in every cafe of a demand by the Grantee of a ieni or annuity ifi'uing out of lands agair.ft the Owner of fuch lands for the arrears and growing payments; which uriidiclion might be exeicifcd between parties refident in England by way of account, whether the land* lay U

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8