The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-02-11 00:00:00

that such retinisi-
alkiitices preseirted. to Mr.
but that he alivms refused.
affidavit, that ha bad givc
very momentous interest.
this right depeuded also-
Lord Mayor, it *mild be
Id not be—and the only
withheld, to which also the
must be supposed to re-
Jiumer, or hitcherlmes, or
the Livery, before proceed-
business of that day, should de-
e she right, by resolutions, and
to the resolutions passed
give no opinion, because
2 on the opposite aide. But;
allowing the course as laid
,•pe to be ever so accurate,
common sense, aim(' of
contended that the case
to the year 1696, certain
kind occurred, which were
'e State Trials. It was
.ienks, who was a linen-
London, and • liveryman.
before the Privy Council,
urged against his clients.
. proposed a vote of censure
for refusing to mminson
uprose its sentiments on the
together a Pinliament. As
• word Parliament, an unit-
other business was imam-
& disturbance followed,

__ probably much longer than that under
die coosideration of the Court. He was taken
'before the Privy Couticil,examined in the presence
of the Chancellor and several of the Judges, and
sent to prison, under a warrant fur making a sedi-
tious speech alluding toe Parliament, and distor b-
tog the business of the Common Hall. If such had
been the fact, he would have been subject to au in-
dimment ; but perhaps that experiment was not
thought safe even in those times. Hut undoubt-
edly he had been disturbing the specific buriiiese
for which the Hall had been assembled. There
woe no waist of inclinatiou in the authorities of the
diy to strain every engine against him ; they left
ess art untried. Ile applied frequeutly for a Habeas
Corpus, mid was constantly refused one, till at
leatstht he WAS brought up one Sessions at the Old
Bailey, and discharged. But the offence, for which
the Court of Charles 11. did not think it right to
proceed against Jenks, was the ouly one committed
by Alderman Waithnian. At that time Mr. idle-
rip was the Common Serjeatit, afterwards lie be-
came Recorder, and then Chief Justice of the
King's Bench : and it might be readily supposed
that the Common Serjeant was not wanting in
any knowledge which might serve the Court.
Another case of the kind was the King against
Pilkington and others, in the year 1683. 3 Hier-
grove's State Trials. Here there was also a sup-
posed riot, and the parties were very heavily fined;
but the judgment was set aside by Act of Parlia-
ment, in the reign of William 111., as contrary to
the rights of the subject. Though there the acts
of riot were of an infinitely stronger nature than
any which occured here, the Lord Mayor having
been assailed coming out of the hall, and he be-
lieved knocked down. The Learned Counsel then
cited the cave of the Kiog against Sacheverell, in
the course of which Chief Justice Jefferies had said
to one of the Lawyers, who lie thought spoke too
long. " surely you think you're in your common
halls, and not iu a Court of Justice ;" which was
evidence, that according to common opinion, a lati-
tude was allowable in the former. The case of
Jenks was that which gave rise to the passing
of the famous Habeas Corpus Act, and Black-
stone justly gloried that the oppression of an
obscure individual laid the foundation of one
of the strongest bulwarks of our liberties._
Ile had endeavoured to skew the sort of ge-
neral principles on which charges like the present
had bergs maintained even in those times. He
hardly knew any mode of ascertaining the existence
or uoii-existence of such a right as that contended
for, better than the deliberate epiniou of such a
man a. Serjeaut Glynn. But were it even deter-
rimed otherwise, still as nothing had been doom,
except iii the enforcement of a supposed right, hr
thought that their Lordships would not accede to
the application, because there were several other
modes of trying it, which ought to have been first
resorted to. An action of trespass would deter.
mitre the very right, aye or no. Besides, there were
Courts peculiarly proper for the case iu the city of
London; the Hustings Court, or the Court of the
Lord Mayor, and in defect of justice, then a Court
of Error, mentioned by Fitsherbert, and used in
the present reign. He thee referred to the case of
Sir Robert Atkins, the Recorder of Bristol, and
that of the Queen spies' Joldy. as establishing
the distinction he bad takes as to the innocence of
the parties, when they conceived the law conferred
on them the right they sought to maintain. He
contended, that this was not a case for a criminal
information. it bad always appeared to him, on
reflection, shit since the Statute of William 111.
was passed; which left the compliance with applica-
tioinnof this sort to the discretion of the Court, it
was wrong to bring parties in this way into Court,
to expose the weak parts of their defence, unless
dome danger was threatened to the public peace, as
in the instances of challenges or libels. In the pre-
sent case. if the matter rested on the affidevits of
.he prosecutors alone, the fact of a concert and con-
'piracy might be denied on the part of his clients;
taut in their owe affidavits they were compelled to I
acknowledge it; these gentlemen thought it un-
worthy of their character to deny what they had
done is. the exercise of an important right : so that
what was the most material ground fur en amass.
don did not exist wham tie, affidavits of the prose-
cutors bed been filed. After a few words ou the
waist of discretion said temper observable in the affi-
davits of the prosecutors, Mr. Denman said that the
occurrences compleiried of took place on the 49th
leptesiber . • Term cesoomaced .on the 611) Novem-
ber...4lm coaditieual role was obtained ou the 18th;
skillet it was utterly impossible for thee to shew
mese last Tara, sorlitwas postponed till this. Oae
of the ponies. Iterwreee, wise whom the rule was
pregfell did-oot joie its the application, Mr. Hunt;
defeoded biased& and what be note to, they

47011 riAu CIICFIIII7lOU
ut there were atiLlavits_ej
ions had ' beenirr manj all
tkins during his Office, be
Wok lideclarof iu bla all
wo refusals on affairs of
ow, if the enjoyment of t
ether on the will of the I
a mere mockery—it mutt
enwdy, when it was with
pinion of Serjeant Glynn
'er, was, that on Micheal
soma other solemn day; tin
'ng to the regales business
lore the existence of the ri
exercise it. With respect
on this occasion, he should
they were not objected to
is position was, that silo
town by Mr. Wnodthorpe
't most, In reason and cc
me exceptions ; end he
'n question was one. In
roceedings of this kind
eported in Hergrave's
in the *case of John Je
draper iu the city of La
This person was brought b
for doing the very act now
It appeared that he had pn
.'a the Lord Mayor for
Common Hall, to captor
Court's not culling toget
n as he mentioned the w
4011 clamour ensued, the
shately abandoned, mud a
which probably lasted much