Star.
London, England, 1827-07-05 00:00:00

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Sir P. t loam, on Tuesday, presented a Petition from
Mr. Winchester, praying he might be sworn in. It dis-
claimed all intention to questiorethe jurisdiction of the
Court, and confined the claims rif the Petitioner to the
mere legality of his election ; stating that Mr. Wilde
might have his remedy of quo waryanto. He (Sir
Peter) agreed with one part of tbe Petition—that against
the swearing in of Mr. Wilde: his objection extended
to both of the CAndidates, and did not refer individually.

Alderman WOOD moved that Mr. Wilde's Petition
to the last Court, complaining of the litigation, and
praying that he should be sworn in, as having been duly
elected, should be read—(Hear, hear.) After the Peti-
tion was read,
Alderman CRowDER—I rise to move that Mr. Wilde
be sworn in immediately.
Alderman THOMPSON moved, before the subject was
further proceeded in, that the doors be thrown open to
the Public.

Alderman HEYGATE thought it most extraordinary
that accounts of discussions in that Court got into the
Newspapers. Some of these reports, he was aware, were
given with accuracy, while others indulged in misre-
presentations.
Sir R. C. GLYN said, that it was in vain to attempt
to prevent those things.
Sir Jamas SHAW said, he would certainly oppose any
attempt to decide the present question without the ne-
cessqry formality. It was impossible to keep their pro-
ceedings a secret, in some shape or other they will go
before the Public, and occasionally, perhaps, with a tinge,
of prejudice or partiality: but this was an inconvenience'
to which public men must submit.
The motion was then withdrawn.

* Alderman CROWDZEt then proceeded with his motion,
in introducing which, he considered himself, he said,
doing a public duty. The Ward of Vintry had been for
'sometime unrepresented. The election of Mr. Win-
cherer had been declared void, and Mr. Wilde had been
legally chosen. The Court had, however, refused to
swear in the latter, on account of the issue of the manda-
mus upon the Petition of Mr. Winchester, which ques-
tioned the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court bad re-
plied to that issue, and Mr. Winchester had not thought
proper to go further. Mr. Wilde therefore now applied
to be sworn in, and in his (Mr. Crowder's) opinion, the
claim could not be resisted. " I move, therefore," said
the Alderman, " that we swear i■ Mr. Wilde forthwith
as Alderman of the Ward of Vintry."
. .

Alderman WOOD seconded the motion.

Ald. THOMPSON asked the City Solicitor whether
Mr. Winchester bad not proceeded on other grounds
against the City of London, and whether the latter had
not put in avlea ?
The Solicitor replied in the affirmative, and said, that
under those circumstances the Court would not be jus-
tified in swearing in Mr. Wilde.
Alderman HEYOATE said that he should move an
amendment. the purport of which was, that the Court,
under the present circumstances of the case, do swear
in neither of the candidates.

Alderman WAITHMAN said, that the Court had been
placed in a dilemma by the conduct of Mr. Winchester,
who first questioned their authority, then abandoned
that position. The only question, therefore, was, whether
the present proceedings of Mr. Winchester opposed an
impediment to the motion, and whether the Law Offices:
were of opinion that the Court could, without any pre-
judice to the existing proceedings, swear in Mr. Wilde?
This opinion would direct hint in his vote. He then
called for the opinion of the Law Officers.

After tome further discussion, the RECORDER took a
review of the proceedings from the commencement, and
then stated that the Court had brought itself into its
present difficulties by Mr. Winchester, who denied their
authority. The Court might have sworn in Mr. Wilde
at any time. But the question of expediency was a
different one, and he should be better qualified to judge
of it in a few days. . . .

The COMMON SERGEANT said that Mr. Wilde had
been duly elected, and that the Court had the right to
swear him in. The Court had defended the right, and
Mr. Winchester eased to contest it. Therefore the
Court was only acting from a sense of duty by following
up its own proceedings. Still he would not like to act
on his own responsibility on a question of such im-
portance, but would take the opinion of other Members
of the Law.
Sir JAMES SHAW said that he had an amendment
wh ch be would have moved, had not Alderman Hey-
gate anticipated him. It was, that it be referred to the
Attorney and Solicitor General, Mr. Park, and the City
Law Officers, to decide what measure they would ad-
vise the Court to adopt under the circumstances.
Alderman CROWDER said, that he was solely actuated
by a sense of duty, and thought, after hearing the opi-
nion of the Law Officers, that the most desirable course
would be, to- adopt Sir Jsmes Shaw's amendment ; to
make way for which, he would request permission to
withdraw his motion.
Alderman FIRTGATE refused to withdraw his amend-
ment. He vehemently objected to the course proposed.
It was quite obvious what the meaning and intention of
the Gentlemen on the other side were. He saw that it
was all a tnanceuvre and a trap, but it would not suc-
ceed. The motion should not be withdrawn either.
Here several Members said, that the language of Alderman Hey-
gate reflected most improperly upon the Court, and that he had
most illiberally and encourteously treated Alderman Crowder,
whose conduct entitled him to uniform respect.—The charge was
repeated and denied ; and a confusion arose, such as it would be
most difficult to describe. Some said, "We ought to refer to the
Law Officers."

Alderman Bracn,The Law Officers! No. What-
ever may be their opinions, I'll act for myself ; Yam as
competent to judge as they.
The LORD MAYOR was called upon by Alderman
HaycaTE for his opinion, but several cried out that it
was quite irregular to call up:in the presiding Officer to
do so, as in a case c f this kind the bias of his Lordship
might influence othets.—His L ,rdship declined to say
any thing.
Aldermen HCYGATE and Lucas persisted loudly in
the course they had first adopted, although repeatedly
urged to acq riesce in the suggestion of Sir J. Shaw.
Alderman WOOD then protested against the proceed.
ings, as gro-s and irregular. There appeared to be a
want of the common courtesy observed everywhere else
—(hear)—and he should persist in moving the adjourn-
ment of the Court, in order to prevent the improper
decision he anticipated. . _

Here the whole Court rose—some declared that they would sup-
port Alderman Wood's motion of adjournment, and would sit in
Court all night rather than allow Alderman Heygate's amendment
to be carried. After several adjournments had been moved and
negatived, Sir James Shaw's amendment was at length put, when
there appeared 8 for and againit

The—Lonn M AYR/ft then gave the casting vote against
the amendment of Sir J. Shaw. His Lordship, however,
wad, that te considered Mr. Wilde's election legal,

and if that G ntlernan had moved a mandamus, the
Court could not have refused to swear him in.
Alderman Heygate's amendment was then put as
an original question. The instant the question was
proposed, up started an Alderman to move an adjourn-
ment; and many adjournments were moved, amidst the
greatest tumult. At length the Aldermen retired.