Star.
London, England, 1819-11-09 00:00:00

Mr. HUNT was about to make an observation—

The CIIIEF JUSTICE—You have made your appli-
cation, and the Court are about shortly to inform you
of their reasons for refusing to hear you.
Mr. HuxT—l was stopped.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—And it was right that you
should be stopped, while my Learned Brothers give
their reasons for that interruption.
Mr. HUNT--With great submission, I apprehend I
am entitled to state my reasons for urging my right
to make this motion.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—Have you any instance in
which such an application has been made by a per-
son not at the Bar?

Mr. HUNT—I have abundance of instances, from
the earliest period down to your Lordship's becoming
Chief Justice of this Court, in which the plaintiffs
have gone before Juries.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Have you any instance in
which such persons were allowed to move for a cri-
minal information ?

Mr. Htmr—l do not know that I have; but I beg
leave to state a case in which a prosecutor was allowed
to address a Jury.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—That is not the present
question ; but, in the case of Mills, the Court so-
lemnly decided, that a prosecutor in a criminal case
had no such right.
Mr. HUNT—I beg leave to state, that the case of
Mills was not a case similar to this. The case to
which I wish to allude is the case of the King, at the
prosecution of Pitt, v. Huskisson and others. The
case of Mills was where the prosecutor was examined '
as a witness.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I have intimated, distinctly
and broadly that there is no case which sanctions such
a motion as this on the part of a private individual.

Mr. HUNT—Your Lordship speaks of precedents—
will you allow me to cite one which is decisive of
the present question? Allow me to refer you to the!
case of the'King on the prosecution of Lyon, Has-
kisson and others.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—That is a case directly
against this motion. After my Lord Ellenborough
had suffered Mr. Pitt to make an address to the Jury,
I took an opportunity of speaking to his Lordship,
and represented to him that a private prosecutor
could not, in point of law, address the Jury. I re-
minded him that what he had done in suffering Mr.
Pitt to address the Jury as a prosecutor, was con-
trary to law, and his Lordship ultimately affirmed
what I had said, and admitted that what he had done
was wrong.
Mr. GunN EY interposed—His Lordship stated pub-
licly before the trial was concluded, that, upon re-
ilecti3n, he thought he had done wrong in permit-
ting Pitt to address the Jury.
Mi. Justice BAYLEY—And I am quite sure that
the mischief which would in very many instances re-
sult from such a practice, can hardly be calculated.
Mr. IluNr —lf there is any law upon the subject,
I must be bound by it ; but if your Lordships gu oy
precedents, there are several in my favour.

The CHIEF Jusricn—You are bound by the judg-
ment of this Court. If the Legislature thinks that
this is not law, then the Legislature may pass an Act
of Parliament for our guidance.
Mr. HUNT—I can only say, that in no instance
which I can find has a prosecutor, in the name of the
King, been prevented from addressing the Court
and Jury.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The reason of which is, that
there is no instance in which any'person has thought
fit to offer himself for such a purpose.
Mr. Justice BEST thought that the manner in
which the Court had been on this occasion treated,
sufficiently indicated the propriety of the rule to
which allusion had been made.

Mr. Hurcr-1 wish .to bring the matter before the
Public. I have been told in the Proclamation of the
Prince Regent that the.Courtb of Law are open to me,

—The Clint! Jus'etct —We have nothing to do
with that.
Mr. HUNT—I have no Counsel nor Attorney, nor
the means of getting avy. I ask your Lordships,
therefore, how am I to proceed ?
Mr. Justice HOLROYD then proceeded to deliver
his opinion.—This is an application on the part of a
private individual for a criinn-ro.l information en ph-
lie grounds. No instance has been mentioned to
justify such a proceeding, and it is never allowed
except at the instance of Officers of the Crown—such
as the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, authorised to
act for the Crown, or Gentlemen at the Bar, v.ho
are in their nature public Officers. One instance has
been mentioned, and only one, in which—
Mr. HUNT again interposed, and uttered something
not audible.

Mr. Justice Houtorn—l desire not to be inter-
rupted. One instance has been mentioned, and only
one, where a private prosecutor, in the name of the
King, was suffered to address the Jury ; but on that
very occasion, the Learned and Noble Judge who
permitted such a proceeding, admitted afterwards
that what was done was not sanctioned by law,
and that he had not done right in that rerpecr.
I am clearly of opinion that it is not in the power of
any individual who may think fit, to conver t himself
into Counsel for the Crown ; and I think this appli-
cation cannot be made by the person now applying.
Mr. Justice Besrln a criminal proceeding, no
private individual can make himself a party, and
therefore it is impossible that the person who 110 W
presents himself to the Court can become a party in
this case. If this person had received an injury, and
wished to obtain satisfaction for that injury, lie nii ht
become a party in a civil suit, and then present him-
self to the Court in his own name. That, however,
is not the question now before us. Ile comes for-
ward as the advocate of the King, which the law says'
he cannot be allowed to do, because the King will
be the only party who can set the law in motion. In
criminal informations, the King is one party, and the
defendant is the other, and the question is, whether
this person is in a situation in which he can present I
himself to us as the advocate of the King? If any
precedent could be cited in which such a proceeding
had been allowed, I should have thought it right to
consider whether we ought to be bound by that pre-
cedent? But there is no such precedent, in which
such a practice has been admitted; and no case can
be cited in which such a proceeding can occur but at
the instance of the Attorney and Solicitor-General,
or of a Gentleman at the Bar. As no case can be
found to authorize this proceeding, shall we make a
precedent ? What right have we to say that this per-
son shall thus intrude himself as the person who is
'to inform this Court for the King ? I can see no
reason for it; and I am sure that the replies made to
the Court to-day by this person, are pregnant with
proofs hew extremely improper it would be to establish
such a precedent. When a Gentleman at the Bar
has stated what he thinks it is important for the
Court to hear, he stops and receives the judgment of
the Court. That, however, is not the case with such
advocates as the person we have now before us ; far
'they are never contented with any thing said by the
Ccurt. It would be attended with dreadful incon•
venience to the administration of justice, if such per-
' sons could be permitted to discharge the important
duties of advocates. lam clearly of opinion that this
' motion cannot be entertained at the instance of the
present applicant.
Mr. HUNT, in a discontented tone, left the Court,
saying—,, I can only say, that the Manchester Ma-
gistrates will have no application made against them
by a Gentleman of the Bar."