Star.
London, England, 1820-02-11 00:00:00

PTHISRS.

At the sitting of the Court, this morning) the above
cause was called on.

Mr. DENMAN proceeded to shevr cause against the
Rule for a criminal information. He appeared for
Mr. Alderman Waithman, Mr. Hurcombe, Mr.
Fearon, and Mr. Stevens, and had now to contend
that his clients, who were charged with "a riot, and
obstructing the election of a Lord Mayor on Michael-
mas-day last, were on that occasion only exercising
a right ; and if so, then the charge of riot would re-
coil out their opponents, who had been the promoters
of riot ; at all events, if he could make his clients'
right to act as they had done only appear doubtful,
he was persuaded the Court would, under that doubt,
pause before they visited these defendants with the
severe penalties of criminal information. To estab-
lish this doubt, he would first advert to the affidavit
of Mr. H. Woodthorpe, the present Town Clerk. He
then proceeded to read the affidas it of Mr. Wood-
thorpe, which set forth the mode of election, and
also cited precedents, wherein the Livery, assembled
on Michaelmas-day, had proceeded on other busi-
ness; and the affidavit also set forth the opinion de-
livered on this subject by Mr. Serjeant Glynn, in
1773, who was at that time Recorder, and who, in
reply to an application made by the Livery to him
on this very subject, declared, that the Livery, le-
gally assembled, had a right to discuss public griev-
ances, whether on Midsummer-day, Michaelmas-
day, or any other day. The Learned Counsel ob-4
served, the right of the Livery to petition the Crown
was established beyond dispute ; yet it appeared from
this affidavit, that the late 'Lord Mayor, contrary to
the practice observed by his predecessors, had re-
fused to assemble the Livery, when requested to do
so, for the purpose of agreeing to a Petition, on a
subject highly Interesting to the liberty of the sub-
ject, and had refused two applications, a short time.
before the 29th of September last. This was taking
away the right of petitioning from the Livery, and
placing it wholly at the command of the Lord Mayor.
To rescue this right as far as possible, when the Li-
very were assembled on Michaelmas-day last, a
Gentleman named Thompson, previous to proceed-
ing to the election of Lord Mayor, proposed several
Resolutions, whieh were supported by the other des
fendants, and almost unanimously adopted by the
Livery present, amounting to nearly four thousand,
and this was the offence with which they were
charged. The Learned Counsel then adverted to the
case of Mr. F. Jenks, which occurred in the reign 4)11
Charles the Second. Mr. Jenks had proceeded pre-
cisely as Mr. Alderman Waithman and the rest of
the defendants in the present case had done. Mr.
Jenks was taken up and imprisoned, and the Court
party, aided by the then Common Serjeant, after-
wards Lord Chief Justice Jeffries, exerted-themselves
to convict him of a riot, but failed. The Learned
Counsel also adverted to the case of Pilkington and
Schutes, and to that of Sacheierel, which were tried
before Chief Justice Jeffries. In these cases there
was much more of violence, personal violence, than
in the present ; yet no conviction, even in those times,
took place. Indeed, out of the imprisonment of F.
Jenks the Habeas Corpus Act arose. He contended,
that the present defendants had acted in the exercise
of what they considered an established right; and he
trusted, if they had exercised that right iinproperiy,
the Court would send the question to be tried in
another shape, by action. for trespass, or otherwise
by indictment, and not grant criminal informations,
a course by no means convenient •for discussing the
question. If they were contending for a right, they
were justified; and it appeared that they had good
grounds for believing they had the right ; for on the
Journals of the House of Commons there was an
entry of a Petition presented on the 2.5 th of June,
1664 ; which Petition was agreed to in Common
Hall on the day before, being the 24th, the day on
which the Livery were assembled for the election of
Sheriffs. He also contended, generally, that even if the
defendants were guilty of the offence alleged against
them, yet this was not a case for a criminal informa-
tion. Criminal information ought only to be
granted where delay would endanger the public
peace—perhaps only in cases of challenge and of
libel. In such cases as the present, he submitted,
the proper course would be, to send the case of the
defendants first for consideration.before a Grand Jury.
He should now proceed to state the particular facts
of this transaction from the affidavits ; and if, in the
course of doing so, he should have to detail circum-
stances, imputing blame to highly respectable indi-
viduals, friends of his, who ought to have been legal,
advisers and moderators on this occasion, but, on the
contrary, by warmth and irritability on their part had
tended to aggravate the disturbance, he should re-
gret it ; but he should do so, notwithstanding, in the
discharge of his duty. And their Lordships should
also be informed, that a vote of the Court aCom-
mon Council had declared its opinion, that peoceed•
ings against these defendants should proceed no far-
ther, and the City Solicitor had been directed not to
continue his management of the prosecution; which
was now conducted by other Solicitors., The Rule
was obtained on thirteen affidavits t the first to which
he would allude was that of the late Lord Mayor,