Star.
London, England, 1821-05-18 00:00:00

TIIE KING V. TIIELWALL.

This was an indictment for libel, against the Pro-
prietor of The champion Newspaper. The Bill was
found at the WeAminster Sessions, upon the prosecu-
tion of " The Constitutional Association ;" and pro-
ceedings have since been removed, by certiorari, into
the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. BLACKBURN now moved for a rule to shew
cause why a list of the prosecutors should not be fur-
nished to the defendant. The affidavit upon which
the motion was grounded static!, in substance,. that
Mr. Thelwall bad applied, by his Attorney, to Mr.
Charles Murray, Secretary to " the Constitutional
Association," and Solicitor for the prosecution, for a
particular of the prosecutors; and that such particu-
lar had been refused him; that, finding upon. the
back of the indictment the names of Horatio Orton
.and George Stevens, the defendant had 'one to the
office of " the Constitutional Association, in Bridge-
street, Blackfriars, and had there learned from Mr.
Sharpe, Assistant-Secretary t 6" the Association," that
Orton and Stevens were not his prosecutors ; that the
defendant had since discovered Orton and Stevens to
be Clerks—the one in the Society's Office; and the
other, a lad of eighteen or nineteen, in the Stair,
Office, and that they were merely intended to prove
the purchase of the libel, and the property of the Pa-
per; and, finally, that without the names of the pro-
secutors, the defendant could not safely go to trial.
The affidavit also stated Mr. Thelwalfs belief that
" the Association" consisted of several hundred per-
sons.—Now the Court, Mr. Blackburn trusted, would
see, upon three grounds, the necessity of the docu-
ment which he prayed. First, in case of malicious
prosecution; against whom, if the prosecutors were
unknown, was the defendant to bring his action?—
Next, in the case that costs should fall upon the pro-
secution ; to whom could the defendant look for the
payment of such costs?—Last, the indictment was
laid by an " Association ;" unless the persons consti-
tuting that Association were known to the defendant,
how could he be' ure that some of his prosecutors
were not sitting upon his Jury?

The CounT thought the application fot a list of
prosecutors st) novel, that, to lean to it, would be to'
establish a dangerous precedent. It was important,
however, that the defendant should have the means
of purif)iilg his Jury; and', without granting the rule
demanded, that ol+ject might be accomplished. If
the cause was tried by Common Jury, it would be
competent to the defendant to ask each Juryman, as
he came to be sworn, whether he was one of the pro-
secutors—or, whether he was a member of "the Con-
stitutional Association?"—ln case a rule for Special
lJury were granted, the Court would order that the

~e *'

. .
defentfant should have a list of these inembers of tlie
Constitutional Asso:iation" whose names appeared
upon the Special Jury list.

TOE KING t 7. TilE REV. R. BLACOW.
The LORD CHIEF Justita thought it better that
this case should not come on in the absence of Mr.
Justice Best.

Mr. BROUGHAM regretted that any circumstance
should occasion delay. The effect of the proceeding
was lost, if it was not taken within reasonable time. •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" It will be sufficient
if the rule be made absolute this Tcrm."
Mr. BRtHJGIIAM—" Yes ; but if your Lordship
should happen by'any accident to listen to the very
extraordinary argument of my friend, Mr. Park, as
to exculpatory affidavits, that would throw the matter
over at least another day."
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" I think it ought not
Ito come on unless all the Judges were present."
Mr. BROUGHAM, of course, could offer nothing
further.