4 vmngffm No 671, SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1838. PRICE WOMEN'S MEETING. AT a Public Meeting- of the Wfcmen of Birming- ham, held at the Town Hall, on Monday, the 2nd of April,— I. AARON. Esq., in the chair, It was resolved, 1st. That the Women of Birmingham, not forgetful that the proper sphere of women's virtue, is in the performance of their important domestic duties, have nevertheless thought it incumbent on them to hold a great public meeting, to consider the increasing difficulties to which they find them- selves and their families exposed ; difficulties which have destroyed the happiness of their homes, and forced them from that retirement and those domestic duties to which they are so much attached, and on the due performance of which the welfare of their families so materially depends, to undertake labours in workshops unsuited to their sex , and further, to consider that even this resource has become less secure in its continuance, and more scanty in its re- murteration. 2nd. That it would he worse than folly silently, and sub- missively to allow this continual and progressive deteriora- tion of their situation to go on ; and worse than folly to expect relief from Parliament, who, in answer to their petitions and remonstrances have been so ignorant or fraudulent as to point to the luxuries of the wealthy, as a proof the non- existence of misery of the poor, and who, unmoved by that misery, have persisted in maintaining corn- laWs to make food dear, and money'laws to make money dear, in combination with free trade to make labour cheap; giving MONOPOLY to the wealthy, and COMPETITION to the poor; and who, while they have maintained the in- terests of the pension and state paupers, have enacted Poor- laws, calculated by their severity to deprive the vic- tims of their iriquity of their last refuge. 3rd. That the time has arrived when the general inquiry lias produced conviction in every sound and unprejudiced mind, that the interests of all can only be protected by all being fully represented in the legislature, and that this meeting does pledge itself to be always ready, at the call of the faithful leaders of the industrious classes, and to obey their legal directions in all measures needful to obtain universal suffrage, annual parliaments, vote by ballot, aboli- tion of property qualification in members of Parliament, and the ancient constitutional privilege of paying their own representatives, and to use every just and proper influence to induce their friends to give this cause, the cause of liberty, justice, and humanity, their most zealous support. DISTRICT FIRE OFFICE OF BIRMINGHAM. ESTALISHED 1834. No. 61, NEW- STREET, NEXT TO THE POST OFFICE. CAPITAL, £ 300,000. TRUSTEES. JOSHUA SCHOLEFIELD, Esq., M. P. WILLIAM BEALE, Esq. WILLIAM HAINES, Esq. DIRECTORS. WILLIAM CHANCE, Esq., Chairman. WILLIAM BEALE, Esq., Deputy Chairman. Mr. Benjamin Barns Mr. Thomas Clark Mr. John Dadley Mr. Matthew Dixon Mr. William Harding Mr. Samuel Haines Mr. Edward Middleton Mr. Thomas Pemberton Mr. John Brearley Payn Mr. John Gibson Reeves PERSONS desirous of protection from loss by FIRE, are respectfully informed that this Office has been established with a view of retaining the Insur- ances of the town and' neighbourhood, in preference to de- pending on Companies at a distance, and whose Proprietary are strangers, any other Office, and it is an advantage to the Assured that ALL LOSSES are promptly paid in Cash, the Company The terms of Insurance are fully as favourable as those of . dvanti p not interfering with the rebuilding or reinstating property damaged or destroyed. Losses from fire occasioned by lightning are made good. No charge is made for Policies amounting to £ 300, and upwaids, or for those brought from other Offices. Powerful Engines upon the premises, with active and ex- perienced firemen, ready at a moment's notice. By order of the Board of Directors, C. POTTINGER, Secretary. * » * Receipts for the renewal of Policies due on the 25th inst. are now ready for delivery at the Office, and by the under- mentioned Agents of the Company: — Air. Horatio Barnett, Solicitor, Walsall; Mr. John J. Bateman, Leamington ; Mr. Joseph Greaves, Solicitor, Warwick; Mr. William Gillard, Lichfield ; Mr. James Hadduck, Kingswinfotd ; Mr. T. L. Leonard, Worcester; Mr. J. W. Pnekle, Westbromwich ; Mr. Thomas Simpson, Wolverhampton ; Mr. Samuel Sellman. Bi'aton; Mi. Heury Willis, Kidderminster. No. 3, £ 50 SOCIETY, AT THE DOLPHIN INN, SUFFOLK- STREET, BIRMINGHAM. A/|" R. JOSEPH SMITH respectfully announces to i" his friends and the public, that the above Club will commence on Wednesday next, April 11, 1838; any per- son becoming a member, will much oblige your obedient servant, J. SMITH. MOSSELMAN'S SHEET ZINC. THE acknowledged superiority of this well- known Metal over all other qualities of Sheet Zinc, has de- termined WILLIAM PHIPSON to provide, and hence- forth to hold, an extensive Stock of MOSSELMAN'S SHEET ZINC, of assorted sizes, which he is enabled to offer to consumers on advantageous terms. His Stock likewise includes a great variety of articles wrought in Sheet Zinc, which may be seen at the MILLS, FAZELEY- STREET, where the Copper, Rolling, and Metal Trades are carried on in all their branches. A* T a MEETING of the RELIEF COMMITTEE, held at the Equitable Gas Office, on Monday last, April 2nd,— Mr. GOODMAN, in the Chair, It was resolved, That all tickets not applied for by subscribers on or before Saturday next, the 7th instant, be forfeited to the Charity, and that the delivery of clothing, coals, and potatoes, cease at the several stations after the Wednesday following, the 11th instant. Adjourned to MONDAY, the 16th instant, at the Equitable Gas Office, at ten for eleven o'clock, A. M., when it is par- ticularly requested that all the Reports of the various Sub- Committees may be handed in, so that the Charity may be olosed. EDWARD LLOYD, Honorary Secretary. April 4th. No. 6, NEW- STREET. jVTESSRS. THOMAS and EDWARD SPENCER It JL have the pleasure of announcing to their Friends and the Public genially, that Mr. E. Spencer has just re- turned from the London, Manchester, and other markets, where he has purchased an extensive STOCK of New and Fashionable GOODS adapted for the present Season; comprising an extensive assortment of Mousellines de I. aines, Challis, Printed Muslins, Town Cambrics, rich Figured and Plain Silks, Ribbons, Plain and Embroidered Silk and Cotton Hosiery, Gloves, Handkerchiefs, Scarfs, British and French Blonds, Lace Veils, & c.,& c. & c. Also, an extensive assortment of four- quarters and seven- eighths Irish and Scotch Linens, Lawns, French Cambrics, Diapers, Huckabacks, Sheetings, Table Linens, Long Cloths, Printed Cambrics, Furnitures, Dimities, Counter- panes, Quilts, Blankets, Flannels, & e. Messrs. T. and E. SPENCER purpose offering the above for inspection on MONDAY NEXT, 9th April; and hope, by strict punctuality and unremitting attention to business, to merit a share of public patronage and support. N. B. FUNERALS COMPLETELY FURNISHED. i very graceful picture presents us with the best we have seen ofgHer Majesty."— Morning Cliro- SNOW HILL HOUSE. SPRING FASHIONS. JOSEPH COTTERELL and Co. announce to the Ladies generally of Birmingham and its vicinity, that they have, during the past week, again visited the various markets for Spring Novelties, and have purchased for Cash, an immense variety of CH ALIS, MOUSSELINE DE LAINES, CH ALIS DE SOI, CH ALIETTES, D' E'CHEC ARGENT, Plain and Figured GROS, SATINEI'TS, SATIN TURCS, & c. & c., and beg to submit to their notice the following list of prices of some part of their week's purchases, and as they at all times refrain from false quotations, they pledge themselves to produce both quantity, quality, and price. SILKS. Several cases of Rich Black and Coloured Gros de Naples, at Is. 6% d„ Is. 8% d., and Is. ll% d. per yard. A great quantity of Black and Coloured Ducapes 2s. OJd., 2s. l^ jd., and 2s. 5i, 4d. a lot. A case of Rich Coronation Ducapes, Spitalfield make, at 2s. 5V£ d., 2s. 8% d., and 2s. 10% d. ; these qualities were sold last Spring at 3s. 6d. and 3s. lOd. per yard. A lot of Rich Check Lutestrings, Is. 8% d., Is. U% d., and 2s. 2d. About seventy pieces of Rich Figured Gros de Naples, all Silk, and both sides alike, Is. lld^ d., 2s. 2% d., and 2s. 6d. Forty pieces of Rich Satin Turcs and Satinettes, at 2s. 3l^ d. and 2s. 6d. per yard. A lot of Black Satin Turcs, at 2s. 2} 4d. Best Goods, 4s. 6d. Several pieces of Rich Light Satinettes, at 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d. FANCY DRESSES. About 500 Mousseline de Laines. at 10s. 9d., lis. 9d., and 13s. 3d.; this last lot are well worth 21s. About thirty of each, at 16s., 18s., and 20s.; these are of the newest and most elegant designs. A large quantity of Chalis, from 12s. 9d. to 21s. Chalis de Soi, 9s. 9d. Chaliettes, 6s. 9d. E'chec d' Argent, lis. 6d. About 150 Black and White and White and Black Printed Muslins, all at 4s. 9Ud.; worth 10s. the Dress. Nearly 500 Fancy Muslin Dresses, warranted fast colours, 6s. 6d. and 9s. 6- 4ths Plain Muslins, for Dresses, in any quantity, from 7s. 6d. to 16s. the piece of twelve yards. Six dozen Victoria Check Mull Dresses, all at 6s. 6d. IRISH LINENS. This article J. C. and Co. flatter themselves they can do better than most houses, as from the consumption at their different Establishments in this and ( he neighbouring towns, they are enabled to get their goods direct from Ireland ; the present Stock consists of John Hunters, jun., and James Hunter's well known soft finished Family Linens, and Suffolk Hemp, good qualities, at Is. 2i^ d. per yard, or 31s. the piece of 26 yards. One dozen Chineal Shawls, at 15s. 9d.; a bargain. Fifty dozen of Double Muslin Collars, sewn, all at I9£ d. Another lot of French Cambric Handkerchiefs, 10s. 9d. Thirty dozen Silk Parasols, lull size, all at 4s. 3d. each. A quantity of Rich Bordered Norwich Shawls 20 per cent, less than their value. Fifty dozen French Kid Gloves, all at lOd. per pair. A lot of the best Silk Lace, ditto, 8d. About 100 dozen White Cotton Hose, very cheap. French Gauze Bibbons, 3% d. and 4d. Fancy Scarfs, Handkerchiefs, & c., & c., in great pro- fusion. April 7th, 1838. ACKERMANN AND CO., PRINTSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS TO HER MAJESTY, AND TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUCHESS OF KENT, Have the honour to announce that they have just published ASUPERB PORTRAIT OF HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Engraved in the first 6tyle of Mezzotint by W. O. Geller, from the original and celebrated Picture, by G. Swandale, Esq. Price to Subscribers, Prints, £ 1 Is.— Proofs, £ 2 2s.— Fine Proofs before Letters, £ 3. 3s. Size of the Engraving, 26% inches by20, including margin. ~ " This portraitmay be considered a surprising resemblance of the illustrious original."— Literary Gazette. " Mr, Swandale's portrait of Her Majesty is a dignified work, excellently conceived and executed."— Athenceum. " This is a splendid production; the likeness is the best we have seen."— Literary Journal. " Tills is the first portrait, at least the first worthy of being called a portrait of Her Majesty."— Morning Ad- vertiser. " This likeness nicle. " This is a faithful likfeness.''— Sunday Times. " The composition of the whole picture is excellently con- ceived and in the best taste; as a Portiait it is admirable." — Naval and Military Gazette. " The posture is easy and natural, and reflects the highest credit on Mr. Swandale."— Conservative Journal. " This is an admirable resemblance of the illustrious ori- ginal."— Bell's Life. " As a national work of art, it rivals any we have ever had the, good fortune to notice."— Weekly Chronicle. " This, is certainly the be » t finished likeness we have seen."— Liverpool Mail. " A lovely picture of a lovely Queen ; and among the many portraits of our youthful Sovereign, this will most de- cidedly: take the lead."— Derbyshire Courier. " An. engraving lvonourable to British art, from a striking and characteristic Likeness of our beloved Queen."— Man- chester Timet. *„* Subscribers are respectfully informed, that in order to secure early impressions it will be necessary to give im- mediate orders, either direct, or through their respective Printsellers, to the Publishers, who engage to deliver the copies in the rotation they are subscribed for. London: ACXERMAHN and Co., 96, Strand. TO THE RATE- PAYERS OF THE PARISH OF BIRMINGHAM. THE Overseers of the Poor being informed that many Rate- payers are dissatisfied with the present assessment, in consequence of its being higher than the former one, beg respectfully to state, that the rate is made upon a valuation in accordance with a recent Act of Par- liament, entitled " An Act to regulate Parochial Assess- ments," whereby it is enacted, that " no rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any Justices, or be of any force, which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several heredita- ments rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent of which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year;" it was therefore imperative upon the Guardians of the Poor of this parish to make a revised valuation in con- formity with the said Act, and which is necessarily of higher amount than the former one, but on which valuation the Overseers have made a rate of one shilling in the pound, in- stead of one shilling and sixpence as heretofore. The Overseers trust that this explanation will be satisfac- tory, and that the rate- payers will cheerfully pay the amount due on the next application for the same, as the parish funds are in a very low state, and another rate mast immediately be applied lor. Birmingham Workhouse, April 6th, 1838. NOTICE TO RATE- PAYERS. BY virtue of the Provisions of an Act of Parlia- ment, made and passed in the sixth and seventh years of the reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, entitled " An Act to regulate Parochial Assessments." NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Justices act- ing for the Birmingham Division of the Hundred of Hem- lingford, in the county of Warwick, will hold a special Ses- sions, at the Public Office, in the parish of Birmingham, within the said division and county, on Wednesday, the twenty- fifth day of April next, at the hour of eleven o'clock in the forenoon, for the hearing Appeals against the Poors'- rates of the several parishes within the said division. And the Justices then and there present, will hear and deter- mine all objections to any such rate, on the ground of ine- quality, unfairness, or incorrectness in the valuation of any hereditaments included therein. And seven days' notice in writing, signed by the complainant, and containing the grounds of such Appeals, must be given to the Collector, Overseer, or other person by whom the rate was made. Dated the 15th day of March, 1838. W. SPURRIER, Clerk to the said Sessions. J. VALE, No. 6, GLOUCESTER- STREET, BIRMINGHAM, BEGS to announce to his Friends, Commercial Gentlemen, and Gentry in general, that his Establish- ment will be conducted upon the most economical princi- ple. Having had many years experience, and fitted- up his Establishment at a great expense, he assures them that no exertion shall be wanting to contribute to their comfort. He offers those who may patronise him, the same advan- tages they would experience where they at home, there being private accommodation. Coffee, & c. at any hour of the iffty, and good Beds at night. N. B. It is within five minutes'walk to the Posfr'fijid Coach offices. *, A GREAT BARGAIN. TO be SOLD, a remarkably stylish HORSE, about 16 hands high, and nearly thorough- bred good hack, arid excellent in harness, he will be at TAY'S Livery Stables, Great Charles- street, until Monday after- noon. FOUND STRAYED, on the 29th of March, at the Quinton Toll- gate, in the parish of Halesowen, a brown and white SETTER DOG; the owner may have the Dog, by paying the expenses ; if not, the Dog will be Sold. TEN POUNDS REWARD. STOLEN, on Monday evening, the 10th instant' ( supposed to have been destroyed,) a Brown and White SETTER DOG, named " Thunder," the property of Mr. Simmons, of Moor Green, in the parish of King's Norton. Whoever will discover the offender or offenders, shall, upon conviction, receive the sum of Ten Pounds from Mr. Sim- mons, of Moor Green. DOG LOST £ 1 REWARD. LOST, from Mr. Thomas Beach's, Monument lane, Birmingham, on Sunday night, or early on Monday morning last, a Liver and White Ticked POINTER DOG, answers to the name of " Patent." Whoever has found him and will bring him to Mr. BEACH, or to Mr. MILLINGTON, Bowling Green Tavern, Summer- hill, shall receive the above reward ; any one detaining him after this notice will, if discovered, be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law. Birmingham, March 28, 1838. GREAT WESTERN COACH OFFICE, CORNER OF NEW- STREET, BIRMINGHAM. THE Proprietors of the above Establishment, beg most respectfully to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and Public of Birmingham and its vicinity, that the follow- ing very superior light four- horse Coaches leave their Office Daily, at very Reduced Fares. Gloucester— morning, seven o'clock; evening, eight o'clock. Exeter— morning, half- past six; evening half- past seven, Southampton— morning, quarter before seven. Bristol— Defiance, morning, seven o'clock. Brighton— morning half- past six. , Portsmouth— morning, seven o'clwk; evening, eight o'clock. Falmouth— morning, half- past six; evening, half- past seven. Cardiff and Swansea— morning, seven; evening eight. Minehead and Siilmouth— morning, half- past six. Plymouth arid Devonport— morning, seven o'clock ; even- ing, eight o'clock. Weymouth— morning, half- past six; evening, half- past seven. Barnstaple and Bideford— morning, half- past six; evening, half- past seven. Hereford— morning, seven o'clock. Ufracombe and Tenby— morning, quarter before seven ; evening, eight. Poole and Salisbury— morning, half- past six; evening, eight. Bath— Defiance, morning, seven. Haverfordwest and Milford— morning, seven. Warminster and Frome— morning, quarter before seven; evening, eight. Penzance and Truro— evening, eight o'clock. Newport and Chepstow— morning, half- past six. Stratford— afternoon, five o'clock. Cheltenham— Economist, superior coach, at half- past one. Bath— Criterion, evening, eight o'clock. Bromsgrove— morning, seven and half- past one, and eight evening. Burton— Criterion, evening, eight o'clock. Leamington— three times a day. Wolverhampton— morning, seven o'clock, and three afternoon. Cheltenham— morning, seven, and half- past one. Coaches to all the fashionable Watering Places in the Kingdom. N. B. Places by Coaches, and Berths by Steam Packets can be secured throughout, from Bristol, and every information given at the above Office. Parcels and Goods Booked free of charge for booking to, all parts of the West of England, South Wales, DuJ( ® g Cork, and Waterford. Reduced Prices. ^ VANS every evening to all parts of the Wesfcof England, and carriage contracted for throughout. Messrs. BLAND, LEONARD, MEEK, and Co., Proprietors. CORBETT AGAIN. To thg, EDITOR of the BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL. SIR, IN the Bj/ jgkingham Journal of the 24th of March, Joseph " Jjj& rbett and Charles Hunt attempt to deny what the mgHpers of the Lodge brought against Corbett. In all they liiftre totally failed. Corbett says the laws have ' neyer been acted upon. How a man can say so we know not, unless he is prepared to say anything. We ask Corbett if we did not produce facts before his face, which he did not deny and could not deny,— that one man took a youth to learn burnishing, and a deputation of the trade waited upon him, saying he was acting contrary to the rules of the trade? Did not that man part with the boy the same day? We showed Coibett several other instances, where it had been done in other manufactories. After such proof, how can any man with common honesty say they have never been acted upon, when, by Hunt's admission, it is acknowledged what we said respecting your overbearing conduct is cor- rect? Corbett! what an untruth you told in the Journal, in your first statement, when you said, we, the members of the Lodge, welcomed you from all parts of the room ; we should have been glad had you never showed your face there again, for your base and treacherous conduct toward your shopmates and fellow- workmen generally. You must now retire into obscurity and ought never to be permitted to take any part in civil society any more; you are a disgrace to the town you live in, and have been the sole cause of all that has taken place where you are employed. We shall now bid you farewell, and leave you in that gulf of infamy into which you have plunged. THE MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL ALBION LODGE, oflge Room, Royal Oak, Little Chailes- street, April 4, 1838. GREAT SALE OF WOOLLEN GOODS, CASSIMERES, LADIES' THIBET AND SILK SHA WLS, AND A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF GOODS SUITABLE FOR TAILORS, SHOPKEEPERS, AND OTHERS. TO be SOLD by AUCTION, at his Sale Rooms, Upper Temple- street, on TUESDAY and WED- NESDAY NEXT, the 10th and 11th days of April in- stant— an extensive Consignment of DRAPERY GOODS, commencing each morning at Ten o'clock. Particulars will appear in catalogues, to be had on Mon- day next, of JOHN RODERICK, Auctioneer. Offices, New- street and Bennett's- hill, opposite the Post Office. MONUMENT TAVERN, SAND- FITS. rpO be SOLD by AUCTION, without reserve, the J- LICENSES, GOODWILL, and POSSESSION of that very low- rented and good accustomed Public House, " THE MONUMENT TAVERN," Sand- pits, Birming- ham, pleasantly situated in a populous district, fronting the road to Smethwick and Oltlbury, together with the useful HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, four- pull ale machine, measures, hops, excellent seasoned one hundred and fifty gallon casks, mash tub, coolers, furnaces, timber stable, and other effects, on the premises, on WEDNESDAY NEXT, the 11th day of April, instead of AVednesday, the 18th, as previously advertised in other papers, ( unless in the mean time disposed of by private contract) commencing at eleven o'clock. Particulars in catalogues, to be had on Monday next of JOHN RODERICK, Auctioneer. Offices, New- street and Bennett's hill, opposite the Post Office. jnei t; Rofce A VERY SUBSTANTIAL NEWLY ERECTED LEASEHOLD PROPERTY, Excellently situated at the corner of Essex- street, Broms- grove street, Birmingham. Also a well- secured Ground Rent on premises adjoining. "^ O be SOLD by AUCTION, by JOHN ROD- • WAY, on WEDNESDAY, April II, 1838, at the e and Crown Public House, Bromsgrove- street, Bir- mingham, at five o'ciock in the afternoon, ( by order of the Executors of the late Mr. Thomas Bridge,) subject to con- ditions then to be produced— all that very respectable, re- markably convenient, and well- built Family House, with large corner Shop, spacious Store- rooms, lofty Cellaring, Stable, Piggeries, Cart and Gig Shed, private Yard, & c., now in the occupation of Mr. Bishop, corn- factor and seedsman, held at the yearly rent of £ 50. The Lease has about 68 years to.-, come, subject to the ground rent of £ 16 5s. per arnrum. Also an Annual Ground Rent, amply secured upon the adjoining property for about 68 years. For further particulars apply to Messrs. PALMER and SON, Attorneys, Paradise- street; or the AUCTIONEER, Edg- baston- street, Birmingham. f| 10 be SOLD by AUCTION, by ISAAC ALLEN, 1- on Monday, the 9th of April, at six o'clock in the evening, at the BEE HIVE TAVERN, Allison- street, there to be produced, theJLicence, Good- Will, and! Posses- sion of that respectable House, if not disposed of by pri- vate contract. JWiSjSQ Apply upon the premises, or to I. ALLEN, Smithfield. NEW AND ILLUSTRATED LECTURES. RS^ C NE red, a \/ l K- Tflv' « lTI. Si JOHN SMITH, of Liverpool, Lecturer on Smith and Dolier's Plans of Instruction, has the pleasure to announce that he has arranged to deliver his celebrated LECTURES ON THE BEAUTIES OF GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCE AND THE WON- DERS OF CREATION, Illustrated by splendid Views from Nature, at the Exhibition Room of the Society of Arts, New- street, Birmingham, on Easter Monday, Tues- day, Thursday, and Friday, April 16th, 17ch 19th, and 20th, at a quarter past seven each evening. The public are requested to peruse the printed particu- __ Jars, which may be had, gratis, at the principal Booksellers. CHEAP AND ELEGANT PAPER HANGINGS. WSEATON and Co., Manufacturers, respect- • fully invite the public to an inspection of their new and extensive Stock of PAPER HANGINGS, which they are selling at unusual low prices, commencing at Id. per yard. [ glf Experienced workmen sent to any distance in the country. 40, New- street, corner of Cannon- street. PAPER HANGING, CABINET, UPHOLSTERY, AND FEATHER WAREHOUSE, 1- 2, ANN- STREET, NEARLY OPPOSITE THE INFANT SCHOOL, BIRMINGHAM. SAND A. ETHELL, respectfully solicit their • Friends and the Public to an inspection of their en- tirely new, very extensive, and splendid collection of LON- DON PAPER HANGINGS: comprising every variety of Style and Pattern, at extraordinarily low prices, com- mencing at One Penny per Yard. • Experienced Workmen sent any distance required. The Trade supplied on liberal terms. NOTICE is hereby given, that the partnership now subsisting between WILLIAM DAKIN and ARTHUR DAKIN, of Birmingham, ill the county of Warwick, and ROBINSON BYWATER, of Coventry, in the county of Coventry, Tea Dealers and Grocers, trading at Coventry under the F'irm of " DAKIN, BYWATER, and Co.," is this day dissolved by mutual consent, as from the 5th day of February last. All debts due to and owing by the said firm are to be received and paid by the said William Dakin and Robinson Bywater.— Dated this 31st day of March, 1838. WILLTAM DAKIN. ARTHUR DAKIN. ROBINSON BYWATER Witness, HENRY THURSTAN, Clerk to Messrs. Whateley, Solicitors; Birmingham. rk-) " I NOTICE is hereby given, that the partnership now subsisting between WILLIAM DAKIN and ARTHUR DAKIN, of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Tea Dealers and Grocers, trading at No. 28, High- street, Birmingham, and at Wolverhampton, in the county of Stafford, under the firm of " DAKIN AND COM- PANY," and at No. 14, High- street, Birmingham, under the firm of " HOLFORD AND COMPANY," is this day dissolved by mutual consent, as from tlie 5th day of February last. All debts due to and owing by the firm of Dakin and Co., are to be received and paid by the said William Dakin ; and all debts due to and owing by the firm of Holfoid and Co., are to be received and paid by the said Arthur Dakin. Dated the 31st day of March, 1838. WILLIAM DAKIN, ARTHUR DAKIN. Witness, HENRY THERSTAN, Clerk to Messrs. Whateley, solicitors, Birmingham. PARIS, LONDON, AND NORWICH SHAWL WAREHOUSE, 82, BULL- STREET, BIRMINGHAM. PAGE and GRUNDY respectfully call the atten- tion of the Ladies of Birmingham and its vicinity, to their present Stock of S H A WLS, H ANDKE RCHIEFS, SCARFS, & c. having just returned from the different Foreign and British markets, with every novelty suitable for the Season. P. and G. in soliciting a continuance of that high and dis- tinguished patronage they have hitherto received, feel per- suaded that from the superior advantages their present Stock possesses, as regards extent, variety and moderate prices, they will be able to sustain and enhance that reputa- tation, which has already rendered their Establishment so highly appreciated, and so liberally patronised by the most numerous and respectable inhabitants of Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Shawl Borders, Middles, and Fringes, sold separate. Gentlemen's Dressing Gowns, Travelling Shawls, & c. Shawls Dyed, Cleaned, and Altered. 82, Bull- street, Birmingham, and 57, High- street, Sheffield NO PERSON should be without a COPY of the INTERESTING and IMPORTANT CON. VERSATION between Mr. T. C. SALT and a LADY, on the subject of TEA DRINKING; to be had " GRATIS" on applying to MESSRS, NEWMAN AND CO., End of Market Hall, NEAR WORCESTER- STREET, BIRMINGHAM. P. S. We understand a SECOND EDITION will be READY on MONDAY. BY THE KING'S ROYAL LETTERS PATENT. PAPER MILLS, NORTHWOOD- STREET, ST. PAUL'S, BIRMINGHAM. WILLIAM BRINDLEY, MANUFACTURER OF IMPROVED PATENT PAPER MACIIEE TRAY BLANKS, PAPER TABLES, INKSTANDS, & JAPANNED WARE. BRINDLEY returns thanks to his Friends and the Trade in general who have given his PATENT PAPER TRAYS a trial, and begs to inform them that the present demand is the best proof of their ex- cellent quality. W. B. takes this opportunity of assuring the Public that his Trays are not ( as has been asserted) made of Pulp, but are made of exactly the same material as all other Paper Trays, only In an improved manner, without paste. He has ready for inspection Trays in all the various stages of manufacture, some of which have been made two years. w. U X « A FACT IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN. THE IRON, COAL, AND LIME MASTERS' QUARTER DAYS, calculated by an undisputed and unerring rule, are correctly given in GUEST'S Id. and 3d. BOOK AND SHEET ALMANACS for 1838 while every other Almanac published has inserted them all wrong. LOOK TO THIS!!! A large Stock of Account Books; Paper and General Stationery. Copper- plate and Letter- press Printing. Engraving and Bookbinding. JAMES GUEST, 93, STEELHOUSE- LANE, BIRMINGHAM. gg" Observe, the Penny Magazine over the door. I'AliK GROVE, E DG B ASTON, ONE MILE FROM BIRMINGHAM. Excellent FAMIL Y RESIDENCE, with OFFICES, COACH HOUSE, STABLE, GREEN HOUSE, FORCING PITS, with HO T WA TER APPARA- TUS, extensive ( jA. HUEJSS, and upwavds of fifteen and a half Acres of LAND. rpo be SOLD by AUCTION, by direction of the Assignees of HENRY KENDALL, a bankrupt, on THURS- DAY NEXT, the 12th day of April inst., at Dee's Royal Hotel, Temple- row, Birmingham, subject to conditions then to be produced, at four o'clock for six precisely— the excellent FAMILY RESIDENCE, in complete repair, containing, on the ground floor, a noble flagged Entrance Hall, with elegant oak stair- case, brass balustrades, and mahogany hand- rail, Library, 16 feet by 13 feet, Breakfast- room, 19 feet 10 inches by 16 feet, splendid Gothic Dining- room, 30 feet by 18 feet, and 13 feet 10 inches high, stained glass windows; on the first floor, an elegant Drawing- room, 22 feet liy 16 feet 8 inches, and five best Bed- rooms; « lso a large Kitchen, Butler's Pantry, Brewhouse, Scul- lery, Servants' Rooms and Nursery, Housekeeper's Pantry, Larder, Dairy, good Cellarage, Cariiage- house, three- stall Stable, Harness- house, Haylofts, and suitable Out- offices, supplied with fine spring and rain water; with private road into Edgbaston- lane, and two sittings in Edgbaston Church. The above Property is delightfully situated at Edgbaston, in a highly respectable neighbourhood, and surrounded by a country abounding with beautiful rides, drives, and walks, and within a convenient distance of the parish church; com- manding extensive views of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Gardens are well planted and stocked with choice fruit trees, a great variety of the most rare shrubs, foreign plants arid trees, in the highest state of cultivation, extensive green house and forcing pits. The.' Pleasure Grounds are tastefully arranged; there is a serpentine carriage drive to the House, which is seated on a dry elevated spot bounded by Edgbas- ton Park and several Closes of Productive Pasture Land, and containing with the Gardens, & c., about fifteen and a half Acres, held under Lord Calthorpe, on a lease for seventy- six years from Lady- day last, at the ground rent of £ 100 per annum. Part of the land may be underlet for villa residences with- out the least inconvenience to the property, at more than one- half the ground rent. May be viewed by ticket, and for further particulars, apply to Messrs. UNETT and SONS ; Messrs. GEM and SON ; Messrs. BESWICK and SON, Solicitors ; Mr. WILLIAM CHAP- MAN, Accountant; or to JOHN RODERICK, Auctioneer, all of Birmingham. FREE OF A UCTION D UTY. SALE AT PARK GROVE, EDGBASTON, The first house through the Turnpike on the Bristol Road. IMPORTANT and highly interesting SALE of SPLEN- DID HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, rich and costly Articles of VERTU, elegant CHINA, rich cut English and Foreign GLASS WARE, superior PORT, SHERRY, EAST INDIA MADEIRA, FRENCH, and GERMAN WINES, PLATED ARTICLES, extensive Library of BOOKS in supeib bindings, ancient and modern PAINTINGS, brilliant- toned Cabinet PIANO- FORTE in rosewood case, modern glazed BOOK- CASES, noble Chimney GLASSES, Kitchen Furni- ture, Brewing Vessels, HORSE and GIG, choice selection of PLANTS, splendid variety of ROSE TREES, CARNATIONS, PINKS, AURICULAS, DAHLIAS, & e., together with MARBLE STA- TUES, representing the Four Seasons, VASES, Rustic Seats, 300 Iron Fence HURDLES, Hand Glasses, Garden Implements, Cucumber Frames, and upwards of FORTY TONS of ROCK WORK. TO be SOLD by AUCTION, on the Premises, on MONDAY, the 16th day of April inst., and five fol- lowing Days- the whole of the COSTLY FURNITURE and Effects of the above Establishment, lately occupied by Mr. Henry Kendall. May be viewed every day previous to the sale, ( Good Friday and Sunday excepted,) from Eleven till Four o'clock, with catalogues, price sixpence. ORDER OF SALE. 1 MONDAY, April 16— Library of Books, Bookcases, German Plate and Plated Articles, Wines, & c. TUESDAY, 17— English and French China, German and English Glassware, Paintings, Prints, Cabinet Piano, the Splendid Furniture of the Dining and Breakfast Rooms and Library. WEDNESDAY, 18— The Furniture of Five Bed Rooms, Drawing Room, and Hall. THURSDAY, 19— The Furniture of the Kitchen, Brewhouse, Cellars, Stables, Horse, Gig, & c. Garden Implements, Rose Trees, valu- able Plants, 27 roods of Lavender, Rick of Hay, 300 Iron Hurdles, Marble Statues, Iron Vases, Rustic Chairs, Rock Work, & e. JOHN RODERICK, Auctioneer. FRIDAY, 20, and SATURDAY, 21— J J H Offices opposite the Post office, Birmingham New Street and Bennett's Hill,") * i EXCELLENT MODERN HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE; NOBLE CHIMNEY GLASS, Rosewood Couches and Chairs, splendid Cheffionery, sur- mounted with marble Slab and Plate Glass; ROSEWOOD BILLIARD TABLE, SIX FEET THREE INCHES BY THREE FEET NINE INCHES. VALUABLE COLLECTION OF PAINTINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING MASTERS : — Both Swaneveldt Vernet Patil Zeeman Schalckin Teniers Ostade De Heem Poole Jan Steen Zorg. Weeninx WITH SEVERAL OTHERS BY MASTERS OF ESTEEMED MERIT. HANDSOME CHINA AND GLASS, PORT, SHERRY' AND FRENCH WINES, Plate, Kitchen Requisites, Brewing Vessels, Sfc. rpO be SOLD by AUCTION, on Premises, No. 28, JL Whittall- street, Birmingham, on THURSDAY, the 26th, and FRIDAY, the 27th days of April instant, com- mencing each day at eleven o'clock— the elegant HOUSE- HOLD FURNITURE and valuable Effects of a Gentle- man changing his residence. Also, will be SOLD, on Friday, the 27th of April—( un- less in the mean time disposed of by Private Contract)— one hundred Double and Single Barrel GUNS, and about ten thousand WALNUT GUN STOCKS, many of the finest description; two valuable H UNTERS, well known in the Atherstorie and Albrighton Hunts; Saddles, Bridles, & c. May be viewed with catalogues, three days prior to the sale, to be had of JOHN RODERICK, Auctioneer. Offices— New- street, comer of Bennett's- hill, opposite the Post- office, Birmingham. The genteel DWELLING HOUSE, which has been recently painted and papered, to be LET, and may be en- tered upon immediately. SALE OF EXCELLENT MODERN HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, Including a splendid Frencb- polished Spanish mahogany PEDESTAL SIDEBOARD, set ; of excellent maho- gany sliding DINING TABLES, with extra leaves, sets of mahogany Chairs, Sofa, Pembroke, and other Tables, handsome Brussels floor and stair CARPETS, suite of damask moreen window CURTAINS, maho- gany Sofa, noble Chimney Glass, Oil Paintings, Table Clock, elegant four- post mahogany and French Bedsteads, in drab moreen hangings, goose feather Beds, Mattresses, mahogany Chests of Drawers, neat japan dressing and wash Tables, swing Glasses, Chamber appendages, be^ t printed Table. Service, beautiful China, rich Cut Glass, ladies' painted Wardrobe, large Cupboard, with six drawers, Kitchen Furniture, Culinary Articles, & c., No. 28, BROAD- STREET, ISLINGTON, five ( Mors above the Scotch Chapel. TO be SOLD by AUCTION, on the premises, on THURSDAY NEXT, the 12th day of April, ( and not on Friday as advertised in the Herald)— the maiofRiirC .:• of the genteel HOUSEHOLD FURNlTUR£,, tlie pro- perty of a gentleman leaving Birmingham, comraencHig at half- past ten o'clock precisely. ., ' ' Particulars will appear in catalogues on Tuesday tjexf, and may be had of JOHN RODERICK, Aficniorteer. Offices, New- street and Bennett's- hill, — 4 opposite the Post Office, Birmingham. ', « May be viewed on Wednesday next, fr « ( D twelve till five o'clock. **' 194 THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 7. WARWICK ASSIZES. Civil side, before Sir J. A. Park, Knt. FiiJDAr, MARCH 30. THE QUEEN v. MONTZ AND OTHERS. This morning the above case, which has excited so much interest, came on. Nine o'clock was the hour fixed, but so great was the anxiety to procure admittance, that the officers of the court were besieged with applications long before that time. At twenty minutes to nine o'clock, Mr. G. F. Muntz and Mr. Pare, attended by Mr. Wilis, Mr. Edmonds, Mr. T. B. Wright, and others, entered the court and took their seats in the box to the left of and on the level with the judge's seat. Shortly after Messrs. Suckling and Hebbert, and Mr. Edward Armfield, came into court. The following counsel for the respective parties soon after entered :— for the prosecution, the Attorney- General, Mr. Balguy, Q. C., Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, Mr. N. R. Clark, and Mr. Whitehouse. For the defendants, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Waddington, Mr. Humfrey, and Mr. E. Clark. At nine o'clock a tremendous rush at the outer doors announced the arrival of the judge, and the most desperate efforts were made to obtain admission, and in a few seconds the court was crowded to excess in every part. At twenty minutes after nine o'clock the judge came into court, and the clerk of the court proceeded to call over the names of the jurors. The following gentlemen of the special jury answered to their names:— M. Wise, Esq., Charle9 Pratt, Esq., William Bull, Esq., J. Little, Esq., John Towle, Esq., Thomas Brown, Esq., David Cunningham, Esq, Foreman, Thomas Raybold, Esq., Fisher Tomes, Esq. The clerk of the court having announced that there were three short, and that the pannel was exhausted; the judge said they had arrived at a difficulty. He, as judge of the Nisi Prius court, had not power to impannel another jury; the judge of the Crown Court had that power. The Attorney- General said, the better course would be for his lordship to direct the clerk to commence at that part of the pannel where the objections ceased, and take the required number from the residue. Mr. Sergeant Wilde said, be thought the best mode was to elect from the common jury pannel the required number by ballot. He knew bis friend the Attorney- General would have no objection to the vote by ballot. ( A laugh.) The judge said he should send and take the opinion of his brother Littledale. The Attorney- General: As to what my learned friend has said relative to the ballot, I cannot say I ever voted for the ballot; and I do not mean to begin now. The gentleman deputed by the court to wait on Mr. Justice Littledale having returned, his lordship said his learned brother was of opinion that the election ought to take place by ballot. Mr. John Coleman, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. James Knight, were accordinglyadded to the jury. Mr. Whitehouse then rose and opened the pleadings. He said, the defendants, Messrs. Muntz, Pare, Peirce, and Trow, are charged with having unlawfully, tumultuously, and riotously assembled in the parish church of St. Martin, Birmingham, on the 28th March, 1837, on the occasion of an election for churchwardens, and that they did, there and then, in the manner described, assault Mr. Gutteridge and Mr. Rawlins. There were altogether thirteen counts in the indictment. The Attorney- General then rose and addressed the jury nearly as follows:— Gentlemen of the jury, I have the ho- nour to attend here as counsel for the prosecution, and I will venture to say, that this is one of the most important cases that has engaged the attention of a court of justice for many years. Yes, gentlemen, it is a most important case, for if the principle involved in it should receive any sanction in a court of justice, it appears to me that the most melancholy consequences must occur to the peace of society and the cause of true religion. The prosecutors in this case are the recror and churchwardens of St. Martin's, Birmingham. They felt it to be their imperative duty to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, for leave to file a criminal informa- tion against the defendants. That court made the rule abso- lute; but, in so doing, it has by no means given any opinion as to the guilt of the defendants. The defendants, therefore, gentlemen, stand before you perfectly innocent, unless the evidence I shall have the honour to submit to you shall prove them to be guilty. The defendants, gentlemen, are persons in very respectable situations in life ; and if any man thinks that it is my intention to offer anything disrespectful of them, he will be disappointed. The charge I prefer against them is, that they have grossly misconducted them- selves on the occasion set forth in the pleadings; and that they were then guilty of a violation of the law. The first of the defendants to whom I shall direct your attention is Mr. Muntz, who sits here ( turning to where Mr. M. sat). He is a gentleman of great wealth, and, I believe, of very great influence in the town of Birmingham. He is engaged in various manufactures in that town ; and, I believe, is much beloved by a large portion of his fellow townsmen. The second in order is Mr. Pare, who is in a res- pectable situation in life. He also took an active part in this matter. The third person is Mr. Peirce, who is a thimble maker; and the fourth and last, Mr. Trow, who is a rope maker. The charge against these gentlemen is, that they were guilty of rioting in the parish church of St. Martin, Birmingham, on Easter Tuesday, 1837. The case takes its rise from a meeting convened according to ancient usage, for the election of churchwardens for the ensuing year. The rector of the parish is the Rev. Thomas Moseley, a gentle- man who, I believe, as will be allowed on all hands, is a pious exemplary minister of religion, and one who attends jealously to the discharge of his professional duties. Gen- tlemen, there had been on previous years, disputes in this parish church respecting the election of churchwardens, and at the approach of the election in 1837, considerable excite- ment existed in the parish. There were two parties at the meeting— one of them proposing as a candidate for parish warden, Mr. Brown, who is a member of the Church of England ; and the other, Mr. Winfield, who is a Dissenter. Now, gentlemen, do not let it be supposed for an instant, that I intend the least reflection upon that highly respect- able body to which Mr. Winfield belongs. No, gentlemen, nothing shall escape my lips disrespectful to the most esti- mable body of men, who in this country conscientiously dissent from the Established Church. They have full tole- ration, and they ought to have it, and, in my judgment, they have a right to full exemption from all disabilities. Having said thus much, I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that it may be doubted whether it was in accordance with good taste to propose a gentleman, not a member of the Church of England, for churchwarden. When you consider the nature of the oath which churchwardens are required to take, when you consider the duties which they have to discharge in connection with that oath, you will, perhaps, agree with me, that it was not good taste ( I repeat it) to propose a Dissenter to fill the office of churchwarden. Upon that point, however, I will press no farther; but, conceding to the party the right to propose a Dissenter, I will assert, that in trying to secure his election, they were bound to obey the law of the land, aud not to violate it, as I think I shall be able to prove they did. As I before observed, gentlemen, there existed in the parish, prior to the election, considerable excitement; and both parties were anxious to have a good attendance of their friends on the day of election. This was only natural, and it was reasonable that efforts should be made on both sides to secure the at- tendance of those who had a right to be there. Each party had a right to canvass for his friends; but was it right, I would ask, to set the law at defiance? Was it light for one party to issue placards calling together all the inhabitants? Was it right to give a general and indiscriminate invitation, and so collect together persons who had no title whatever to vote? Was it right, that persons, without any claim what- ever to be present, should be brought for the express pur- pose of impeding the usual progress of the election? Was it right, I ask, in a word, to disturb the proceedings by a breach of the peace, in order to influence the election ? It will appear to you, gentlemen, in evidence, that previous to the 28th of March, 1837, there were placards posted about the town of Birmingham, stating that all the inhabitants had a right to he present, and a bellman was sent round, for the purpose ol securing a large attendance. On the Sunday previous to the election, legal notice was given of the in- tended meeting by the parish authorities; and in that notice, it was distinctly set forth who the parties were that ought to be present. That notice was drawn up in com- pliance with an act of Parliament, commonly known by the name of Sturges Bourne's act, to which I shall more parti- cularly advert in a future stage of my address to you. Well, gentlemen, to the facts. Early on the day of the 28th, the church of St. Martin was filled with a number of persons who had no right to be there. No one had a right to be there, except rated parishioners belonging to the parish ; but early iii the day there were numbers there, who were not only not rated, but who were not householders at all in the parish. This plan which I bold in my hand represents enough ( holding up a plan of the church) of the parish church) to make the position of the respective parties intel- ligible to you. Here is the north gallery; here the south ; here is the organ gallery ; and here is the lower part or body of the church. As you will perceive, there is no direct communication between the organ gallery and the south gallery, nor between it antl the north gallery; but there is a division between it and the south gallery, which is of such a nature that persons may pass from the one to the other. Well, gentlemen, the church was crowded at an early hour. Mr. Muntz, Mr. Pare, and several others of their party, en- tered the church at half- past eleven, and took their station in the front pew of the organ gallery. Their, party occupied the seats bfchiiHl them, ami a great number of their friends were in the south gallery. The rector assembled with his frient's in the vestry ; the Rev. Mr. Foye, his curate, Mr. Freer, and others, were present. At twelve o'clock the rector left the vestry, ami came into the church, accompanied by his triends. The moment he entered, he was saluted with hisses and groans. They made their way to the organ gallery' where the rector took his seat in the front pew, in a line with Mr. Pare and his party. The business was about to proceed, when it was proposed that the minutes of tile meeting of 1836 should be read. ' The Rev. Mr. Moseley, who was anxious to do every thing which the law would allow, directed that they should be read. And it was ac- cordingly done. Ori this Mr. Pare, showing a premeditated intention to disturb the peace, commenced making obser- vations and criticising upon what had been done in 1836. He took objections to the rector's having presided on that occasion; and he took objections to the principle laid down, that none but ratepayers ought to vote. He contended that the rector had no right to be present on such an occasion ; and that all inhabitant householders were entitled to vote. I will now state what is the law upon that point; from which you will be able to see that the objections raised by Mr. Pare were perfectly futile. In the first place, I say that in every parish in England, where there is a rector, he has a right to preside at every meeting held in the church, and for every purpose. Secondly, I lay it down as law, that upon the election of churchwardens, none but those rated have a right to vote. And I will quote an authority which, I think, his lordship will tell you puts the point I now lay down beyond all dispute. I hold in my hand the act of the 58 George 3, cap. 69, which is entitled an act for regu- lating parish business, known by the name of Sturgei Bourne's act." By the first section it is enacted that no vestry shall be held until public notice shall be given ; and the time and place thereof set forth clearly and distinctly; and that three days' notice shall be given upon the church doors of all such meetings. Now, this applies to all vestry meetings, for the act expressly declares, that no vestry meeting shall be held without such notice. The act again states, that if the rector be not present, the person who officiates in his place shall proceed to take the votes according to the principle of the plurality of votes; the very fact of the instruction contained in this act shows that provision is made for the rector's presiding. It is, therefore, clearly the right of the rector to preside at sucb meetings, and Mr. Pare was perfectly wrong in supposing he had not that right. By the third section of the act the manner of voting is prescribed. Each person who is assessed at £ 50 has a right to one vote, and if he is assessed more than that he has a vote for every £ 25 above that sum, until he comes up to six votes. The same act clearly lays it down that none shall vote in parish vestry except he be rated to the relief of the poor, and unless he shall have paid his rates when lawfully required so to do. It has been, therefore, laid down, that the persons entitled to vote are only those rated, and if so, the futility of Mr. Pare's objection is again obvious. But, gentlemen, 1 will read for you an extract from the report of a case in which the right of the rector to be present at all meetings has been decided. It is the case of Wilson versus McNabb. In that case the complainant was the Rev. Mr. Wilson, the rector of St. Mary's, Alsop. The defendant, Mr. McNabb, a respectable rate payer. A vestry meeting was called in the parish church, for the mere purpose of receiving a report of the trial of ejectment brought against the rector respecting some parish property. As soon as the rector entered the meeting, according to custom, he took the chair, upon which it was proposed and carried that Mr. McNabb should take the chair. The rector refused to vacate his seat, upon which Mr. McNabb took his seat opposite the rector, There was no riot, no confusion. The rector remonstrated with Mr. McNabb, submitted his authority to the meeting, and then left the church. Conscious, however, of his right, and that it had been unjustly usurped, and interfered with, he brought the ease to trial, and the court decided that from time immemo- rial, it was the ancient usage and custom, for the rector to pre- side at such meetings, and that the conduct of Mr. McNabb was « riotous anddisorderly. SirJohnNichollslaiditdownthat it had been wisely settled that the rector should have the power of presiding at all vestry meetings, because of the Rood effect which his presence would have at such meetings. Sir John Nicholls says—" The question is one of great im- portance, as it affects the rights of the clergy and the peo- ple; and I am of opinion that Mr. McNabb has been guilty of unlawfully disturbing the meeting." Such was the law laid down in this case. The decision has never been appealed against, and this settles the law of England upon the subject. There can be no doubt the rector had a right to preside at St. Martin's; and there can be no doubt that Sturges Bourne's act applies to the mode of voting. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the law. No new point can be raised here, and let me say, if there even had been a doubt upon the law, those who were present had no right to take the law into their own hands. They ought not to have committed a breach of the peace. They ought to have submitted to the existing authority, and if any doubt existed, if there had been any departure from the law by the rector, they had an appeal to the ecclesiasti- cal ccmrt. Tills, gentlemen, would have been the proper course for the defendants in this case to have pursued. Now, gentlemen, I will return to the meeting of the church, and the occurrences that took place. Mr. Pare commenced discussing various subjects, upon which the rector repre- sented to him that what he was saying was irrelevant, aud that he ought to proceed to the business of the day. Ac cordingly, the Rev. Mr. Moseley named his church- warden. He named Mr. Reeves. The election of the other warden was then to take place, and Mr. Winfield was proposed by the opposite party; upon which the rector, adhering to the advice he had received, intimated that the poll was to be proceeded with, and that as it was to be taken by a plurality of votes, ( for it is impossible to deny that it ought to be taken according to Sturges Bourne's act), he had stationed persons in the church for the purpose of taking down the names. This was the only way the votes could be taken. A show of hands would have been of no avail. That, gentlemen, you are aware of, because unless a man had as many hands as he had votes under Sturges Bourne's act, a show of hands would be perfect useless. The exact state of the parties never could be ascertained by that means. Well, gen- tlemen, the rector announced that lie had made preparations for taking the votes; and that ten persons were stationed in the church to take the votes, and that by this arrangement, each person would have an ample opportunity of recording his vote. But, gentlemen, this would not satisfy Messrs. Muntz, Pare, Trow and Pierce. It was insisted by them, that there should be a show of hands; than which, as I before stated, nothing could be more unreasonable. There were many apprentices in the church; many persons not rated at all; many who had come there to join in the disturbance, and who had not the least right to be there. The rector stated to them that lie had been advised that the proper mode was that which had been laid down, that a show of hands was of no avail, and that the only course was that which he had adopt- ed. All this, however, was of no use: they would have a show of hands. Gentlemen, you are aware, that accoiding to law there are cases inwhicn all persons present at meetings have a right to hold up their hands. They have that right at the nomination of candidates to serve in Parliament, but where there is a meeting in vestry for the purpose of disposing of the parish money, the legislature has properly confined the voting to the property of the parish, and in that case your own judgment will tell you, that a show of hands would be useless. With this knowledge and conviction, Mr. Moseley had declined putting it to a show of hands, and saiil he had appointed persons to take the votes. Upon this Mr. Pare made a speech in language 1 shall not repeat, and in which be censured the conduct of the rector. Mr. Muntz then, in the most illegal and unjustifiable manner, made a most exciting speech. He said that ns Mr. Moseley had misconducted himself, lie should be cashiered, he should be dethroned, and another person elected in his place. [ The judge here smiled.] And whom do you think, gentlemen of the jury, did Mr. Muntz propose to putin his place?' Why Mr. Winfield. His own candidate for the office ofchurchwartlen. Yes, he moved that he should take the chair in the room of Air. Moseley. And what think you, gentlemen of the jury, was the next request that was made to the rector ? AVhy he was actually required to put his own ejection from the chair to the vote. As a matter of course, he refused to put it. But the motion being made aud seconded, Mr. Muntz put it to the meeting, and as you may anticipate, it was carried by acclamation. Mr. Wiilfield wa6 then brought forward that he might preside over the meeting. Mr. Moseley, with becoming firmness, said he would not leave the chair until he had discharged its duties; and the sooner they proceeded to the poll the better. The rector then, in order that there might be no misunderstanding as to the course which the voters had to pursue, read a notice, setting forth the ques- tions which each person presenting himself to vote would have to answer. [ Sir John Campbell here read the notice.] In continuation he said— I will say these instructions were perfectly legal, aud such as the rector was justified in giving. All pretext being now removed, as was supposed, other objections weie raised by the defendants and their party for the purpose of disturbing the election. A question was put respecting the appointment of Mr. Arnold the vestry clerk, who at that time was ill in bed, and conse- quently, unable to attend. Air. Haines, his partner being at AVarwick assizes, one Baker, a clerk of the firm of Ar- nold and Haines, attended in the place of Mr. Arnold. It was suggested that as Mr. Arnold was absent, the meeting had a right to choose another vestry clerk, and they were about to cashier that gentleman much in the same way as it had been proposed to cashier the rev. chairman. The question was actually mooted, if they had not a right to elect a new vestry clerk, and to take his opinion respecting the law of the case. I do not know whom it was intended that the meeting should elect. I do not know whether it was intended to elect Mr. Muritz, that he might ask himself what was the ecclesiastical law upon the question at issue. The next question raised, if I understand aright, was if it had not been usual in former years for the vestiy at such meetings to elect their vestry clerk. At this time, gentlemen of the jury, the Rev. Mr. Moseley had the vestry book with him. As Mr, Pare raised a doubt as to whether it had not been the custom to choose a new vestiy clerk eveiy year, he said that the election of wardens ought to be suspended till they had examined the books, and seen whether this had not been the custom. He, and his party, knew full well that there was no such custom ; and the objection was raised merely to disturb the proceedings of the day. Pare asked Mr. Aloseley to deliver up the book, that it might be inspected. Air. Moseley said the election must be proceeded with, and that that was not the time for such inspection. Upon this Air. Pare addressed the meeting, and said, " Will you elect me your representative, to go and demand a sight of the parish books?" \ Gentlemen of the jnry, I ask you, was there any necessity for this novel election? Where was the ne- cessity for Mr. Pare wishing to have himself invested with this novel authority? He was a rate payer; he had a right to be present; and had a right to every legal in- dulgence. Why, then, ask for this new authority, if not for the express purpose of bringing about the confusion which afterwards ensued? " Will you appoint me your representative," said Mr. Pare; upon which there was a general cry of " We will, we will." ( A laugh in the court.) On this Mr. Pare rose from his seat in the pew where he was, and made towards the rector's pew. Gen- tlemen, this was considered the signal for a general attack on the rector and his friends. There was a general cry of " Seize the books," " Throw him over," and such like ex- pressions. Mr. Pare persisted in advancing towards the pew, and was about to enter, when he was repulsed by Air. Freer. Immediately, those who were in the school gallery, rushed forward, and those of the defendants'party who were in the organ gallery also rushed forward, and the most active at that moment were Air. Pierce and Mr. Trow. They both came forward and tried to seize the book. They did seize it, and it was rescued from them again. Two persons at this moment also came from the school- gallery and endeavoured to lay hold of the book; in order to prevent it from being taken by force, Baker put it under his feet, and kept it there. Gentlemen of the jury, the scene was most appalling, and Mr. Muntz took a most active part in encouraging the riot. He rose from his seat, and, gentle- men, as you may well conceive, his appearance produced a great effect. He could not be mistaken; he was well known. He then bore the same appearance, and appeared in the same costume as he does this day. He has an un- doubted right to appear in any guise lie pleases— if you so think, gentlemen of the jury, in the most graceful and taste- ful manner— I merely allude to the circumstance of his ap- pearance in order to show you the effect which his rising at such a moment must have had on the meeting. He had a stick in his hand, very much resembling the one upon which he now leans. He got upon the back part of the pew, stood erect there, and flourished bis stick over his head. He was seen to do so by all in the church ; and his appear- ance was very fearful to his antagonists, although, perhaps, not so to those of his own party. The lock of the door of the rector's pew was broken off; a partition was also broken ; some pews were literally smashed to pieces; and the greatest alarm existed, lest some persons might be thrown over the gallery into the body of the church, and that death should be the consequence. Fortu- nately Mr. Rawlins, and Mr. Naden, the constables, came into the gallery, and peace was eventually restored. Air. Rawlins told Air. Aluntz to be quiet, but without effect; Air. Aluntz took hold of Air. Rawlins's stick and tried to wrest it from him. Upon this Mr, Rawlins pulled out his staff, and it was not until then that Air. Muntz desisted. The street keepers were then called in, and with their as- sistance the meeting was again tranquillised. You will bear in mind, gentlemen of the jury, that Air. Muntz stood upon the seat and was going towards the rector's pew, when he was resisted by Air. Rawlins. This is the case which you have to consider. If sucb scenes as I have described are to be tolerated in Christian places of worship, what, I ask you, must be the consequence? If the law do not in- terpose, the occurrences of 1837 in St. Martin's Church of Birmingham, will be repeated, not dnly in that church in 1838, but similar scenes will ere long be acted over in every parish church in England, where persons of the same opinions as Mr. Aluntz and the other defendants may think proper to oppose the existing authorities. It is, gentlemen of the jury, to prevent a recurrence of such scenes that this prose- cution has been instituted, and not from any vindictive feeling. [ The Attorney- General here cited a case, which went to show that the bare act of shouting in church at vestry meetings, was sufficient to render the offender liable to prosecution and punishment.] He continued— Will any man deny that there was shouting on this occasion ? Will any man deny that there was a riot? No, gentlemen of the jury, that will not be denied. It cannot be denied ; and such being the fact, I am really at a loss to conceive what defence my learned friend will be able to set up. Let us, however, gentlemen of the jury, suppose that a defence is set up. I then ask you, gentlemen, to bear in mind the part which Mr. Muntz took in this transaction. It was Air. Muntz that moved the resolution that the rector should vacate the chair; that he should be cashiered of his office, and Mr. Winfield take his place; it was he, you will re- collect, who, after that, got upon the pews and flourished his stick in the manner I have pointed out; it was he whose conduct in particular attracted the attention of Mr. Rawlins, the constable. So much for Mr. Muntz. What then have you to recollect relative to Mr. Pare? What did he do? Why he caused himself to be elected as a representative of the meeting; and in that capacity he went from where he was sitting, and endeavoured to obtain admission into the rector's pew. Gentlemen of the jury, can it be said that Air. Pare had no other intention in going to the rec- tor's pew than merely to converse with Mr. Moseley, and quietly inspect the book? Why, gentlemen, if conversa- tion was his only object, he could have conversed, though he had remained where he was. He was then within a few feet of the rector. But, gentlemen, that was not his ob- ject. His object was to get into the rector's pew; and he did all in his power to effect that object, until he was driven back. Then, gentlemen of the jury, we come to Mr. Pierce and Mr. Trow. They made determined efforts to seize the book, and did seize it, though they were pre- vented from keeping it. These are the facts, gentlemen of the jury, which you will have to bear in mind. If it can be shown that the rector's party were guilty of improper conduct, a thing which I think it will be impossible for my learned friend to show, still I contend that that impropriety, in point of law, will avail my learned friend but little. Such a defence, if it could be set up, would have answered for the Queen's Bench. These things might be put in evi- dence why a criminal information should not lie against the defendants. But what is the fact ? Why, gentlemen of the jury, that after some sixty affidavits had been filed by the defendants, including every possible charge that could be brought against the rector and his party, the Court of Queen's Bench made the rule absolute, and by so doing, sent the case to be tried here. You are therefore, gentle- men, to bear in mind, that if the rector and his party were guilty of improper conduct, the defendants would not therefore be justified. But I ask what ground is there for imputing misconduct to the rector? He went to church, as was his usual practice on such occasions, and took his seat as president of the meeting. His only of- fence was, that he refused taking a show of hands, which, as I have already proved to you, must have been entirely useless. I really, gentlemen of the jury, do not know of what misconduct the rector can be said to be guilty. It has been said, that ceitain handbills were distributed in the church, by his party. Let my learned friend produce them. Let them be read ; and it will then be seen if there be any- thing in them calculated to call forth, or justify such con- duct on the part of the defendants and their friends, as I have detailed to you? I dare my learned friend to read those hand bills. But if there were anything wrong in them, was the Rev. Air. Moseley to blame ? Certainly not. I again say, gentlemen of the jury, let us see these band bills, and then you will be able to say whether they contain anything amounting to a justification of the de- fendants' conduct. I repeat, I am at a loss to guess what course my learned friend will pursue. Will he call witnesses ? I believe not. Will he find witnesses to say there wasnoriot? Certainly not. The fact is, the defendants have admitted a riot and an affray. Will he then call witnesses to say that Air. Aluntz did not encourage this affray? Will he call witnesses to say that Air. Pare took no part in it? AVill he call witnesses to say that Air. Pierce and Air. Trow did not go to the rector's pew? Will he be able to contradict what I have asserted, that Mr. Trow was beaten back by Mr. Gutteridge, and that notwithstanding the effort to prevent him from seizing the book, he per- sisted? Gentlemen of the jury, my learned friend cannot call witnesses to contradict these statements; I unhesi- tatingly assert, that he cannot call witnesses who will be able to disprove any of the material facts of my case. As to the punishment attendant on your verdict, it will not be a consideration for you. Mr. Justice Park : No, there will be no punishment now. I have no power in the case. The Attorney- General: The penalties will be imposed, gentlemen, by another tribunal, where, I hope, if your ver- dict should call for them, the case will meet with every proper consideration. The only question you have to try is, whether the defendants are guilty or not. My opinion is this:— that unless my learned friend is over ruled by his clients, he, knowing the case, will take upon himself the task of advising such a course to be pursued as will render the penal part of the proceedings unnecessary. If, how- ever, the case is to be gone into, we will, no doubt, have very eloquent and very long speeches from my learned friends. Certainly, looking to the talent of ohe of those gentlemen, not over long. Mr. Justice Park: I don't know that. The Attorney- General: You will listen, I know, with delight to the speeches; but I also know that you will attend to the evidence. You will disregard all that may be said, which cannot be satisfactorily proved ; and, judging of the facts only, you will decide accordingly. I will now proceed to call my witnesses before you, and I will en- deavour to make the case as short as possible. I do not see any necessity for making this a very long trial. If, however, it should be prolonged, I am sure you will not grudge your time. Mr. Justice Park said, before that day he had never heard any of the details of the case. He had never read any of the evidence given in the Queen's Bench. There was no man more attached to the church of the country than he was. But he would be most happy, if he could do anything towards restoring peace and concord to the unhappy town of Birmingham. Tile- inhabitants, it would appear, had been in continual hot water since the beginning of 1837; and would it not be a great blessing for the town, if the case were buried in oblivion ? He had not communed with any human being on the subject; and the wish he then ex- pressed, was purely the result of a desire to allay unpleasant feeling, and to restore tranquillity to the people. Mr. Sergeant Wilde said he attended there most certainly not to encourage riot; no man condemned it more strongly than did his client. He was willing to go so far as to say, that it appeared great misapprehension had arisen on both sides. The desire of his client Air. Muntz was that of peace and goodwill; and so far, he was willing to meet the views of his lordship. Mr. Humfrey assured his lordship that his clients felt no desire to do otherwise than promote and keep alive that spirit of peace which his lordship had so considerately re- commended. They also were willing to concede that there had been a mutual misunderstanding. Mr. Waddington concurred in what had fallen from his learned friend Mr. Humfrey. The Attorney General: My lord, I highly appreciate your lordship's motives; but I am instructed that it is im- possible to arrive at the laudable object your lordship has in view by any arrangement. Air. Justice Park: Very well; I merely threw out the suggestion. I have no voice in the affair. The advice of the learned judge having proved unavailing, the examination of witnesses was proceeded in. Rev. T. Moseley, rector of St. Martin's, Birmingham; was rector in Alarch, 1837. There was a vestry meeting held m the church on Tuesday, the 28th March, for the election of churchwardens. A public notice of that meet- ing had been given two Sundays before; I took the chair as a matter of form, as I usually doin the meeting, and then adjourned from the vestry to the church; it was about twelve o'clock; I went to the organ lolt; as soon as I made my appearance I was received with hootings, yellings, and applause; a large number of persons was collected in the church at that time; about 1,500; Mr. Reeves, Air. Gut- teridge, Rev. Mr. Foye, the curate, and Mr. Dadley, ac- companied me. In the adjoining pew to my own I saw Mr. Douglas, Mr. Pare, Mr. Charles Jones, and Mr. Muntz; they were in the same line of pews to my own, with a passage between the two; I was about to open the proceedings of the day, when I think Mr. Edmonds desired that the minutes of the last vestry meeting should be read ; I think Air. Aluntz seconded that proposition ; I asked Mr. Edmonds if he intended to found any resolutions on those minutes? he replied that he did not; Mr. Aluntz, I think, then asked if the churchwardens of the other churches were not usually elected at that meeting? I replied, that was not the case since the parishes had been separated; there were two parishes, but I only super- intend in one; the minutes were read by the vestry clerk's deputy, Mr. Baker; then, us far as I can re- member, Air. Pare made a somewhat long speech; he first objected to the manner in which the poll- ing and scrutiny had been conducted at the last meeting; he afterwards objected to the manner in which the relieving officer had been appointed; he contended I had no autho- rity whatever, and ought not to have interfered with the election of parish warden; this was the substance of what he said at that time; as he ( Pare) seemed to protest against the business of the meeting, I interrupted him, and asked him how his remarks bore upon that point; he said, he expected the meeting would shortly be called upon to poll, and he was anxious to know the principle upon which I intended the poll should be conducted ; in reply, I said I thought the fit time would be to ask that when we were proceeding to the poll; he then asked me, if I would under- take that he should obtain a hearing at that time ; I said I could not undertake anything of the kind; I think lie then attempted to speak again, and I interposed by proposing Air. Reeves as the rector's churchwarden ; I then called upon some gentlemen present to nominate a parishioner to the office of parish churchwarden ; then Mr. Freer pro- posed, and Mr. Dadley seconded, that Mr. Brown should be the parish churchwarden; Air. Benjamin Hadley proposed, and Air. George Edmonds seconded, that Mr. Winfield should be the parish churchwarden ; Mr. Brown was a member of the church; Air. Winfield had not attended the church, as I am aware, above once or twice during the previous year; Mr. Winfield had been churchwarden the year before; do not recollect whether it was said what Mr. Win- field was; Air. Pare said, when a show of hands was taken, he should then ask upon what principle he intended the poll should be conducted ; instead of attending to the call for a show of hands— the experience of former meetings had shown sufficient cause why I should not call for one— I re- quested those persons authorised to vote, to give their name and address at the poll, as there were certain persons sta- tioned round the church to take them; after a little discussion with Air. Pare and Mr. Edmonds, I read a notice of the qualification of voters. I then read the following notice to the poll cleik :— " Only persons assessed and chargeable to the poor, and who hare paid the last rate demanded of them for the poor of the parish, are entitled to be present. Persons giving false answers to the poll clerk, or in any way interfering in the election, render themselves liable to prosecution." Examination resumed:— On reading those notices there was a great disturbance, partly applause, and partly hissing. Air. Pare, I think, and Air. Edmonds, protested against it; and said, I could not go to the poll until I had taken a show of hands, and, I think, entreated the rate- payers not to go to poll until the show of hands had been taken. I was acting under the directions of an opinion founded on Sturges Bourne's act. I was requested by Mr. Pare aud Mr. Edmonds to give my authority for deviating from what they said was the eommon practice, in not de- manding a show of hands; I stated, in reply, that I had authority to justify me In what I was doing; I did not state what that authority was. Afterwards, by way of explana- tion, I said I was fully satisfied that Sturges Bourne's act justified me in not demanding a show of hands; but, on the contrary, a show of hands was contrary to the principles of that act. Air. Edmonds is an attorney. Previously to making that application, Mr. Edmonds requested xAIr. Baker, the vestry clerk's deputy, to state why 1 deviated from my former practice; he replied he did not know, but I was act- ing on my own responsibility; then Mr. Edmonds asked my authority, and requested the meeting to be attentive, which I told them; in reply, 1 stated that 1 believed Sturges Bourne's act justified me; I persisted in my deter- mination. It was then asked why the vestry clerk was absent. I said he was ill. I have heard Air. Arnold say he had been vestry clerk twenty years. Air. Pare asked if it had not been the custom'to elect the vestry clerk annually; he begged I would consult the minutes of the vestry book to see if it were not so; that I declined doing, as the polling was going on, and I did not wish that to be interrupted. Air. Pare asked me, if I would not consult the hook myself, would I allow him ; Mr. Pare first stated, that if I would not act in the usual or legal manner, all the meeting could do would be to place some one else in the chair; just before, or immediately after Air. Pare said that, Mr. Muntz made some remarks, expressing his regret that I should act in so grossly partial a manner, and requested, if I would not abide by my former practice, that I should vacate the chair; Air. Aluntz's address was received with cheers and noises. Mr. Pare moved a protest against my conduct, which was se- conded by Air. Douglas. Air. Aluntz then proposed, and Air. Hadley seconded, that Air. John Winfield should be voted into the chair; I refused to put that resolution, and I think Mr. Aluntz put it himself, and it was received with acclamation; Air. Winfield came down from a back seat, and as soon as he had reached the front pew, in which Mr. Aluntz and Mr. Pare were, and took his seat, I then protested against Mr. Winfield's authority in taking the chair, antl added, I had not vacated it, and did not so intend; the conversation about the vestry clerk took place upon my refusing to hand over the book to Mr. Pare; he read from some book as to the right of the parish to elect the vestry clerk and inspect the parish books, and then asked, if I dared to refuse his request. I replied, I did not deny it, but that was not the time or place. He then addressed the meeting, and asked if they would authorise him, as their representa- tive, to demand a sight of the books, and a large uumbtf of persons said, 41 We will, we will." Pare, with what I con- ceive a look of defiance^ left his seat, proceeded to the door of the pew in which lie was silting, which door was opposite to the door of my own. My attention was then directed to Air. Aluntz, who rose from his seat, stood upon it, and pro- ceeded in the direction of the pew, at the hack in which I was sitting; he had in his hand a stick, which he appeared to me to be shaking in a threatening attitude, and under the influence of very great excitement, as far as I could judge from his appearance. As soon as I saw Air. Pare coming towards me, I put my elbow on the parish book, and rested my head upon my hand, and in that position I remained until my attention was attracted by Mr. Trow, who, I imagined, had jumped over the back of the pew; I do not know if he came in at the door; at that time there was a very considerable rush from that part of the gallery, towards where I was sitting. On turning round to see the cause, I saw Mr. Pierce in the passage, taking a very active part, and apparently under great excitement. On turning round, I withdrew my arm from the book ; my attention was then directed to an attempt by some persons from the south gallefy to seize the book; tliey had partly suefceeded; but the book was eventually rescued by Mr. Baker and Air. Dadley. At that time the press was so great that I was crashed against the front of the pew and fully expected that I should either be forced over the front into the body of tile church, or that the whole front of the gallery would give way, the press was so great There were exclamations of " Throw him over I" from some persons in the body of the church, and in tiie gal lery; at the same time, 1 heard the backs of the pews behind me violently giving way, so that 1 began to fear that consequences, most likely fatal, must result Just at that juncture, Mr. Rawlins, the constable, and others of the police, forced their way into the gallery. Their in- terposition bad the effect of quelling the violence of the tumult. After that, the proceedings went on with great clamour, but without any of the fearful violence as before- during which, I reminded the meeting, as well as 1 was able, that the polling was going on. 1 afterwards as certained that the backs of some of the pews had been broken. Cross- examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilde: I have been rector about nine years. I entered the church about twelve; I left about five. I cannot tell what time the polling com* menced; I believe about two. At five I closed the poll, by stating there was a large majority in favour of Mr. Brown. The gentleman who proposed Air. B. was sitting in the pew with me; the proposer and seconder of Air. Brown, and Air. Gutteridge and Mr. Foye, had been in the vestry with me. AM who were in the vestry pro- ceeded with me from thence to the church. The vestry door was closed and fastened, so as to pravent persons ob- taining admission by force. When we went from the vestry to the church, we were received with approbation and dis- approbation. I announced the names of the gentlemen who were to take the poll to the people; I did not know the names - Mr. Gutteridge handed them to me in the pew; I took the whole of the names from the friends of the rival candidate- a complaint was made by Mr. Edmonds, that he had looked over the list, and there was not one of liberal politics on it. The mode of taking the poll was not communicated until I came to the church; there was a paper containing an equal number of poll clerks on each side, but I do not remember that I read it; I scarcely remember what I did with it • I handed it to Mr. Baker to be put with the other, and that was all the notice 1 took of it. The legal opinion was taken by the friends of Brown. [ The opinion under which the rector acted in taking the poll. ] The arrangements as to the principle upon which I should take the poll, were made either on the Friday or Alonday preceding, and finally in the vestry; they were made in concurrence with Mr. Brown, but I did not confer with any of the gentlemen who were friends of Mr. Winfield. I have presided as rec- tor at all meetings electing churchwardens except two; the two first were not contested. There had never been an election of churchwardens before, in which there was a con- test, in which I had not taken a show of hands. I had dis- tributed the poll clerks in different parts of the church. The grand levy book contains the names of the persons rated, and the amount. I do not remember that I had made any means for the poll clerks ascertaining the names of rate payers and their amount. No notice had been given that the poll1 would be taken on the spot on that day. I did not state the majority for Brown; I assigned as a reason for closing the poll, that no one had polled for more than a quarter of an hour. At the election that took place the previous year there was half a dozen of each party appointed poll clerks; this was an election for churchwardens; Air. Brown and Air. Winfield were chosen; there was an irregularity; three were chosen. Air. Winfield was admitted, but did not attend to his duties. I do not remember having conferred with him. The damage done in the church, my warden informs me, amonnted to 51. The friends of Brown and his party had been requested to take the north gallery; but not at a meeting where I attended. I do not know'that placards to that effect had been circulated, but circulars I afterwards heard had been sent. When Air. Edmonds, Air. Pare, and others, attempted to speak, there was certainly a great noise, but nothing resembling the sound of a tamburine; there was a continued noise throughout, but not more when one side attempted to speak than on the other. I did not hear the words " throw him over" applied to any one but myself; I did not hear the words spoken in reference to Mr. Pare, when he got up to demand the books. [ The learned sergeant here read over, sentence by sentence, the speech of Air. Douglas, questioning the reverend witness at the end of each sentence, with respect to the accuracy of the report, which Mr. Moseley acknowledged. The reading of the speech, both on this and on the second occasion pro- duced the most marked impression on the minds of all in court.] Examination resumed : These expressions were cheered generally by the meeting where they were uttered. There were cheers from all parts of the church. Mr. Douglas was heard with the most profound attention by all present, and his speech was received with more attention than any other spoken. Mr. Pare at once acceded to Air. Douglas's pro- posals, and the resolution was carried without the offensive epithets. The age of the person who attended to represent the vestry clerk, was about twenty. While I was in the vestry there were some placards brought in. Placards were distributed by the same party afterwards in the church. I did not see a large bundle of placards ; I did not see a num- ber distributed in the north gallery; I saw about three in the organ gallery. I never saw Air. Muntz without a stick, except in a room. He is in the habit of carrying a stick. He had his stick in his left hand, but do not know that he had his hat in the same hand. I have no reason to suppose he is a left handed person. Mr. Muntz sat in a pew in a line with mine. When Air. Aluntz left his pew he came in a straight line towards that in which Trow sat. One foot was on the front, and another on the back ol the pew ; he did not remain longer than was necessary to pass on. His position was certainly not a favourable or safe one. Mr. Douglas was sitting in the pew in which Air. Aluntz was, next to the pew door, or the next but one. I did not see Air. Douglas take Air. Aluntz's stick. I do not remember seeing Air. Aluntz's stick in his hand after he left the pew. I first saw Air. Trow in the earlier part of the meeting, either in the pew or leaning against the door. I did not, until after the tumult had subsided, see Air. Pare out of his pew. I did not see Mr. Rawlins come pp, until he was in the pew behind me. The impression on my mind is, that when I next saw Air. Muntz, it was with Air. Rawlins in the pew behind Me, but I have not a distinct recollection. The next time I saw him he was in his pew. The pressure took place soon after I announced the manner in which the poll was to be taken. There was a considerable number of Air. Brown's party in the pew behind me; and when Mr. Pare rose, there was a pressure from behind, and in all directions. After this had occurred, a considerable time, I saw refresh- ments in different parts of the church, on both sides. I do not remember Mr. Pare saying, " Sir, as a parishioner, I come to make a formal demand of the books, and if you refuse I shall go back to the pew." I think Mr. Pare did address me to- that effect, hut I think it was after the tumult had subsided. This prosecution is sup- ported by a party, and I am a subscriber; I am not pre- pared to say it is supported by one political party; I have not been active in collecting subscriptions; I have not acted as a secretary; there lias been a meeting to form a subscription, and a committee formed; the committee are all friends of the Church, and are opposed to the opinions of Mr. Aluntz and others, but not liberal politics. The greater part of the members are members of the Bir- mingham Loyal and Constitutional Association; there have been subscriptions collected within the last month, and down to the . time the Attorney- General was engaged; I do not remember the names of the first committee, and I have not attended any meeting to form a second committee ; the second committee was in connection with tile first, but I must deny that it was in connection with any political opinion; all the gentlemen in my pew were opposed to Air. Aluntz and others in politics; from the time Pare left his pew till he addressed me, was two or three minutes; I only saw three constables besides Air. Rawlins in the church. After I had mentianed my authority for acting as I did, the Vestry clerk's representative was interrogated; the object was to ascertain what was the usual course of electing u vestry clerk. There had been considerable excitement about three years before respecting the church rate. We came to no deci- sion; we were not defeated ; those who were in favour of church rates did not prosecute a scrutiny. The excitement on this occasion arose out of the question of church rates, The forrnet vestry meeting was held at the Town Hall. I do not remember that Air. Winfield requested me not to hold these meetings in the church. I do uot remember that he did so the year before; many had requested me not to hold them in the church; the Town Hall was undergoing repair, and I was told I could not have it. I did not take any opinion, whether I could hold the meeting anywhere else, if the Town Hall could not be used. At the time I adjourned the meeting from the vestry, I had no doubt 1 could have adioui'ned to some other place than the church. Air. Muntz, Air. Pare, Air. Pierce, and Air. Trow, remained in the church up to the time the poll closed. Re- examined by the Attorney- General: When the poll closed, I announced that Mr. Brown had been returned by a large majority; there was no dispute that Mr. Brown had a majority of votes. It was Sir Wm. Follett's opinion that de- cided me. In 1836 Mr. Brown and Air. Winfield were allowed to make the declaration; AIr„ Brown regularly and effectively acted during the whole year with Air. Reeves ; he has also acted with Mr. Reeves down to the present time. No mandamus has issued since, that I have heard or seen. It appeared to me that there were present many who were not rate payers; they appeared many of them to take the side of Mr. Winfield. I have no reason to believe that any of them took the other side. The speeches of Alessrs. Muntz and Pare were different from Air. Douglas's; there was nothing in the spirit of Air. Aluntz's speech that I could object to; he charged me with acting with gross partiality, but still couched in terms that I could not complain of. I t e 1 1 < ] 1 8 a 1 I 8 fi ti b P • i 1 B! lli lit of tl Wl w- th m o\ re, br Wf pu till At pa; to Pa Th Wi ent clei I > av he n I > rg; > os ho vas Hu iers dr. ool imi Uth ' he row ety THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL. APRIL 7. " When I refused to vacate the chair, Mr. Muntz said some- thing about my being an inanimate thing, but lie afterwards explained, that I remained stationary. Pare's speech was offensive, not so much in his words as in his manner. When Mr. Muntz used his stick, he appeared to me to be shaking it in a threatening or menacing manner; that was the im- pression 011 my mind, and is so still. I have no doubt from the passage between the two pews Mr. Muntz could not have got in, except by going to the back. The cuuse of the pressure was a violent rush from the back, but cannot tell from what party that pressure proceeded ; I did not observe that the partition between the pew and the south gallery was broken. When Mr. Pare addressed me respecting the hooks he was in my pew, and it was after Mr. Ilawlins had come; but I do not remember that he said so before. I did not know of any place in which the meeting could have been properly held, except the Town Hall. I did not know ail the poll clerks; as far as I can remember there were to be two and two; before Mr. Edmonds's list was given to me, I had appointed the poll clerks; I am not aware that there was anything to prevent persons looking over the poll to see how things were going on. Bv the Judge, at the request of Mr. Sergeant Wilde: Mr. Green, Mr. Goodfellow, and Mr. Crowther wefe at the meeting, acting in favour of Brown; I do not know whether they weie rate payers. The Rev. Martin Wilson, Foye examined by Mr. Sergeant Goulbourn : I am curate of the parish of St. Martin. I attended the meeting to elect the churchwardens. It was eleven. I went into the church with the rector. We were received with tumultuous hisses. I observed that the rector was interrupted all through the proceedings by various per- sons in the organ loft. [ After describing the previous transac- tions, as detailed in the rector's testimony, he said] Mr. Pare, Mr. Trow, and Mr. Pierce, advanced towards the rector's pew in a tumultuous manner; but my attention was parti- cularly directed to Mr. Trow, who jumped over the pew exactly in the place where we were standing, and in jump- ing he fell upon Mr. Gutteridge's back. I saw Mr. Muntz standing in the attitude of a shillelah- man— ( laughter)— I remonstrated with Mr. Muntz. He said," I want my rights." I replied, " Will you take the law into your own hands?" While I was thus saying, Rawlins, the constable, came up. I pointed to bim, and said to Mr. Muntz, " This is the constable, will you not yield to him?" Mr. Muntz said, " No, it is not." The impression 011 my mind was, that he meant that it was not the constable. Muntz then laid hold of the constable's walking- stick, and there was a scuffle, during which Rawlins held up his constable's staff; I think Mr. Muntz did yield to the constable, but I lost sight of liim for a moment. There was then violent scuffling, and some persons seized his staff. I turned round, and saw Mr. Muntz, and appealed to him to employ the situation and influence he held in the town, to assist in putting an end to the tumult. The constables put an end to it. My fear was that 1 should be precipitated into the body of the church. I considered my life was in danger. Cross- examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilde : The constable took the staff from his right side pocket. He held it up distinctly. The constable's stick was a common walking stick. He was not in the act of striking with it when Mr. Muntz laid hold of it. I did not beckon to Mr. Muntz to come to me. I had made no motion to Mr. Muntz, ex- pressive of a desire to speak to him. I did not see Mr. Muntz's stick in Mr. Douglas's possession. If people are left- handed in Ireland, they use the shillelah in the left hand. Mr. Gutteridge lifted Trow over and out of the pew; he took him by the thighs and legs, and threw Slim over. There might be two or three persons be- tween Mr. Pare and the door of the pew on his right. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Pare was not in the pew with Mr. Douglas and Mr. Muntz, at the time he made the proposition. I think he was in the passage far- ther back, between the two pews. I do remember seeing Mr. Pare with Mr. Muntz and Mr. Douglas in the pew, in front of the gallery; but to the best of my recollection he put it to the meeting in the passage, some way back. I do not remember seeing him in any other pew. I did not hear what Mr. Pare said to the rector. I did not take him by the collar and put him back when he came to the rector's pew. I did not see anv one else do it. I did not see any placards. I saw the handbills. I was not the author, I was not a party in preparing them, nor did I see them before they came to the church, neither in print nor in manuscript. I lieard nothing about more coming. I did not write letters nor articles in the Birmingham Advertiser respecting the next action. The editor, or reporter, called upon me, I was not at home, he called again in the afternoon, and he then said he wanted some information respecting the meeting. I gave him some particulars, I did not write them down, but saw them next day, but did not correct the manuscript or the press. I have certainly communicated information res- pecting this meeting, as I certainly thought the public ought to know. I have only given information to the paper on this day; I have never given a shilling towards the expenses of this action. Joseph Baker, examined by the Attorney- General:— I am clerk to Messrs. Arnold and Haines, I have been their clerk nine years. When the vestry meeting, in March last, was held, Mr. Arnold was ill, Mr. Haines was at the assizes; he is not the vestry clerk. I was present at the vestry meeting in March. There was a great noise, much liooting and hissing. At the request of the meeting I read the minutes of the meeting in 1836. Mr. Pare mads objections to the order of proceedings in 1836. He said every inhabitant ought to be entitled to vote. He read something out of a law book, stating that the rector had 110 right to interfere with the parishioners' warden. Mr. Moseley then nominated Mr. Reeve as his churchwarden; and Mr. Brown and Mr. Winfield were then nominated. Mr. Pare demanded a show of hands ; the rector said it was against the principles of Sturges Bourne's act to do so. Mr. Muntz then moved that another chairman should be appointed; the rector refused to put it; it was put and carried by some one else. I had previously seen Mr. Winfield; when the motion was carried, Mr. Winfield came forward. Mr. Moseley declared he should not vacate the chair until the business had been concluded. They said as the vestry clerk was not there they ought to elect another. It was stated to the meeting that he was confined at home by illness. Mr. Pare has resided in Birmingham as long as I can remember, He is no doubt acquainted with Mr. Arnold. Mr. Pare said he wanted to inspect the books, to see if they had the power to elect the vestry clerk. The rector refused to allow him to see the book. Before that, instructions had been given to the poll clerks. I believe the polling had then commenced. Mr. Pare asked the rector to hand it over to him. He then appealed to the meeting to know if they would elect him as their represen- tative, to demand a sight of the books. It was shouted, " We will," by many different voices. Mr. Pare then rose from his seat, and came to the rector's pew door, and I believe Mr. Freer prevented him coming in. When he demanded to see the books, there was only the passage and Mr. Freer between him and the rector, and he could easily have been heard. When he came to the pew there was a general rushing from the south gallery. I saw Mr. Pierce and Mr. Trow amongst the crush behind. I observed Mr. Trow come towards the rector's pew from the seat behind. Mr. Gutteridge pushed him back; he did not attempt to get into the pew again. The book at this time was in the trout of the pew; 1 had possession of it; Mr. Trow at- tempted to take possession of it; it is called the minute book; he laid hold of it; I pulled it out of his hand; I pulled it back again. There were two persons came from the couth gallery; they tried to push me away from the book ; Trow was in the seat behind. They did not lay hold of it; kept them off. I saw Pierce ; 1 did not see him do any ling particular; I saw him shake his head, that was all. saw Mr. Muntz; he was standing on the back of the ew ; he had a stick in his hand; it was much such a stick as Mr. Mnntz has now in his hand. He was holding it over his head; 1 only saw him a moment. I did not see Raw- lins when he came up to Mr. Muntz. I observed the end of the rector's pew was broken; there were several pews in the south gallery with the ft out part of Ihem broken. There was much confusion, and a great deal of shouting. There were cries, " Take the books, pitch them over." I lieard that cry from several different voices. It appeared to me that the rector and his friends were in danger 01 falling over into the body of the church. Cross- examined by Mr. Sergeant Adams: Pare was reading from a law book. I did not look at it. The pew broken was on the other side to that on which Mr. Muntz was. I do not recollect Mr. Pare saying at the meeting publicly that the vestry clerk had expressed his opinion that the act did not apply to the parish. He said that, Mr. Arnold had, in 1836, given, as his opinion, that every Vale- payer was entitled to vote. " Would they authorise him to demand a sight of the book," were not the words of Mr. Pare. He said, " will you elect me your representative." The grand levy book was not in the church, that I know of. We had no means of knowing whether parties voting were entitled to vote or not; I do not know whether the poll clerks had or not. Mr. Fieer, examined by Mr. N. R. Clark: I am a parishioner of St. Martin's, Birmingham. I was present at the election of churchwardens on Easter Tuesday; I was in the vestry, and attended the rector to the pew in the organ gallery. I do not recollect who it was that first pro- posed a show of hands. The rector objected to it; he said, should go upon Sturges Bourne's act. At this time there he was a complete row in the thurch. I heard speeches by Mr. Muntz, Mr. Pare, Mr. Edmonds, and other persons. The persons assembled appeared to be excited by these people. Mr. Pare said to the rector, he wished to see the minute book, to examine it. The rector refused, saying some other time would be better. Mr. Pare then asked if they would authorise him to inspect it, or something to that effect. There was a complete row, but I do not recollect what the crowd said. On this Mr. Pare proceeded to the rector's pew, ami demanded the book of him, bat I would not let him proceed to take it. lie tried to get in by force, and others were behind assisting him. The door at that time was shut; they forced it open first, but I let down a move- able seat or board, which, with my strength, prevented its being forced ; the holt gave way. Mr. Pare said he merely wanted the book. I saw Mr. Muntz at the opposite corner, at the end of the seat. I afterwards saw him walking 011 the back of the seats, and then he returned. I saw Mr. Trow; hejumped into the rector's pew. Mr. Gutteiidge wasnext to me ; he lifted Trow out. The row increased beyond any- thing when Mr. Pare came to the rector's pew. It ap- peared to me that the rector was in danger. I saw the police come up. Cross- examined by Mr. Seigeant Wilde : The pew would hold a dozen people; at first it was full; Mr. Pave sat very near the centre of the front pew, in the same line ; he did not leave that seat until after he had put the question to the meeting to authorise him to demand a sight of the book. I then, saw him come towards the rector's pew. He was in sight the whole of the time. I saw him in the pew until he had put the question. The width of the passage is about two feet. There are, I think, three or four rows ol pews in the front gallery. It was a kind of latch lock on the pew door; it is opened outwards. There is a flap which will let down when the door is shut, which will form a seat. I cannot state what protection that flap can give against forcing the door. Mr. Pare said he came to demand a right of the hook, but 1 prevented him. After the row was over, he came and asked leave to go into the rector's pew, but I do not recollect what he said to the rector. I do not know exactly where Trow sat; it was one or two seats behind the rector. When the rush took place, it was like the boarding of a vessel. I have never been at sea. ( A laugh.) All who were in the pew re- mained there, except Mr. M'Donnell and Mr. Edmonds. I cannot tell how many persons were in the pew at the time Mr. Pare put the question. I cannot tell whether Mr. Pare returned to his own pew after he had been to the rector's pew. He remained in the rector's pew very little time. Re- examined by the Attorney- General: I did not let Mr. Pare Into the pew until the constables had quelled the tumult. Mr. Pare seemed alarmed ; but I was not; lam one of those who are not easily alarmed. I have seen many riots in Birmingham, but never saw any disturbance equal to this. By the Judge: I saw all the defendants before the busi- ness commenced. The row continued from the time we left the vestry until the police came. I saw the defendants there all the time. Thomas Gutteridge examined by the Attorney- General: I am a surgeon at Birmingham. 1 was at the vestry meet- ing in the church of St. Martin's. I accompanied the rector from the vestry to the organ gallery. I heard hisses, groans, yells, and all sorts of discordant noises, even after the rector had taken the chair. I could not distinguish from what party they proceeded. Mr. Edward Freer was next to the passage, then myself, then the rector, then Mr. Baker. I heard Mr. Muntz move that there should be another chair- man. There was then much noise. Mr. Muntz put it himself— formally proposed it. It was seconded, put, and carried. Mr. Winfield soon afterwards came forward for that purpose. All the people seemed to think so. The rector continued in the chair. A request was made to Mr. Moseley to inspect the books; the polling had then some time begun. The rector said—" This is geither the time nor place." I believe it was Mr. Pare who said, " You refuse, then." The rector rejoined, " No, I do not refuse; but this is not the proper time." Mr. Pare then said, " No," that the people might hear, " the rector refuses to let us see the book, will you allow me, as your representative, to inspect the book?" They cried loudly " Yes." Mr. Pare put the question again, the second time, " Shall I demand a sight of the books?" the people cheered, and cried " Yes;" the noise was great; Pare was then at the front of the pew, to the left of the rector's pew, and about the middle of the pew; he could easily have made himself heard at that distance. The rector re- fusing at that time to allow him, he asked, " Will you authorise me to take it;" " We will," was said by the crowd. He then came with haste to the rector's pew, but Mr. Freer prevented him; the people all about him, with few exceptions, went towards the rector's pew. I saw the defendant Trow partly in the passage and partly in the rector's pew ; the book at that time was at the farther end of the rector's pew; when I found Mr. Trow partly in the rector's pew, I said, " I will not have you there;" I re- peated it, but not having any effect, I lifted him out, and he then retreated hastily. I saw Pierce, he was in the lower part of the gallery; beseemed very much excited; 1 did not see him do anything particular; I saw him reach over the back of the pew, for the purpose of reaching the book as I suppose; the book was kept in the pew after a great struggle; I saw two dirty looking young men an d others, who had broken through, attempt to seize the book At this time I saw Mr. Muntz in front of the pew, to the. left of the rector; I next saw him stand on the ledge of the* gallery pew; he had nothing in his hand at that moment; I next saw him partly in the pew behind; one of his feet was on the back of the pew, and another on the front of the gallery ; he had nothing in his hand at that moment; I saw him turn back to take his stick out of the corner; he walked backwards and forwards on the top of the pew; he first held the stick in his left hand, then in his right; he held his stick high above his head; I saw him swinging it round with great violence; I saw him struggling with some one, not with Rawlins, but some one else; no one, at that time could have got from Mr. Muntz's pew to the rector's without going behind. Mr. Rawlins was rather lower down, and 1 heard an altercation between Muntz and Rawlins, who had in his hand a short stick ; 1 afterwards observed that Rawlins had a painted staff; they seemed to be pulling one against the other, as though there was something between them which each wished to possess; I heard cries in the body of the church of " Throw him over, throw them over; pitch them over;" which I heard from several different voices; I was much alarmed, from the belief that I should be thrown over into the body of the church. ( A laugh.) The rector was in equal danger, at least, with myself; he was much pressed by persons from the south gallery, who were trying to take the book from him; at least half the church was full. Several persons got into the rector's pew; the constables drove them back; the street- keepers came, about half a dozen, who quickly drove them back. Cross- examined by Sergeant Wilde: I cannot recollect the name of one of the street- keepers; I am sure I saw five or six. I heard the majority declared for Brown; I could not distinguish which party made the noise; I heard them all over the church. I heard Mr. Pare put all the questions from his pew; I did not see him leave the pew. I do solemnly swear I heard him say, " Will you authorise me to take the book?" That was the last question put before Pare left the pew; when he left, Mr. B. Hadley left; I am not sure that any others came out that way, but they all pressed towards the door. Mr. Muntz at first stood with both feet on the gallery front, unmindful of the dreadful chasm below; then with one foot on the back and one on the front; then he went to the body of the pew for his stick ; then he got on the seat, from the seat to the back of the pew, and walked on the backs of the seats towards the back of the gallery. In the pew at that time was Mr. Douglas, Mr. Charles Jones, and one person besides, but I am not certain who it was. When he was holding the stick over his head, he was partly in the third pew; at that time I saw in that a person who was pointed out to me by the rector as Mr. Allday. Muntz, by stepping on the tops of the pews, got from one side of the passage to the other. I did not see the stick in his hand when he was near to the rector's pew. I believe Mr. Muntz was struggling with Mr. Allday, but I am not certain. I mean by struggling, they seemed to be handling each other by the arms, and thrusting and pressing one another. Mr. Muntz was on the back of the pew, and Mr. Allday on the floor; Mr. Allday did not succeed in pulling him down ; he was leaning with one foot on the back of the pew and the other on the seat behind. He was not pulled down nor did he fall. At this time Pare was at the rector's pew door; Trow justaftercame to the pew. It was an appreciable time after he came to the pew that I put Trow out. The great crowd prevented Mr. Muntz from getting direct from his pew to the rector's ; his crossing was high up ; the crowd extended beyond the second pew ; he had greater facilities to get to the rector's pew by going round, because the crowd was most dense in the passage. There were twenty persons at least in the passage; there are three pews deep; the people stood exceedingly close together, and I think about twenty. I looked in different parts of the church to see the character of the persons, and I was sure there were great crowds who could not be rate payers. I judged by their youth and dress. I believe I saw some of our own party there, who were not rate payers. I avoided the calamity of being thrown over the gallery by going with the rector to the main pillar, I did not get under the seat, I stooped a little down ; I took no other means, except lean- ing against the gallery front that I might not be suddenly thrown off the centre of gravity. I had known that Mr. Muntz constantly took a stick with him when he went out. Re- examined by the Attorney- General: The pillar I went towards supports the roof; I went for safety; there seemed to me to be a danger of the front giving way, and of my being precipitated into the body of the church; there seemed to be very great alarm all over the place. In the case of the people filling the passage, Mf. Muntz must have gone round, as he did. John Morgan Knott examined by Mr. Sergeant Goul- burn: I am a stationer at Birmingham; I attended the meeting in St. Martin's church last Easter; I was standing between the two front pews; it was about one when I came into the church; the rector was about to put from the chair the persons nominated as parish churchwardens. I do i> nf ''"" w the number pre- sent; the church appeared full. I first heard a speech of Mr. Douglas; he spoke in a tone exceedingly appropriate lor the place; I was so gratified with it that I immediately responded to it, and advised the rector to pursue the course upon which he had determined, and not to have a show of hands, to ascertain what was the sense of the parishioners. [ Mr- Sergeant Adams: That was a singular seguiiur.] The demand made to see the books was after Mr. Winfield was proposed to the chair; Mr. Muntz proposed him. The rector declined to refer to the books; he said it was not the time or place; Mr. Pare proposed to refer to the book; he asked the rector. Mr. Pare also, as well as Mr. Muntz, put another question with reference to the vestry clerk. Mr. Pare required of the rector to hand the hook over ; 011 the rector's declining, Mr. Pare put to the meeting, whether the meeting would authorise him. There was a response of applause, but I do not re- collect what was said; he seemed excited, and in part made an attempt to leave his seat, and I became subject to a crush. I was standing in the passage between the two pews, and subject to the crush 011 the door opening. There were many people who pressed to the rector's pew ; the crush was very great. Mr. Pare was one in that crush. When I first saw Mr. Muntz he was climbing over from the front seat to the second seat; the position of his stick appeared to me to threaten every head, not that I appre- hended an actual blow; but the effect of raising my hand was to cause Mr. Muntz to raise his stick as though he would have struck me ; not that I suppose he intended, but he appeared in a very excited state. There was a very great noise and tumult; so much alarm, that, finding I could be of no use, I went out to call the police, and met them coming. I certainly feared that lives would be lost. Cross- examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilde: I do not re- collect the rector saying he was indemnified, and should take the course proposed. The question put by Mr. Pare was— " Will you authorise me to demand the book?" My im- pression is that it was to demand the book. I do not recollect any other question put by bim. There was some response to the question, but I do not re- collect what. I have been in the lobby of the House of Commons, and have heard noises there, but never so great as in Birmingham. While I was standing near the rector's pew in the passage, and during the time the questions were being put, the passage was full, and was so from the first, arid I had to passthrough the people to get to the front. Mr. Muntz was at the further end of the pew. He appeared to be climbing over, and had just reached the second pew. He was standing over the pew. I raised my hand and laid hold of the stick, and then he raised it. I did not see him give the stick to Mr. Douglas. I did not see Mr. Muntz well afterwards, I was so crushed. My opinion was Mr. Muntz was in the second pew. I think Mr. Douglas was in the second pew. My impression is, that Mr. Douglas spoke from the second pew. The passage was full befoie Pare attempted to leave the seat, and the opening of the door caused the crush on me. I believe I was alone, of my own party, in the passage at the time. Mr. Rawlins, and some street- keepers, were the persons I met coming in. I do not recollect myself that the bills put in my hand were distributed in the church. I did not see them. I knew that they were printed. I had seen them in my brother's office, I did not see them distributed in the south gallery. I did not see them thrown to the people. 1 am one of the proprietors of the Binnim/ ham Advertiser. I am not a subscriber to this case. My brother put down my name, and I assented. I have not withdrawn my name. I con- tributed to the expenses of the criminal information. My first subscription has been paid. I feel that it would be just for me, as well as my neighbours, rather than the rec- tor should suffer, to contribute towards the expense; I am under no engagement. Re- examined by the Attorney- General: From the time I came in, until half- past two, there was a continual uproar. It being now near six o'clock, and the learned Judge haying intimated that it was desirable not to sit beyond that hour, the court broke up. . , ..- sjg SECOND DAY— SATURDAY, MARCH 31. This morning the court opened at nine o'clock. Mr. Justice Park having taken his seat, the examination of witnesses for the prosecution was resumed. The first witness called was Samuel Ilawlins, who deposed as follows:— I was appointed constable at the Court Leet in September 1836. I acted as constable, for the fol- lowing year. I was merely called in occasionally to superintend the police. I attended the meeting at St. Martin's church, last year. I went about twelve o'clock. I was walking about the church, in different parts, for nearly two hours after the proceedings had com- menced. There was very considerable noise and disturb- ance towards the latter part of that time. Hearing a dis- turbance, I sent to the Public- office for the street- keepers, whom I had ordered to be in readiness. There are about twenty- one street- keepers in Birmingham. They wear red collars to their coats. I sent to the Public- office orders for those who were there to come down immediately. They came, about fourteen in number. I placed them in dif- ferent parts of the church, with a view of keeping order, with strict injunctions not to do anything to excite the people. I heard a disturbance in the organ gallery. I was at that time in the north gallery, I heard a cry— " There is a row in the organ gallery." I ran down, and forced my way as well as I could into the organ gallery; when I got there I found the place exceedingly noisy and tumultuous, and in great uproar. About half way down the passage, between the seats, I met Muntz; he was in the passage, near the pew at the back of the rector; he was standing on the floor at that time. I had seen him in the front pew, on the north side of the organ gallery;) Muntz, at that time, was attempting to force his way over the pew behind that in which the rector was sitting; I said to him, " Mr. Muntz what do you do there;" he said, " What right have you to interfere." I think he could not have avoided knowing 1 was constable; it is an office generally known, and lam personally known to Muntz. I said, " I am a constable, and here to preserve the peace." At the time he said, " What right have you to interfere," he seized hold of my walking stick, and endeavoured to wrest it from me. Muntz said to me, " Then show me your authority;" I then pulled my staff of office out of my pocket. Muntz still uppeared determined to go ovei the pew, and I said to him, " I shall do my best to prevent you." From the narrowness of the passage I was forced against him ; when he tried to take hold of my stick I tried to retain it; I had not done any thing to provoke him before he tried to take my stick; I th.; n went towards the rector's pew. At that time I saw Muntz trying to get into the pew; I did not see Trow at the moment; the first place where I saw Trow was at the north side of the organ gallery; the next place I saw him was in the pew behind the rector; he was there until near the close of the proceedings. I saw Pierce in the second pew behind the rector. Pare was in the rector's pew near the door. I said to Pare, " Mr. Pare you have no right there, sir, therefore you must come out immediately;" he then went out. I saw two persons in the rector's pew who had forced their way over the platform; they were working men in ap- pearance ; I immediately compelled them to go back; there was then a considerable rush from the school gallery towards the rector's pew; I was obliged to strike several persons with my staff to keep them back; a person laid hold of my staff and tried forcibly to twist it out of my hand. He did the best he could to wrest it from me. The King's arms was painted upon iny staff. At last I restored some degree of order. When I was running along the aisle to get to the gallery, I called to such of the streetkeepers as I saw to follow me. I was not personally alarmed. Justice Park : Oh, no 1 he is a constable. Sergeant Adams: He is only an honorary constable. Justice Park: I will examine you in evidence, brother Adams, if you like. He has sworn that he is a constable. Sergeant Adams: Yes, my lord; but he does not perform the active duties of a constable. Justice Park: Well, we have his evidence. Witness: I apprehended great danger from the noisy and tumultuous proceedings. 1 conducted the rector home. From my apprehensions of danger I begged him to go out by the side door. I was then attended by Naden, the other constable, and the streetkeepers. Cross- examined by Sergeant Wilde: I do not discharge the ordinary duties of constable; probably I never exercised my duty as constable in Muntz's presence before that day. I am a merchant, and have other offices. My situation is an honorary office. It is not paid for. I never took any person into custody during my year of office. I went into the vestry before the meeting. I did not come into the church with the rector. I was not one of the party who was locked up in the vestry. 1 mean to swear I did not see the placards in the vestry. I am not aware Muntz knew I was constable. I did not hear any peison say in the organ gallery that I was not the constable. I do not know that my brother is like me. My brother is so much like me that we have been mistaken for each other. ( Laughter.) Justice Park: What does that grinning mean? Thereare persons there standing grinning. The witness: My stick was not raised to strike any person when Muntz spoke to me. Muntz was attempting to get over the pew when I first saw him. After I told him I was constable, he still retained hold of my stick until I produced my staff. I 6aw Muntz in his seat sboitfy afterwards. I can't state anything further respecting Muntz after I showed him my staff. I have no recollection of Muntz saying to me, " if you are a con- stable, you ought to keep the peace, and not break it." I kept my staff all the time after I pulled it out, in my hand, until the proceedings were over. I saw handbills being thrown about the church. I did not speak to the persons who were throwing them about. I am a member of the Loyal and Constitutional Association. Did not see any of the members distribute them. Gutteridge is a member of the Loyal and Constitutional Association. I don't know if Knott is. I think I have seen him at a meeting of it. Justice Park : In a court of justice, if you have only a floating notion of a circumstance, you are not obliged to speak, in reference toothers, positively. Witness: 1 will not swear I have not seen Knott at the meetings of the Loyal and Constitutional Association. Do not know he is printer to the association. I have heard he is a proprietor of the Birmingham Advertiser. He told me he was. The meeting continued after I went up into the gallery upwards of three hours ; I saw fourteen streetkeepers in the church; they were not paid for their attendance; three or four of them came up at one time; I remained in the organ gallery until the close of the proceed- ings; eight or ten streetkeepers remained with me in the same gallery; I cannot give their names; they are not under direction of the constable. Mr. Iledfern is prison keeper, and has the principal direction of the police. It is the duty of the streetkeepers to walk about and keep the peace; there are five police officers in the town. After the dis- turbance was over, I remained in the pew behind the rector. I know Muntz. Re- examined by the Attorney- General: Persons in the higher situations of life are generally appointed constable; itl is considered an honour. 1 attended the Public- office every Thursday in my capacity of constable. I apprehend Muntz knows my famdy; formerly I used to bow and speak to him. I did not attend the meetings of the Loyal and Constitutional Association during my year of office. Benjamin Faulkner, examined: I am a streetkeeper of Birmingham, I was sent for, to go to St. Martin's Church, on Easter Tuesday, 1837. When I first went into the organ gallery, they were pretty peaceable, talking one amongst another. I got in about one o'clock, Rawlins beckoned to me to go to the organ gallery, when I was going into it, I had to get over a pew, and I received either a blow or a kick. I did not perceive from whom I received it. I did not receive any other blow, I placed myself at the back of Rawlins. Cross- examined: I followed Rawlins as soon as he called me. Mr. William Henry Elkington examined by the Attorney General. I reside at Birmingham. Before the meeting on Easter Tuesday last year, I saw some placards stuck up in Birmingham. I have a copy of one I saw stuck against a wall. [ One of the placards was produced. It contained the circular issued by the church party, and requested that the people would attend the meeting in the church.] I heard proclamation made by the bellman upon the subject. It was about ten o'clock in the morning. He requested all persons to attend at the church by ten o'clock in the morn- ing. I attended myself. I recollect a motion being made by Muntz for Winfield to take the chair. By the court: Was the rector then in the chair? Wit- ness: Yes. Resumed : I heard Pare make a proposal. He requested permission of the persons in the church to allow him to represent them in inspecting the book. The people said " We will," with loud shouts. I was in the body of the church, near the east end. I heard very great noise and confusion in the organ gallery. I changed my position, so that I could see distinctly all that was going on. I saw Muntz elevated upon the top of the pews, apparently striving to cross the aisle, or passage, which divides the pews. He was holding his stick over his head. He appeared to be going towards the rector's pew. I saw Trow, 1 did not recognise Pierce. Trow appeared to be wrestling with Gutteridge, close to the rector's pew. There appeared to be very great confusion, all moving about towards the* rector's pew. It appeared to me the rector was in danger. I gave directions to a policeman to proceed to the gallery, to protect the rector. I afterwards went to the organ gallery; things were then pretty quiet. Muntz had then returned to his pew. Cross- examined: It was the ordinary bellman of the parish I heard crying the meeting. I distinctly heard him say St. Martin's Church. I cannot say he announced the meeting for that day; did not hear any announcement for a meeting at Aston Church that day. 1 was in the vestry; I was a scrutineer; I am the person whose name is attached as Honorary Secretary to some circulars that have been issued. I do not live in my father's house; I am his clerk. I conducted the proceedings in the case, at the commence- ment, on account of my father. There was a subscription raised for the election of Brown; there was a committee to secure his election; my father did not act professionally for that committee. I was secretary to that committee. I was standing on the top of the pews in the body of the church, when I saw what 1 have described. I saw a hand- bill distributed in the church. Cannot say who prepared the handbill I allude to; never saw it in manuscript or print before it was distributed; it was not distributed very generally around me. I had poll books prepared ; I had no other hooks except my poll books. I continued to conduct the proceedings for my father, up to the last fortnight or three weeks. I told a policeman to go to the organ gal- lery; he was there when I got up. I followed him in about three minutes. I believe his name is Capenhurst. I re- mained a few minutes in the organ gallery and then went into the aisle with my poll book. I assisted in arranging the names of the poll clerks. By Mr. Waddington: Trow appeared to be dragging Gutteridge out of the pew. That was my impression. They were struggling near the door of the pew, but I can- not say that blows were struck. By the Attorney- General: It was resolved, on the 1st or 2nd of April, to apply for a crimisal information. A meet- ing was held for that purpose. I certainly did not hear of an action intended to be brought by Muntz at that time. A circular was sent outdated the31st March, 1887. The circular was here read, and was to the following effect:— The rector and churehwardens of St. Martin's particularly request the favour of your attendance on Monday next, to consider what steps should be taken in consequence of the disturbance at the church on Tuesday last. The meeting was held on that day, and it was then that it was determined to apply for the criminal information. I was one of the poll clerks. I took down the names of all who wished to poll, on answering certain questions. No complaint was made of the conduct of the poll clerks. [ The address on the back of the ciicular was here handed to witness, but he could not swear to the hand writing— it was not his, nor his father's.] I interfered a little in sending the circulars, with Mr. Reeves. There was no committee appointed when the circulars were sent. I don't know that the circulars aie yet paid for. ( Laughter.) They were printed by Price and Watson. Mr. Richard Bates, examined by Mr. Clarke:— I was overseer last Easter, and I am now one of the guardians of the poor; 1 went to the church on Easter Tuesday, at the election of churchwaidens. From being an overseer I have a general knowledge as to who are rate payers or not. I should say that two- thirds of those in the south gallery were not rate payers; many of them were boys. The church was a scene of general confusion. Winfield was proposed as chairman by Muntz ; I was in the north gallery at the time; this was previous to my going into the south gallery; I heard Pare put it to the meeting, if they would authorise him to demand a sight of the books; after this, I saw Pare leave his place, and go towards the rector's pew; at this time I saw Muntz proceeding in the same direction. He at first attempted to reach the rector's pew by proceeding straight along the gallery; but not being able to do this, he got over the back of the pew to approach the place where the rector was sitting; he got behind the rector's pew; he was then standing on the floor. I saw him on the backs of the pews very conspicuously. I saw his stick while in this position lifted up. 1 certainly think this increased the tumult in the church. Muntz was himself in an excited state. I saw attempts made to seize the vestry book, from the south gallery. The book was not seized. I saw part of the front of the south gallery give way with the pressure. | Some consultation here took place between the court and the leading counsel on both sides, which produced an impression that a compromise was about to take place, when Justice Park observed—" Do not suppose that the subject of our conversation has anything to do with this case— it has no more to do with it than what is passing in the south of England at this time; it is of a little more im- portance.] The pressure was produced by persons making their way towards the rector's seat. When that part gave way it opened a passage to the rector's pew. It was as this time that an attempt was made to seize the books. I saw Pierce and Trow at this time. Pierce was reaching to- wards the rector's pew. I don't recollect what Trow was doing. I saw Rawlins, the constable, approach Muntz. On his coming up, I cannot say 1 saw Muntz do any- thing. Cross- examined by Sergeant Wilde: I don't collect the rates myself; there are assistant overseers for the purpose. I went to the church prior to the rector's taking the chair, and remained till half- past five. I sat in the north gallery first. When I left the north gallery there nas much excite- ment after some speeches had been made. On quitting the north gallery I went into the aisle, where I remained half an hour. I then went into the organ gallery. I went up, I think, before Mr. Rawlins. I was on the south side of the organ gallery. It was the angle between the south and organ galleries that gave way, the division that separated both. At the time I left the north gallery the noise was very great; there was general confusion. I was three or four yards distant from the men who attempted to take the book from the rector's pew. I was in the second or third pew behind the rector. I remained there some lime, and then went to the south gallery. Cross- examined by Mr. Waddington: Pierce was standing to the left of the rector. John Kempson, surveyor, made oath to the correctness of the plan then on the table. Mr, Ebenezer Robins examined by the Attorney- Gene- ral ; I am a surveyor, and carry on business at Birmingham; 3 1 was at the election of churchwardens last year; I was in the north gallery. From my business as surveyor I hav^ an accurate notion of the class of rate payers in the parish. In the south gallery there were many who were not rate payers. 1 remained in the north gallery till three or four o'clock ; I saw what was going on ; I heard the motion made by Muntz for Winfield to take the chair, aud saw him introduced to the front of the gallery; up to this period the rector had been acting as chairman. Muntz put the motion to the meeting, which was followed by an approval from those in the south gallery. Winfield then came down, and the chair was demanded from the rector. He refused to relinquish it. I heard a discussion about inspecting the book. I heard Pare demand the book; the hook was refused. Mr. Pare then turned round and addressed himself to the south gallery, and said, " Will you au- thorise me to take the book." There was a shout of " We do," or " We will," or something to that purpose. I i hen saw Pare go from the seat in which he was sitting to the rector's pew, but he was stopped at the/ loor, I believe, by Mr. Freer. I saw a person from the pew behind the rector, getting over into the rector's pew; this person was Trow. He was ejected, I believe, by Gu'teridge; I savy Muntz striding on the top of the back of the pew in which he was, and going in a direction towards the rector's pew. I believe Muntz got up at the same instant with Pare, or nearly so. I observed Muntz's stick at the time he was getting up, he held it above his head. The passage between the two pews was very much crowded at the time. I saw many personsjump over from the south gallery into the organ gallery; but none that I saw jumped into the rector's pew. I can't say I saw any of them do any thing to the rector's pew. I considered it a most terrific sight. I considered the rector was in very great danger. The organ gallery was crowded before they jumped in from the south gallery. When they came ill it made the pressure greater, and there was a tendency towards the front. I thought the front of the gallery might have given way, and that they would be let down into the body of the church. Cross- examined : I was in the froht of the north gallery when the chair was demanded from the rector. Muntz demanded the chair. I believe he was in the front pew of the organ gallery. What I mean by his demand for the chair, was the speech he made. 1 heard part of that speech. I remained in the north gallery. I don't know if there was a person named Sinclair in the south gallery. I have heard of such a person, but I could not identify him. I left between three and four o'clock, and returned about four or half- past four o'clock. By Mr. Waddington; When Isaw Trowhewasin thepew, at the back of the rector's pew. He was ejected. The disturbance occasioned by the rush lasted perhaps from ten minutes to a quarter of an hour. There was a great deal of disgust manifested in the north gallery. When they cried out " throw the rector over,", they expressed their disgust. There was, I dare say, hooting, shouting, and yelling throughout all the proceedings. By the Attorney General: Had Muntz any party in the north gallery. Justice Park: You have no right to assume Muntz had any party. Mr. Guest, examined by the Attorney General: I am a merchant, carrying on business in Birmingham. I was in the north gallery, at the vestry meeting, in 1837, for some time. I then went into the organ gallery. I was there when Brown and Winfield were proposed candidates. There was a dispute about a show of hands. I heard the rector give directions about the poll. He said the poll was ready, and that parties who wished to poll could do so. After the poll had commenced, Muntz moved that Winfield should take the chair. Winfield was then at the back of the organ gallery. After considerable hesitation, Winfield entered the pew where Muntz was sitting. I heard the rector say he would not quit the chair until after the busi- ness, or words to that effect. I heard a discussion about th8 Vestry clerk; there was a demand made for the book by many persons, certainly by Pare. Pare BWle a demand for the book, or a sight Of it. The rector declined, and immediately after, I saw him move towards the rector's pew. I saw Pierce move towards the rector's pew. He rushed down the passage, between the pews. He appeared to me to he checked by Freer. Muntz was, at that time, I believe, in the front pew. The first glimpse I had of him was, when he was elevated upon the pews. I saw Muntz's stick. He was waving it over his He was in a direction to tile back of the rector's pew. head. I should think Muntz's gestures and appearance created considerable effect, particularly in the body of the church. I thought the rector was in danger at one time. I thought, from the great number of persons against the rector, and so few in his favour, that some injury would be done. By the Attorney- General: Did you observe any struggle between Muntz and Rawlins? Witness : I can't say I did. By Sergeant Wilde : I remained in the third pew for sometime. 1 then went into the front pew; my impression is, that when I entered the front pew in the north side there was not any person in it. The parties who were first in it had left, and gone over to the other side of the gallery. Whilst Muntz was standing upon the pews I went to the other side, and when I arrived at the other side, I turned round, and saw him upon the floor. I can't say where Pare was when Muntz was elevated. I saw Douglas, but can't say whether he ever left his pew. I was induced to go from the third pew, in conse- quence of seeing them empty, and fearing the consequence of the confusion. Examined by Mr. Waddington: I saw Pierce rush down the passage. I was then in the third pew. I can't say where Pare was at that time. I lost sight of him. There were great numbers in the passage when Pierce rushed down. He forced himself down with might and main. Mr. Cox, surveyor, examined by the Attorney General: I am a surveyor, and reside in Birmingham. I was at St. Martin's Church on the morning of the election of church- wardens. I went into the north gallery, where I remained about an hour. There appeared to be supporters of Win- field there, for I heard cheers of approbation from persons for him. There were also a great many ' supporters of Brown. Some persons in the gallery expressed yells and disapprobation of Brown. I was in the organ gallery when the motion was made for Winfield to take the chair. I was close by the organ behind the pews. Winfield was near me. Oil the motion being made for his taking the clinir, some person took hold of him by the arm and led him towards the front of the gallery, to the pew on the same line with the rector's— Muntz's pew. After this I heard a dispute respect- ing the book. I heard Pare appeal to the party in the church, if they would authorize him to demand from the rector a sight of the book. When he appealed to the people he was looking towards the body of the church. He was answered by cries of " We will." Almost immediately he. went towards the rector's pew. I saw Muntz at this time; he was standing in his pew. at the time the motion was put to the meeting. Pare was interrupted going into the rec- tor's pew by Freer closing the door. Muntz then got up and went across the tops of the pews with his stick in his hand. He held it iri his hand like a man who was going to play at single stick. He was seen by all persons in the church. There was then a simultaneous rush from all per- sons in the church. I saw some hand from the south gal- lery on the book, I suppose attempting to secure it. I ob- served a rush from the south gallery. A partition between the choir and organ gallery gave way. It was forced down by the persons behind. The rector and those with bim ap- pealed to be in danger. I had no personal fear, but had ap- prehensions for the safety of others. I saw Rawlins the constable come up. He had a light stick in his hand. There was an altercation between Muntz and him. They stood ill opposition. 1 think Muntz was trying to prevent Rawlins exercising his duty as a constable. 1 saw a struggle. I observed the constable's 6taff. Soon after, the disturbance was abated. Cross- examined by Mr Sergeant Adams: The doors of the pews were all shut at tile time of the disturbance. This was caused by the pressure made by parties getting towards the rector's pew. I can't swear to the person who took hold of Winfield's arm ; Winfield seemed not willing to go. There was room for Winfield to go down the passage; he is a large man. The case having closed for the prosecution, Mr. Sergeant Wilde rose to address the jury. He said, of all the duties which gentlemen of his profession were called on to perform, none were so painful as those with the discussion of which, in a court of justice, politics were mixed up. Notwithstanding the painB which had been taken in this country to obtain the administration of justice in its greatest purity and impartiality, and however confident an Englishman might feel when he entered the walls of a court of justice, with a British judge to administer the law, and a jury of his country to decide oil the facts brought before them, whether the contest related to property, or cha- racter, or life, yet who did not know, and, still less, who did i feel, who did not admit, that when politics were con- nected with a case, that confidence and courage failed. There was no man more willing to render the highest pos- sible tribute to the impartiality of courts of justice,— and he trusted, in his zeal for his clients, he never forgot what was due to the representative of justice on the bench, or that which was due to the jury impannelled,— but he did not think he departed from that respect to one part of the court or the other, when he said he had not the same confidence, when politics were mixed up with the question, to come before them. The most upright and honest were alike subject to be led into error; they were not aware of the effect of particular opinions and prejudices on their judgments; and, not being aware, they took the less care to guard against their influence. He was not there to say a word in defence of; he would not extenuate or apologise ( For continuation tee page 6./ 4 THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 7. ( Concluded from page 7.; in the second place, as inapplicable to the conduct of the rector, whose intentions I believed to be perfectly honest; and, in the third place, as improper, under any circumstances, when applied to a clergyman. Pare unhesitatingly acquiesced in the omission; the rector declined putting the question. I think the nomination took place before Mr. Muntz spoke or took any part. The people in the north gallery were very noisy whenever any person near me spoke. They were not noisy when 1 addressed the meeting. I re- member Mr. Fare's application to the meeting respecting the inspection of the books. Mr. Pare passed from the place where he stood without any violence. He was pre- vented from entering the rector's pew by Mr. Freer. At that time several persons rushed down the passage between the two pews. A very short time after Mr. Pare went to the rector's pew Muntz left our pew; there was then a very considerable number of persons in the passage, and Muntz could not get out through the door of the pew. I saw Bluntz get up and stand upon the tops of the pews. I did not see Knott take hold of Muntz's stick; the stick was returned to me; Muntz handed me the stick. I said to him " Muntz give me your stick," and he did so. Prior to that time he had not used the stick, ' or raised it in any threatening manner. My reason for asking for the stick was, that the state of the other party was so very irritable, that I believed if there was a head broken in the church the blame would be laid on that stick. ( Laughter.) The Judge: This man would have settled the whole matter in half a minute had it been left to him. Mr. Sergeant Wilde : He would, indeed, my lord. Examination continued: I gave the stick to M'Donnell. I never quitted the pew from the time I went into it in the morning, until the rector had vacated the chair. I remember Muntz returning to the pew. The stick never was removed from where M'Donnell placed it until Mr. Muntz quitted the church. Pare very speedily disappeared from my sight after getting to the rector's pew. Muntz appeared to me to go from his own pew from motives of curiosity. He came back to his own pew in about one minute and a half. 3 saw no excitement occasioned by Muntz, nor was there anything in his demeanour calculated to cause excitement. I noticed some person speak to Muntz as he was returning to his seat. The person seemed to make use of some offen- sive words to Muntz ; he ( the person in question) appeared very angry. Muntz turned back and spoke to him sharply; he then came to his seat in the pew, where he remained until the proceedings of the meeting were all over. I saw nothing during the day in Muntz's conduct to disapprove; I saw no violence nor threatening of any sort. There was a great number of persons who came rushing down the pas sage towards the rector's pew when Pare left our pew. I saw nobody with any staff or stick in his hand. I did not see any indication of personal violence to the rector or any of his party. There was a great deal of noise in all parts of the church, except in the left part of the organ gallery. I did not see Pierce do anything. I was in such a situation that if he had committed any violence I must have seen it; it was impossible he could commit any violence without me seeing him. I do not recollect having seen Mr. Trow. I did not then know his person. The confusion lasted about two minutes and a half or three minutes. It seemed to die a natural death. Several persons walked over the backs of the pews. I saw no cause for alarm from the beginning to the end. I should think there were about fifteen hundred persons in the church. Cross- examined by the Attorney- General: I did not see any persons clothed with authority except the street- keepers. When Pare came back to his pew the affair ceased. I am editor of the Birmingham Journal, and have lieen since February, 1836. That paper supports the in- dependent party in Birmingham. Muntz belongs to that party. I never knew Muntz before I came to Birm- ingham ; since then I have been rather intimate with him. I am a member of the Political Union of Birmingham. Muntz no longer resides in Birmingham, but I believe he is still a member of the Union. There was a very consi. derable amount of disapprobation when the rector and his party entered the organ gallery. I entirely disapproved of it. There was a motion put by Muntz for another chairman. I do not recollect whether I held up my hand for the motion. It was carried by a very large majority. Counting heads, there was a large party for winfield as chairman. Winfield was somewhere about the top of the organ gallery when the motion was carried. He then came down and stood in the pasiage. I recollect Pare being refused the minute book. 1 did not hear such re- marks as " Take it by force." The report in the Journal of the proceedings is not my report. I should say that there are some parts of that report not correct. Pare was standing when he asked the authority of the meeting to demand a sight of the book. When Pare went to the rector's pew, there was a rush down the passage. I did not see any rushing from the south gallery; when Muntz left his pew he carried his stick with him. It had not been out of his hand at any time until I received it from him. I am not even now aware that any of the pews were broken. If I had heard the crash it would not have alarmed me. I did not consider Muntz or any other person to be in danger. The disturbance had hardly commenced when I received the stick from Muntz. Muntz was not out of the pew moie than two or two and a half minutes. I did not see any person try to get possession of the book by force. I did not see Trow driven back. I saw Pierce in the passage. I should suppose a dozen of peisons at least rushed down the passage. The street- keepers stood per- fectly quiet. My opinion is, that the interposition of the street- keepers would have created a riot. By Mr. Sergeant Wilde : It was not more, I should say, than half a quarter of a minute from the time that Muntz spoke angrily to the person mentioned in my evidence until he finally returned to his seat. Mr. Benjamin Hadley examined: I was in the front pew of the organ gallery, on the 28th of March, 1837; I am one of the guardians of the poor. I remember Pare going from his seat towards the rector's pew; I went after him. He had arrived at the rector's pew before I got up from my seat; I saw he was obstructed ; I fancied he was in danger when I went towards him. There was some noise. I saw Rawlins, but I did not know then he was a constable; I mistook him for his brother. Muntz told me he was a con- stable. I said to Rawlins, " You are not Rawlins the con- stable." He then pulled back the flap of his coat, and pointed to the head or tail of his staff, which was in his pocket. I said to him, " If you are a constable, I give Mr. Pare into your charge, for I am sure he does not intend to break the peace." Rawlins said, " I know he does not." I then said, " take care of Mr. Pare." Muntz never at- tempted to get into the rector's pew; I lost sight of him for a short time. I don't know what became of him. At the same time I lost sight of Rawlins. Rawlins looked a little queer, not greatly agitated. Muntz looked rather cheerful. He laughed at me when I said Rawlins was not a constabJe. Cross- examined by Mr. Balguy: I lost sight of Rawlins and Muntz for a minute or so. I am not sure whether Pare was in the rector's pew. The repulse he met with made me apprehensive of danger to him. I will swear he was pushed violently. The width of the pew 1 was in was perhaps four feet and a half. I do mean to swear I con- sidered Pare in danger; I thought he would be an- noyed. I am a member of the Political Union; I am not secfetary; I have been. Mr. Sergeant Adams : The other party are of the Loyal and Constitutional Association. Mr. Hadley, in continuation : There is no doubt I either moved or seconded Muntz's proposition for the removal of the rector. Mr. Thomas Hadley: I am not any relation to the last witness. I saw Munrz get out of his pew, with the stick in his hand. He went towards the pews behind the rector. A short time after lie was on the pew, Knott laid hold of his stick, apparently to wrest it from him. Mr. Douglas asked him for his stick, and he gave it to him. When he got down from the pew I saw him in earnest conversation with Foye; after that he conversed with Rawlins. Rawlins had a stick in his hand, and appeared as if he were going to strike somebody, upon which Muntz put up his hand to pre- vent him. He then returned to his seat. Cross- examined : I think Douglas was near enough to see Knott, if he looked that way. I saw Trow try to get into the rector's pevv. I saw Pierce amongst those in the passage. I did not see Muntz attempt to lay hold of Raw- lins's stick. He only raised his hand to prevent him from stiiking ; not to take his s ick from him. The Attorney- General rose to reply. The learned gentleman said the case had been a very long and fatiguing one; but he was sure that to its termination the jury would show that patience and atten- ion whicli had hitherto characterised their demeanour. He was sorry to be obliged to begin by a remark or two personal to himself. . His conduct as counsel for the prosecution had been arraigned. In the common discharge of his duty as a counsel practising in Her Ma- jesty's Court of Queen's Bench; he assisted Sir Wm. Follett, in ob- taining this criminal information. The criminal information being granted, the powerful assistance of his learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, was called in on the part of the defendants, and certainly they could not have made a more discreet choice. He was retained, he allowed very unnecessarily, to attend before my lord and them ( the jury; as counsel for the prosecution. He should have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, under these circumstances, if he had deserted the clients who had placed confidence in him ; and, there- fore, though far from willingly, he now presented himself before them. In conducting this prosecution had he shown any excess of zeal ? Had he at all stepped out of his path ? He opened the case • with calmness and moderation, and without the slightest attempt to appeal either to their passions or their prejudices. If, as advocate for the rector and churchwardens, he had stated anything contrary to what he might have stated in his capacity as member of Parlia- ment, or as a member of the community, he did not think it would be quite correct to bring against him, speaking from his instructions as counsel, what he might have said as a private individual, or as a member of Parliament; but much Jess was it justifiable to make euch an attempt, when there was nothing in his address that was in the slightest degree, contradicted by the quotation his friend, in his good taste, had thought fit to bring before them. He most cautiously abstained from saying one word respecting the question of church- rates. He did not believe that word escaped his mouth during the whole address. What right, therefore, had Sergeant Wilde to bring forward what he ( the Attorney- General) might have said upon that subject upon some former occasion. It was bad taste ; it was wholly unjustifiable. There might be a difference of qpinion respecting what is the best mode by which the sacred edifices of the country should be supported; but he hoped all good men agreed in this, that those sacred edifices should be supported, that public worship in this country should be maintained. On this and upon all occasions he had said and would say, if there be any grievance complained of, let such grievance be redressed lawfully and constitutionally, but while the law exists let it be respected and obeyed. That was the language he had ever held, that was the language he would ever hold. He would now pass on to his clients. An attack had been made upon the rector, for instituting this prosecution. Was the scene that took place on the 28th of March, 1837, to pass over like a summer cloud ? Were such scenes to be repeated from year to year, and to spread from Birmingham around the rest of the realm? It was indispensably necessary that the growing disposition to tumult and disturbance should be checked. Such a disregard of all that ought to keep men within the bounds of moderation in society, ren- dered it indispensably necessary that a prosecution should be insti- tuted. What course did the rector pursue ? On the 31st of March a circular is issued among the most influential and respectable inhabi- tants of the parish, that they should meet upon the Monday follow- ing— the seventh day after the time when the disturbance took place — to consider what were the proper steps to be pursued. An ob- servation of Sergeant Wilde, though irregular, had gratified him, because it enabled him to show that there was no foundation what- ever for the charge that this prosecution was instituted to meet an action that had been brought against the proprietor of a newspaper. The meeting was assembled upon the 3rd of April, and there was not the slightest evidence that any action was in contemplation, until the 5th of April There was much more reason to suppose that the action was sued out as an answer to the information, than that the information was a set oft' to the action. Well, on the 3d of April a meeting is held, whenit is resolved that an application should be made to the Court of Queen's Bench— Mr. Sergeant Wilde : There is no evidence of any such resolution, Mr. Attorney. The Attorney- General : Mr. Elkington proved it. Mr. Sergeant Wilde: I certainly did not hear it. After some further conversation the learned counsel proceeded— He thought his lordship would recollect Mr. Elkington stated, that it was on the 3d resolved to apply to the Courtof Queen's Bench. Was there anything improper in that ? An application to the Court of Queen's Bench gave the party accused a very great advantage ; he was heard in his defence before the bill was found.— Everything he could say to purge himself and to implicate the accuser could be stated— and it was not until both sides had been heard, that the pro- secution was decided upon. Was there anything, therefore, in the conduct of the prosecution which in the slightest degree could be complained of? There has been a subscription. Was a wealthy man, like Mr. Muntz, to be allowed to defy the law? Was he to retain what counsel he pleased, and the prosecutor, be he curate, be he rector, or be he churchwarden, not to be assisted by the liberality of his friends? In his speech, among other topics, his learned friend complained that a notiee had been given to Mr. Muntz to exhibit before them his mustachios and his beard. But it turns out that no- tice was given to all the defendants— Mr. Muntz, Mr. Pare, Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Trow; and it was a notice which iny lord might be aware was a very general notice. There was nothing unusual or calculated to give the smallest ground of complaint in it. But every, thing was turned against them ; even the offer that, in a spirit of Christian charity, which had ever distinguished Mr. Moseley, he was instructed to make— that if these defendants would only acknow- ledge that they were wrong, and that, in future, their behaviour should be lawful and orderly— they were; willing to forego all punish- ment. Because they made that offer, it was said their object was to have a triumph! The speech of his friend, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, was very eloquent; it was not very logical; and the reason was, that the subject did not permit of it. He gave no analysis of the evidence, and why ? because it would have shown there was a strong and conclusive case made out against his clients. His learned friend said it was very late, and he had occupied a great deal of time ; but they might depend upon it he would not have had the slightest remorse in keeping them till midnight, if he thought he could derive the slightest advantage to his client. His learned friend had confi- dence in juries, to a certain degree, no doubt; but he always took c ire to assist them when the evidence wasjdeficient, unsatisfactory, or contradictory. His learned friend entirely, or, in a great mea- sure, abstained, from giving thetn the faintest notion of the evidence that he himself was to adduce ; and why ? Because he knew full well that he had no material evidence to offer; he knew that his wit- nesses would be of no value in proving the innocence of his clients. What did his learned friend resort to, then, in the extremity of his case ? Why, to the argument, that this is a political prosecution ; that they were politicians; and he ventured ( with respect, no doubt) to insinuate that my lord was a politician, and that he could not, with confidence, expect justice at the hands either of judge or jury. Mr. Justice Park : I never was in the House of Commons. ( A laugh.) The Attorney- General: They as little as my lord, wonld be frightened from their propriety by the big words of Mr. Sergeant Wilde. Englishmen like that all should discharge their duty in their respeetive situations with integrity and with firmness ; admi- nistering justice with mercy; but at the same time, repelling any attempt that may be made to sway them by threats, any more than by cajolery. What did his learned friend expect by representing this as a political case ? Why, that those whose general feelings and wishes were hostile to the part that Mr. Muntz may take in pub- lic life, to show their excess of candour, their great impartiality, should be prevented from giving that verdict of guilty, which, as impartial and discerning men, they would feel it to be their duty to pronounce; or he might hope that those who support the party to which Mr. Muntz belongs, should enlist themselves as political par- tisans. But that was a vain hope on the part of his learned friend. He ( the'Attorney- General) cared not to which side they or any of them belonged. He appealed to them, as twelve English gentle, men, assembled to assist in the administration of justice, to remem_ ber the oath they have taken— to look to the evidence, and to find a" verdict according to the evidence. He must do both parties the jus. tice to say, that politics were never interposed, except as far as his learned friend found it convenient to put an infusion of politics into this prosecution. But if politics were mixed up with it, he would say from his experience, that he should enter a court of justice with the most perfect confidence. It had happened that he had been in a great many political cases, and during the last seven years there had been a peculiar fervour on the subject of politics, yet he must say, in every political case in which he had been engaged, he had never heard expressed a complaint against judge or iury on the one side or the other. They did hear of committees of the House of Commons acting as partisans, and that complaint was so loud and universal, that lie was afraid there was some foundation for it; but he gloried in the assertion, that justice in the common law courts continued to be administered with perfect purity and impartiality. " Now, gentlemen, " continued the learned counsel, " let me con- sider the case that I laid before you, and let me afterwards consider how it has been met. In the first place, was there not on the part of the prosecution, the most complete evidence of what is called the corpus delicti? Was there not evidence of a riot— of an affray— of an assault— of a breach of the peace ? I was not surprised at a question put by my lord when the first witness for the defendants finished his examination. I asked if he had made an affidavit in the Court of Queen's Bench ? My lord asked on which side. Gentlemen, the great bulk of the evidence given on the part of the defendants strongly corroborates and supports the case made on the part of the prosecution. There is a meeting on Easter Tuesday. 1837, in the parish church of St. Martin's, Birmingham, for the'election of churchwardens. There are 1,500 to 2,000 persons present. The rec. tor takes the chair, he names one churchwarden— there are two can- didates put up for the office of parish churchwarden. The poll be- gins— one party is dissatisfied with the arrangements that were made. There is a great uproar and confusion ; there is a vote of censure on the rector, by whom it was put, does not exactly appear. It is followed by the resolution, carried by a great majority, that the rector should be removed from the chair. A foolish pretext is then made for interrupting the poll, by talking about electing a new vestry clerk; a book is demanded; it is refused; and one party asks to be elected the representative of the people to demand a sight of the book, and that resolution carried, he immediately rises from his pew, and walks across to to take it by force. His going is the signal for a great rush to the same quarter. There is a scuffle between that individual and ano- ther ; there is a scuffle between two other individuals, 1 need not now name; there is a scuffle between a third party ; the pews gave way— there is a crash on the one side and on the other, and cries of " throw him over;" " pitch him over;" " pitch them over;" " take it by force." The police are called in; a constable comes; the constable has his staff of office ; they try to wrest it from hiin : they are rushing towards the place where the rector is sitting: he restrains them, makes use of the force which was necessary for that purpose, and he strikes them again and again. There is a general alarm : a general confusion. Some might remain unmoved in the midst of a scene which threatened such serious consequences. We know that at the Battle of Waterloo there were persons who were not at all alarmed, but generally speaking, those who had only ordi- nary nerves, were alarmed in the highest degree : and one person, a clergyman of the church, that holds it improper that any of their priests should be present at a scene of blood, withdrew to escape the sacrilege. Gentlemen, is not that a riot ? My learned friend, Sergeant Wilde, was the first, I think, to question that there had been a riot here : arid what says my learned friend, it was no riot, because they met for a lawful purpose. Gentlemen, I will not criti- cally inquire whether they met for a lawful purpose or not. I will assume, gentlemen, for the sake of argument, that they were met for a lawful purpose. Will it be said, that if men are once met for a lawful purpose, that they can never undertake an unlawful purpose ? that nothing they afterwards do or say, or contravene, or sanction, can amount to a " riot ? Gentlemen, while men are engaged in a law- ful purpose, while they continue to pursue the lawful purpose, I allow it would only be an affray : but if they meet for a lawful pur- pose, and then undertake an unlawful, it is the same as if they had met originally for that unlawful purpose. Gentlemen, according to the proposition of my friend, there never was an election riot, since elections in England began ? Why ? Because it is lawful to meet, either for a county election or a borough election! An election riot is the most common riot that the law knows; and yet, if the doctrine of my learned friend is to prevail, there never could be such a riot. But I say, that from the time that Mr. Muntz put that motion to disl place the chairman, to elect another chairman in his place, to pre- vent the lawful electi on of a churchwarden, that the purpose was unlawful. Can it be doubted, gentlemen, that they entered upon an unlawful purpose when they attempted to cashier Mr. Moseley, and to place another chairman in his room? My learned friend could not at all grapple with the difficulty that was thrown upon him of the ancient and immemorial usage in England, that the minister of the parish has a right to preside at all parish meetings; of which rule, when the 58th of George III. was passed, so fully was the legislature convinced, that they thought it unnecessary either to declare or enact such a thing. The rule was indeed laid down in the case of " Wilson and M'Math," decided more than twenty years ago, and has been the law of England ever since; it is universally known and recognised; it has not only had the sanction of the Court of King's Bench, but you have a solemn judgment of the supreme judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, Sir John Nichol, repre- senting the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Courtof Arches, to confirm it. Therefore, Mr. Moseley being installed as chairman, gentlemen, I say, without disrespect, he had as good a right to it a3 my lord, under the Queen's commission, has to administer the justice of the country. Now, gentlemen, was not the motion to dispossess the rector of the chair clearly unlawful ? Was not the assembly from that moment unlawful ? And if the peace were dis- turbed, did it not amount to a riot? Gentlemen, if it is not a riot it is still of little importance. I have not heard my learned frk'nd contend that it is not an affray. Is there not, in the information, a count for an affray and a riot ? I believe the only difference is this, that, with regard to a riot, all who are present are liable, whether they interfere or not; with regard to an affray, a man is only liable for that which he does or excites. If it is an affray, gentlemen, of what avail would that be to Mr. Muntz ? I don't call upon you to find him guilty, merely because he was present. I call upon you to find him guilty because he incited the riot— because he took an ac- tive part in it— because he was one of the ringleaders; and I say the same of Mr. Pare. Unless you believe that they did incite the riot, that they encouraged it, that they partook in it, for God's sake! find them not guilty. Let me remind you of the course they pursued. Mr. Muntz began very early, and Mr. Pare began very earlv, but I will pass over all that Mr. Muntz did, and all that Mr. Pare did, until I come to that important period in these proceedings when, first, Mr. Pare proposed, and then Mr. Muntz made formal motion for ejecting Mr. Moseley from the chair. Gentlemen, my learned friends have asked whether this meeting was not to be governed by the lex loci ? whether equal tnrbulence had not prevailed before ? Gentlemen, if I had made such a lame case before you, that it was mere yelling, hissing, and hooting, then the custom might have been called in aid; but I ask for your verdict on this ground, that there was an incitement to a breach of the peace, and that the peace was broken. Mr. Muntz made a motion to cashier the chairman, and he had the courtesy to ask Mr. Moseley himself to put the motion, that he bim& elf pl> o\* ld be cashiered. We have heard of the Pope that was so impartial as to say Judicome cremari, " I adjudge myself to the flames," and upon that authority Mr. Moseley was asked to put the question, whether Mr. Winfield should not be substituted as chairman. Mr. Moseley refused, as any man of firmness and con- sistency would have done. What does Mr. Muntz do ? He himself put the question, and he called for a show of hands. Was not that, gentlemen, teaching the assembled multitude to disregard the law ? Unless my friend could have called witnesses to contradict the fact; to show Muntz never did put that motion; that all our witnesses had sworn on the subject was imagination or fabrication, it was use- less in him to call witnesses to seek to secure a verdict in his favour. Gentlemen, after teaching the multitude they could eject one chair- man and elect another, he whs answerable from that time for the consequences that ensued. Mr. Muntz's motion was not a mere empty form, for, although there was not such violence that Mr. Moseley was taken hold of and desired to get about his business, Mr. Winfield, who was at that time at the back of the gallery, was brought forward— he did present himself at the front of the gallery, and was taken into Mr. Mantz's pew, and there he stood up in front of the assembled multitude, that they might hail him as their new sovereign. Mr. Moseley displayed due firmness and energy; he said, " I will not leave this chair till the business of the meeting is concluded ;" he kept his chair, and the plan of substituting a new chairman was defeated. What was then done ? I never heard of such a shabby pretext: they complain of the absence of Mr. Arnold, that most respectable gentleman who has been examined here to- day, although Mr. Arnold was only absent from illness, they say that they will choose a new vestry clerk. And for what purpose, do you think ? Why, for the purpose of asking his opinion ! Now, if it had been merely for the sake of asking the opinion of any indi- vidual who was present, for, I suppose, they would not have elected a person who was absent, that person might have given hi » opinion just as well, if he had been asked, without being elected vestry clerk. But their only object was to bring about confusion and mischief. They demanded the book. Now, gentlemen, what information was the book to give them upon this subject ? As far as the proceedings of 1836 were concerned, those proceedings had actually been read at the opening of the meeting, so that they knew that at Easter, 1836, there had been no election of vestry clerk. Mr. Sergeant Wilde: It was the minutes of the preceding meeting that was read. The Attorney- General: Most undoubtedly, of 1836; and from those proceedings it clearly appeared that there had been no such election, as they full well knew. What is their next step? The rector refuses to show them the book. He said—" this is not the time or the place." Mr. Pare most unnecessarily, most unjustifiably, makes an appeal to the people, that had an inevitable tendency to raise and excite them. What authority did he want from the meet- ing ? Mr. Pare had all the right that belongs to a rate- payer, but he would not proceed until he had been elected representative of the meeting. Gentlemen, I ask you, was not that a most inflam- matory proceeding ? I have heard of Birmingham, some twenty years ago, I think, choosing a representative in a somewhat similar manner. I know not whether the one was to be considered as the model of the other. He puts it to the meeting, whether he should act as their representative, and they say, We will, we will, we will! we do! yes, yes!"— and there are prodigious clieer3. If Mr. Pare had not at that time meditated a breach of the peace, if he had been contented with doing what his counsel, my learned friend, Mr. Humfrey, said was his intention, merely to get a sight of the book that had been refused before over and over again ; if he wanted a formal refusal after he had been elected representative, if that was to give him new power and new functions, would it not have been an easy thing for him to have got the refusal remaining in the pew where he sat ? Gentlemen, we have a plan here proved, and drawn to a scale. [ The learned counsel heldup the plan.] Here is Mr. Muntz's pew, here is the rector's pew ; and these pews are seven feet long and no more, and two feet is the width of the passage, so that the extremity of one pew to another is sixteen feet, and no more.* Mr. Pare, I suppose, stood about the middle of his pew, the rector about the middle of this, aud they must have been quite near enough for Mr. Pare to have been heard stating he was appointed representative of the meeting and to make a de- mand of the book in the name of the parish. What does Mr. Pare do ? He gets up, he leaves his own pew ; his object evidently was to get into the rector's pew ; that is not disputed, and he did get into it. Now, just consider the state of the rector's pew at that time. According to the evidence that has been given there were seven per- sons in the rector's pew; and if any person wished to press into a pew so filled., it would tend to bring about a breach of the peace. There were cries of " Take it by force." Why did not Mr. Pare then say, " No, for God's sake; I mean no force, I mean nothing but what is peaceable and legal;" but no, he goes on till he is repelled by Mr. Freer, and those that were in the rector's pew. There was a rush from the party in the organ gallery, there was a rush from the school gallery, which is part of the south gallery; and what is more, gentlemen, and I do ask you most respectfully not to forget this fact, that, though the rector's party sat still in their pew, all, except Mr. Douglas, left the pew of Mr. Muntz, for Mr. Douglas said he did not know that any other person remained. Mr. Sergeant Wilde : That is not so. The Attorney- General: I say that it is so, gentlemen; I know not who else remained; Mr. Donglas says he remained, and he is per- fectly accurate. What was the consequence? Why this must easily have been foreseen, and could not be avoided, there was such a scene of uproar and confusion as has seldom been witnessed. There were cries of " Throw liim over," " Pitch him over," " Pitch them over," and the rector was in the greatest alarm. He says he was crushed,— was he not assaulted? Is not a crush an assault? Two persons attempted to get in from the south gallery ; the parti- tion was broken between the rector's pew and the south gallery- two seats behind gave way, there was a general crush, and there was apprehension that life might be lost. What does Mr. Muntz do in the mean time ? We are told that Mr. Muntz came not to give Mr. Winfield a vote— nor at all to support what was called the anti- rate party, but he was there as the harbinger of peace. Gentlemen, I never heard any person behave more whimsically than Mr. Muntz did if that was his object. Was it likely to produce peace in that meeting to accuse the rector of gross partiality ? Was it to produce peace that Mr. Muutz moved that Mr. Moseley should be removed from the chair, and that another should be substituted in his place ? Should you not have expected that he would have mounted, if not upon the ledge of the front pew, at least upon the seat of the front pew— that he would have addressed the multitude— that he would have said, " Men of Birmingham, preserve your character— you know the influence that I deservedly possess over you— you know that you love, honour, ( and respect me— I do intreat you, as a proof of that love, honour, and respect, that you will behave yourselves in a quiet, orderly, and decent manner— there is here great tumult — there is great apprehension that some disastrous consequences may follow. I see people rushing from the back gallery, and from the south gallery. I am afraid that something fatal may ensue. I be- seech you, my fellow- townsmen, to be quiet, peaceable, and orderly." But Mr. Muntz was not content with silence, he did not remain in the pew where he was, but, according to all the witnesses, he first stepped upon the front of the seat, then he went in a diagonal '. line, and he crossed the passage. For what purpose did Mr. Muntz rise from his seat during this stormy scene that was then going forward in the church ?— for what purpose did he rise from his seat ?— for what purpose did he show himself to the assembled multitude ? Can any reasonable man entertain a doubt that his object was to support Mr. Pare, and to support those who at that very moment were rushing towards the rector's pew, for the purpose of snatching the minute- book? Pare says, " I left my pew that I might go and in- spect the minute- book. I could not conveniently in my pew." That, I say, is a shabby pretence; but even such a pretext has not Mr. Muntz, for he did not profess to say that he was going for the purpose of examining the book. The degree to which Mr. Muntz made use of his stick seems to me not at all material; you_ will bear in mind that it is proved by five or six respectable witnesses, that in clambering over these pews he did flourish that stick around his head,— that that was understood as a signalfor the multitude, and that it produced a sensible effect upon those who were in the body of the church. There is a difference in the witnesses called on the part of the defendant. Some say that he oscillated with the stick. Some say that it was necessary for his support, some say that he held it in his left hand, and some that they don't know in which hand he held it; but I have called five or six witnesses before you, who positively swear that they saw him waiv- ing it round his head ; and I will now make an observation-^ that in cases of this sort, positive evidence is altogether ovei whelming against any negative evidence that may be adduced. If I find respec- table witnesses saying and pledging their oath that they saw such a thing; if they can call twenty to say they did not, it amounts to nothing at all. Well, the constable comes in,— that most respecta- ble gentleman, Mr. Rawlins— and it is distinctly proved beyond all doubt, that Mr. Rawlins was known by all Birmingham to be the constable— that he was particularly well known by Mr. Muntz to be the constable. What was Mr. Muntz's duty, as soon as he saw a person coming to preserve order, fortified by the authority of the law ? It was his duty to submit; but what did he do ? According to my testimony, which is not at all contradicted, Mr. Muntz, instead of submitting to the authority of the law when he saw Mr. Rawlins, seized the walking- stick that Mr. Rawlins had in his hand. That was an assault upon Mr. Rawlins, which would support the count in the indictment, whereby he is charged with an assault. A number of street- keepers was introduced. My learned friend represented by his cross- examination that there were not more than two or three, we have proved fourteen— his own witnesses have brought them to the number of six or eight. Mr. Justice Park : Eight or ten. The Attorney- General: It is not an easy matter to restore tran- quillity; the rush still continued; Rawlins, in restraining those who were pressing forwards against the rector, was obliged to do what the law will justify a constable in doing— he struck those who dis- regarded his authority— and several of those whom he was thus trying to restrain, actually seized his constable's staff and tried to wrest it from his grasp. Now, upon this evidence, can there be the slightest doubt that both Mr. Muntz and Mr. Pare were the inciters, the instigators, the contrivers, and the participators of that breach of the peace? Sergeant Wilde extended his shield, by way of pro- tection, to the two other defendants, who had not an immediate call upon his patronage, I mean Mr. Pare and Mr. Pierce; I think my friend had not a word to say for Trow. I think that Trow was abandoned to his fate. Mr. Justice Park: No, Mr. Waddington made a speech in his behalf. The Attorney- General : I was only talking of my friend, Sergeant Wilde. I think that whenever Trow'sname occurred to my friend, it stuck in his throat, it seemed to be the intention that Trow should be convicted, and that theothers should get off scot free. But let us see what the evidence is against Trow: Trow came to the pew immediately behind the rector, he tried to get into the rector's pew ; he stretched out hia hand for the purpose of grasping the book, and it was only when he was repelled by those who were in the rector's pew that he was obliged to retreat. Mr. Justice Park : No, no. he put his legs in. The Attorney- General: He put his legs in and his hands. If you believe my evidence, the case is made out against Trow beyond all contradiction. My learned friend seemed to think that there was a riot, an affray, an assault, yet that no one was guilty. Now, i! neither Muntz wa3 guilty, nor Pare, nor Trow, nor Pierce, I should like to know who were ? It may be a circumstance of mitigation to Trow, if he is ill in the manner that has been described, I will take upon myself at once to say, that your verdict shall never give him any uneasiness. Mr. Justice Park : I never allow that argument to be used, it is a way of entrapping the jury that I don't approve of. The Attorney- General: I am obliged to my lord for the caution he has given me. You are to look to the evidence, and upon the evidence I say that Trow was taking part in it. If he was incited by those who ought to have known better, that may be a circum- stance of mitigation when he comes to receive the sentence of the law. But I say, that you have to consider this, and this only— did lie take a part in the disturbance ? I have now to draw your attention to what is proved against Pierce. Mr. Waddington made a power- ful speech in his favour, but I think he was a little too minute, if I may venture to criticise his speech, in detailing to you the evidence. He mentioned to you the evidence of Mr. Moseley, Foye, Gut- teridge, Bates, Guest, and I think Cox. Now, Mr. Moseley said that he was taking a very violent partin what was done. Foye said that he advanced tumultously. Gutteridge says— I saw him rush hehind the back of the pew to get at the book. Bates says— I saw him rush behind the pew. Guest says— I saw him rush up the passage. Well, then, he rushed up the passage, and he reached his hand to get the book— he i8 foiled in that attempt, but that attempt he makes at several different intervals." The learned counsel said they might have included others in the information, but they wished to reach the principals only. He proceeded to remark on the re- spectability of his witnesses, the reverend rector and the rest. Their respectability was unchallenged and unchallengeable—" My learned friend has not ventured to make a single observation to the disparagement of any of the witnesses, except, I think, Mr. Foye, the Irish gentleman who talked of a shillelah. Now, gentlemen, you must make a little allowance for an Irishman. With regard to Mr. Rawlins, I don't recollect a person whose manner and appear- * This is a mistake. The rector's pew is nine feet eight inches, the opposite pew, eight feet eight inches,, long; the passage is two feet nine inches broad. ance would operate more as a letter of introduction than his; he is carrying on a large business at Birmingham— he is the constable, holding a very onerous and gratuitous office— he attends the meet- ings of the magistrates, and he- perambulates the streets at night, for the purpose of seeing that there is no violation of decorum and good order, and it was he that was asked to attend on this 28th of March. He states that the regular police had come to Warwick, but all the streetkeepers were brought into the church, but when the row took place, he came to restore order, and had he not come in— had it not been for his interference, I think there is reason to apprehend there might have been loss of life. Gentlemen, what reason have you, in the slightest degree, to suspect that the rector, or the witnesses who followed him, have the smallest intention to misrepresent, or colour, or pervert the evidence that they gave ? If you give credit to their evidence, there is a clear and conclusive case made out against all and each of the defendants. The best proof of that is, that my learned foiends were not contented with their ingenious, eloquent, and touching speeches, but that they called witnesses to the number, I think, of fourteen or fifteen. A long list of witnesses is called ; and now let us see what that evi- dence amounts to. The editor of the Philanthropist states the most important fact, that there were cries from the south gallery— loud cries of " take it by force!" Is not that fact most important? In what single circumstance is there in any degree a contradiction, with regard to their having been a riot and disturbance? One witness said that there was a noise resembling the rubbing of a thumb upon a tambourine. My learned friend had enough of that. We had it ouly from one performer; and then we have Punch and Judy! Gen. tlemen, it might be sport to those who likened this riot to Punch and Judy, but it was like to be death to the rector and those who were sitting about him. As far as the riot goes, the evidence called on the part of the defendants shows that it must have been more aggra- vated than I was able to make out by the evidence on the part of the prosecution. Gentlemen, I don't rely, as I tell you, upon the yells or hoots, or the tambourine; but, gentlemen, I do rely upon the cries of " throw him over!" " pitch him over!" I do rely upon other words that were used that I will not now repeat— and whether they came from one or from another, for the purpose of this inquiry is wholly immaterial. Two or three witnesses were called upon to draw a parallel between this meeting and former meetings at Bir- mingham; it turned out that at former meetings there had been yells and hootings, and there had been police, but at no former meet- ing had there been a resolution to cashier the chairman— at no former meeting had there been a demand from the rector, after a refusal, of the vestry book— at no former meeting had any of the parties gone towards the president, and tried to snatch the book from his hands — at no former meeting had the pews given way— at no former meeting was there any danger to life and limb— at no former meet- ing had the constables been called in, or a tumult quelled by the officers of the law. I hope there will not be many more meet- ings either for a church- rate or any such stirring questions in churches; but till the law is altered they must take place some- where, and this prescription at Birmingham remark is not con. fined to a riot in a church, it is claimed all over the town of Birmingham. If there were former meetings such as this in Bir- mingham, that would not alter the law of England: that would not give a privilege to riot, and an affray, and an assault and battery in that part of Her Majesty's dominions. But I am glad to find that this meeting stands out in relief, and as an exception to any meeting that either ever took place in a church or out of a church: that it exceeds any thing that ever took place at any meet- ing of the Political Union, in any part of Birmingham. Although Mr. Douglas did not see the peace officer come, other witnesses called on the part of the defendant allow that a peace officer did come, that there were several, and that it was by their efforts that tranquillity was restored. Now let us see how that evidence goes to exculpate any of the four defendants. Do any of the witnesses say that Muntz did not charge the rector with gross partiality ? that he did not move that the rector be removed from the chair ? Does any one of them say that Muntz did not support and abet Mr. Pare, when Pare wished to be qualified as a representative of the parish, for the purpose of seizing the minute- book ? Gentlemen, you have had called before you several witnesses. I will not throw any general aspersions upon them. God forbid that I should say they came here to perjure themselves. Far from it. You will recollect that they have had a year to forget: that in such a scene of confusion, one person may see one thing and another see auother, and that negative evidence amounts to nothing at all. We have called eight or ten persons who saw Muntz, Pare, Trow, and Pierce, all actively en- gaged iu this riot. They call witnesses who say, " we did not see them," which amounts absolutely to nothing at all. But those wit- nesses, when we consider a little more narrowly the evidence they gave, will be found nearly all to contradict each other, and most essentially to corroborate the testimony for the prosecution. Of the ten or fifteen witnesses that were called, I believe there were not two that saw the same thing. Several never saw Rawlins, several never saw Knott, several were unaware that Rawlins's stick had ever been seized by Muntz, several were unaware that Knott tried to seize the stick of Mr. Muntz. Now, I will not say that these wit- nesses do not come here to speak to the truth, but you find that they were all at the same time in the organ gallery, and are able to speak of facts only in the most unsatisfactory manner, and many of the facts that are spoken to by one of the witnesses, the others are wholly unconscious of. Mr. Douglas seems to be mainly relied upon by my learned friend, Sergeant Wilde. That gentleman made an excellent speech, expressing Christian sentiments, in which I most heartily concur: they do him great credit, and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Douglas does not mean now to give a fair account of what he saw. Now, gentlemen, if you are to believe that nothing took place, except what Mr. Douglas describes, there would not be a riot at all, Mr. Douglas saw no one assaulted— no struggle — he did not see Trow ejected— he did not see Pierce try to put his hand into the rector's pew— he did not see Freer push back Pare— he did not see Muntz's stick seized by Knott— nay, he was wholly unconscious there was any constable iu the gallery. He saw some streetkeepers, but they were doing nothing— Mr. Douglas was not even alarmed for Mr. Muntz. Mr. M'Donnell, the Roman Catholic priest, felt no anxiety about the rector, but he was very much alarmed for Mr. Muntz— it would have been a melancholy event, which I am sure the whole nation would have deplored, if Mr. Muntz had fallen over the gallery and come to an untimely end- Mr. M'Donnell was so alarmed, that he actually left the church lest he should be present at a scene of blood. Where was Mr. Douglas all this time? why Mr. M'Donnell and Mr. Douglas were standing talking to each other— they were next- door neighbours. It is a most extraordinary thing, Mr. Douglas standing by, that Mr. M'Donnell should have been so much alarmed, and that Mr. Doug- las, who saw the same things, should say that he never felt the slightest degree of alarm, either for Mr. Muntz, or the rector, or any human being. These discrepancies I point out to you as show- ing that no reliance at all can be placed upon the witnesses, how- ever respectable, coming and saying " I did not see it." Mr. Doug- las did not see anything that alarmed him for the safety of Mr. Muntz— he did not see any crush— he heard nothing— he remembers nothing— therefore, for that reason do you disbelieve the other wit- nesses that were called for the defendant ? But there is shown bv the evidence of the defendants, which alone would be sufficient if all the evidence for the prosecution was blotted out from the note book of my lord. It appears from that evidence, not only that there was a motion to cashier the chairman, not only that Pare became the re- presentative, upon his own motion, of the people, but there is evi- dence from what they state, that Pare went from his own pew to that of the rector— there is evidence that this was a signal for a rush — and there is evidence that upon this signal the rush took place. The witnesses on the part of the defendants pi ove that Mr. Pare's intention was to get into the rector's pew, and that at last he suc- ceeded. Is not that taking part in a riot? With respect to Mr. Muntz, this is proved— that when the disturbance had began, that, instead of trying to calm it, he got up upon the seat— he showed hi mself to the whole multitude that was assembled, they all saw that he had a stick in his hand— that Mr. Knott tried to take it— and why ? Because he held it up in a manner which he thought indi- cated that a blow was to be inflcted upon him. I should be very unwilling, gentlemen, to make any remark to the discredit of Mr. Douglas, but I must say that it is an extraordinary thing that it happened just at that time when Mr. Muntz had his stick seized by Mr. Knott, that Mr. Douglas says, " Muntz, give me your stick." Mr. Douglas is a countryman of mine, and we are said to be very prudent and cautious, and I cannot help thinking that this prudent Scotchman, Mr. Douglas, at the time that he said e: Muntz, give me your stick," had a shrewd suspicion that it was to be used as a shillelagh, and that he thought that it was exceedingly necessary, for the security of the peace, that the stick should be impounded. Why should he suppose that it would be imputed to this stick any blow that might be dealt in any part of the church ? Gentlemen, I do most shrewdly suspect, although Mr. Douglas has forgot it, no doubt, that he either had had a little glimpse of the struggle between Mr. Knott and Mr. Muntz, or that he had thought when Mr. Muntz was taking his stick over the tops of the pews, and that it was oscil- lating, mind you, that it might just by chance light upon the head of one of Her Majesty's subjects. If there had been any contradiction of our witnesses, I should have thought that two material wit- nesses might have been called, whom my friend has not ventured to put into the witness box. He says he has a great many others, I should like to know if Mr. Winfield was one of them ? Mr. Sergeant Wilde : He was. The Attorney- General: My learned friend is abundantly prudent. He had Mr. Winfield in his brief, but when my friend looked over his evidence, he thought, instead of making the case better, it would make it worse. Mr. Winfield is able to give evidence of the great- est importance to the defendants. He is not called. Winfield, the new chairman that is elected, is not called! I have great curiosity to know whether Mr. Edmonds is likewise in my learned friend's brief ? Mr. Justice Park : You had better not ask; brother Wilde will say yes. Sergeant Wilde : I will say yes, my lord. The Attorney- General: Mr. Edmonds remained to the conclusion. Mr. Edmonds was a most material witness, if there had been any real contradiction to be given. Mr. Edmonds must have recollected a great deal too much, and for that reason Mr. Edmonds is not pro- duced as a witness before you. Gentlemen, the case is now before you. A few minutes pause ensued after the learned counsel sat down, during which the jury left the box for refreshment. As soon as they returned the proceedings went on. His Lordship commenced summing up about seven o'clock. The learne i Judge said the defendants were charged with rioting and preventing, hindering, aud obstructing the lawful election of a churchwarden, in the parish church of St. Martin's, at Birmingham. The case had occupied for three days the attention of the Jury, and it was his bouuden duty to request earnestly of every one of them not to permit any feeling whatever, but the'feeling of justice, to operate upon their minds. If any of them did allow such a feeling to have influence upon their judgment, and the honest and conscien- tious'discharge of their duty, it was a great offence in the eyes of Al- mighty God. He had requested them on the close of each day' 6 pro- ceedings not to associate with any of the parties concerned, or allow any one to speak to them; and he did hope they had been cautious in that respect. He earnestly entreated them to dismiss all consider- ations from their mind and dispassionately and deliberately to judge upon the case according to the evidence adduced before them, and the evidence only. It had been admitted by the learned counsel on both sides, that the alleged offence having been committed in a place of worship dedicated to the service of Almighty God, was an indig- nity to that God, and an offence highly to be deprecated ; and it was esteemed a very heinous offence by every sincere christian, because that church was a place dedicated to his honour and worship. Still, if the circumstances would not have constituted a riot iu any other place, it must not be considered a riot, merely because it was found to have occurred in a place of worship. It was a matter of considera- tion in the amount of punishment, but had nothing to do with the case in the consideration of the jury.— He was happy to observe that a right rev. prelate had, upon the day the investigation into this case commenced, proposed a measure which, if passed into a law would prevent all such meetings from taking place in future in parish churches. He was clearly of opinion, and had not the slightest particle of doubt upon the subject; that the rector, the vicar, or the perpetual curate had a right to preside at all such parish meetings. It was positively decided by two most eminent judges, Mr. Justice Bayley and Lord Wynford, when upon the bench, in the case of Wilson v. M'Math, about twenty years ago; audit had afterwards been confirmed by that excellent and worthy man, Sir John Nichol], judge of the Arches' Court, in a most elaborate judgment delivered by that very eminent person. The rector, therefore, had a perfect right to take the chair, according to the law of the land ; for the decision he had referred to had never been appealed from. His lordship thought in one point the rector was wrong; he was de- cidedly of opinion that Mr. Moseley had no right to refuse the sight of the parish books to any parishioner whatever who desired to inspect them : and he did think that rev. gentleman would not, unless he had been ill adviBed, have refused the inspection. He did think that if the rev. gentleman had been left to the exercise of his own honest christian feeling, he would have prevented much of the mischief that had occurred. He never saw a gentleman give his evidence in a more christian manner than he did; and he had little doubt, if he had been left to his own judgment, the unfortunate affair, upon which the iury were called to decide, never would have occurred. It appeared* however, Mr. Gutteridge was the rev, gentleman's principal adviser, Why should the rector have consulted that man? His manner in the witness box did not please him ( Mr. Justice Park) at all. He was only sorry that the rector should have consulted Gutteridge and Freer, and those by whom he was surrounded, when his own good sense would have been sufficient to advise such a course as would have prevented all the mischief. He did not mean, in reference to the inspection of the books, to say that every man who paid scot and lot in a parish had a right, on all occasions, to go and demand the books; but when the parishioners were legally assembled for a fit and proper object, as they were on the present occasion, he thought the books, being in the church, ought to have been produced, and the parishioners allowed to inspect them. In that respect he must say the rector was wrong ; and, in his opinion, it was that refusal led to the unpleasant speeches. The first question for their con- sideration was, whether there was a riot or not. In law a riot meant a tumultuous disturbance of the peace, by three persons or more assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another, and to oppose, in a violent and tur- bulent manner, any proper execution of the law to the terror of the people. There were circumstances under which a man might do an act one night which would be legal, although the same act might be illegal on the following night. For instance, if a man went to a theatre and applauded or hissed the actors, as he thought them de- serving of applause or disapprobation, that man would not be guilty of a riot, because he would be only exercising a sort of right or privilege, which the usage of such places of resort gave him ; but if the same man entered into an arrangement with certain parties, to go to the theatre for the express purpose of hissing or disturbing the- performance, then the case would be different, and if a disturbance took place, or injury were done, he would be liable to the charge of riot. In the present case he did not see there was any evidence of a preconcerted arrangement on the part of the defendants; and he thought they could not, from the hissing and yelling that had taken filace, fix upon them the charge of riot. He had stated the aw of riot, and should then only briefly say, in reference to it, that if a person was present at a riotous assembly, although he took no part in the violence offered to the parties, yet he was to be deemed guilty. The affray, with which the defendants were also charged upon a second count in the information, was completed by parties committing a breach of the peace, without any previous intention on their part. It would remain, then, for the jury to decide, firstly, whether or not the parties accused upon this information were guilty of a riot; and if the jury were of opinion no riot had taken place,, then they would consider whether enough was proved to convict them of an affray. One other point only he wished to notice. The- learned Attorney- General had, in his reply, stated to the jury that, in the event of their fiuding Trow guilty, they would have nothing to apprehend respecting the punishment, because it was not the inten- tion of the parties to call him up for judgment. That was dangerous doctrine to hold out to a jury, and such as he never suffered to go unnoticed. At the last Old Bailey assizes a man was tried before him ( Mr. Justice Park) charged with murder; yet, under such painful circumstances, as led all who heard it to wish the man might not be convicted. The learned counsel then threw out the same in- ducement to the jury, which the Attorney- General in this case had done, and he ( Mr. Justice Park) had felt it his duty to protest against it. The fact was, every case should bo decided, by the jury upon its own merits, without any refereuce to probable mitigation of sentence. He should uow proceed to read over the evidence for the jury, in order to enable them to form a correct view of the case. He found it occupied fifty pages of his note book, and although it would be tiresome and tedious, he should go through the whole of it. The learned judge then proceeded minutely to read over the evidence, occasionally commenting upon it as he went on. In re- spect to the Rev. Mr. Moseley's evidence he observed, it was of great importance. The first important part of that gentleman's evi- dence was in reference to Pare. " Pare," said the rev. gentleman, " made a speech, and objected to my being chairman." That was the first offence charged, and it did not appear to him ( the judge) to be one of great magnitude. It would not strike any body as being a harm for any rate. payer to ask a question respecting the mode in which the business of the pariah had been conducted. The rector said he read a notice specifying the manner in which the poll was to be taken, and that at the conclusion of the reading of that notice there was hooting, and yelling, and great noise. Now he would ob- serve, in reference to that noise, that there could be no doubt it had been the practice formerly to take the sense of the meeting by a show of hands, and the sudden departure from that custom might naturally produce disapprobation. If, however, the defendants had been guilty of any offence by their noisy conduct, they had been, he thought, punished enough, whether the jury found them guilty or not. Again, it was admitted by the rector that he would not show the book. Now he could not see why he should refuse to show the book, because the poll was being taken. The poll was not being taken in the place where he was sitting, and if he meant to show it at all he might as well have shown it to them then as at any other time. It is an improper act to remove the chairman. Mr. Edmonds appeared to be one of the transgressors here, and he would not have been surprised if he had been included in the information— why he was left out he knew not, nor should he stop to inquire. Mr. Muntz said the rector acted in a grossly partial manner. This was not civil of Mr. Muntz, but he ( the learned judge) was not, on this ac- count, prepared to say his conduct amounted to a riot. It was a foolish and impertinent thing to ask the rector to put such a resolu- tion to the meeting as that he himself should vacate the chair; but he was not prepared to say this was done in a riotous and tumultuous manner, to excite danger to Her Majesty's subjects. His lordship went on. He found the rector admitting that he refused to give up the book. Here again he would say the rector was wrong. He ought to have given it up for inspection. On the whole, according to the admissions made, up to that stage of the evidence, he must say he thought the Court of Queen's Bench had acted very right in granting an order for a new election. Pie thought they did right, because, in his judgment, such an election as that of the 28th ot March, ia37, could not stand. It was highly improper that the rector should have been advised to make such a return. He thought the election could not be said to be valid, as the gentleman never summed up the poll— he stated the election of Brown to be carried by a large majority, without stating what that majority was. That appeared very odd- He could not have acted so under proper advice. Pare's address to the meeting seemed to have been to " demand a sight of the book." Almost . all the wit- nesses concurred in this, although Gutteridge said the word used was " take" the book. Now he was not prepared to say that this amounted to a riot. The rector refused it, although he ( the Judge) believed he meant to act most honourably. If Muntz had been using his stick in a menacing manner, he would undoubtedly have been exciting to a breach of the peace. As there was a contradiction on this point, however, he would leave the jury to decide it. With re- spect to Pierce, it would have been more satisfactory if the rector had told them what he did. As to Trow, he was a man, according to the evidence, disabled at the time with a broken arm— he wanted to get into the pew, but he was ejected in the most indecent and inde- corous manner by a man who was a surgeon— if a kind surgeon he would have taken more care of a man with a broken arm, and not have acted in that rough and indecent manner. It appeared Trow strove to get into the rector's pew— this was not denied, but it was not proved that he went there for an illegal object. It was not proved that he went there to seize the book. There was at the time a great pressure. He believed it, but he did not agree with the At- torney General, when he stated that a pressure was an assault. He denied that. They all knew that they were subject to pressures in the best and most polished society, and on the most interesting occa- sions. It could not be avoided in many cases. Again, the rector in his evidence stated that he heard the words " throw him over," and that he believed they were applied to himself. Now if such was the fact, that would be a riotous assault. But it was contradicted by other witnesses, who said these words were not directed to him. Again, the rector said he heard the pews " cracking." He might have heard them, and no doubt did: but it did not appear that the defend, ants had any hand in the crashing. If, indeed, the jury con- sidered there was a riotous assemblage, the defendants would be guilty, even although they did not themselves commit the in- jury. He thought there was not much to be inferred from the crashing. The confusion would lead to it. He found that the vestry was locked, and only a few persons admitted to it. He thought that was a very improper course. The parishioners generally ought to have been admitted. Again, the poll clerks ought to have had some means of discriminating in regard to the persons who tendered their votes, and with respect to their claims, but it appeared they had not. The rector said nobody could be heard on either side. In such a state of things it appeared to him ( Mr. Justice Park) a very difficult thing to. say how men's voices could be tied up. The rector very candidly admitted that when Mr. Douglas made his speech, he was cheered from all parts of the meeting. He ( Mr. Justice Park) should read that speech, which did infinite credit to the speaker. His lordship then read as follows :— Mr. Douglas rose to second the resolution. He said he hoped they would leud their attention to him, a stranger, and if so, he would promise not to detain them a long time. ( Hear, hear, hear.). He confessed he should have liked the resolution he held in his hand better, if Mr. Pare had left out two epithets raspecting the conduct of the rector. He always wished, when complaining, to confine himself to the mere fact which constituted the ground of ob- jection, and not indulge in any unnecessary harshness. He looked upon epithets of contumely, even when applied in a legal sense, to be in bad taste, and he hoped Mr. Pare would strike out the words " unjust and arbitrary." ( Hear, hear.) Fail words never cost any man a broken head, and he considered, besides, that their protest would not be one whit the worse for being couched in polite terms. It was sufficient for them to protest against the proceedings, in order to enable them to apply for a legal remedy. He regretted that he,, as a Dissenter, should be called upon to take part in appointing officers for the Church of England, for most certainly it was not his wish unnecessarily to interfere in any of her regulations. He enter- tained towards the Established Church no ill- will whatever, not even in the slightest degree, nor did he feel any of those conscientious scruples respecting the church or her doctrine which many of his friends around him did. He opposed church- rates upon political and not religious grounds, and when he spoke of the church as a religious community, he only repeated here what he had said elsewhere " peace be within her walls, and prosperity within her palaces." He envied her nothing which she possessed, nor would he deprive- lier of any honour, dignity, or emolument, for the purpose of trans- ferring them to any other religious denomination. In reference to the scene which he had that day witnessed, he must say that, ac- customed as he had been in his country to see the most exemplary conduct observed in places of worship, he could not but consider the proceedings of the day as far from reputable. Although, as belong- ing to the Church of Scotland, ho did not attach any importance to what were termed consecrated walls, yet it was impossible to look around him without feelings of respect and awe, wheu he reflected that in that place the word of life had gone forth in the hearing of tens of thousands of their ancestors, and that thousands had derived benefit and consolation from the truths therein delivered. ( Cheers from all parts of the house.) With recollections and feelings such as these crowding upon his mind, it was with deep regret lie had witnessed the exhibition that had taken place that morning. They were assembled there contending for a great principle, and that principle ought to give decency and propriety to their conduct. ( Hear, hear.) While he considered the rector was entitled to every mark of respect at their bauds, he regretted the course he had adopted ; but he had doubtless actcd as he had been best advised. If the vestry clerk had been present, he would probably have coun- selled him in a different way, at all events to the best of his ability; but under the circumstances, he saw no reason why they should not give the gentleman credit for honesty of purpose, however his actions might disagree with their notions of what was right. He hoped, however, if he did not put the present resolution, he would condescend to inform them, if the poll was proceeding, and when it would close. These sentiments were extremely honourable to him, and he only wished his example were more generally followed upon all such occasions of excitement. Although he ( Mr. Justice Park), as well as Mr. Douglas, was a Scotchman, yet he was an Episcopalian, he knew, however, that none could live on better terms in Scotland, than those of the Episcopalian Church and those who did not fully agree with all its tenets. Although they did not take sweet counsel together, and worship in the same house of the Lord, yet they lived in amity and brotherly love. He, therefore, hoped such seutiments and feelings as had been expressed by Mr. Douglas would be more generally adopted and followed, and that, in place of strife and iliwill, peace and harmony would prevail. He wished he could, even at that last hour, bring all parties connected with that case to a peaceable understanding. Thisiwas, however, impossible, he feared, and he should, therefore, proceed with the evidence. It was clear, from the admissions on both sides, that Mr. Muntz crossed the pews: but, according to Mr. Burrel's evidence, he went to prevent mischief— to make peace. He ( Mr. Justice Park) would say, if so, God forbid he should stand before that court as a rioter. God forbid any man having such intentions should be charged as an offender. Sir Wm. Follett was said to be the authority on which the rector acted; but it must be allowed that a great deal of the weight of a legal opinion rested on the manner in which the case was stated. The teri. is " inanimate being," used by Mr. Muntz, might have been one of those hasty expressions which often escape men in the course of a speech, and which would be said by any person. It was for the jury to say, whether Mr. Muntz had any means of shaking his stick, for he was going at the time over the pews. It was a question whether he used it in a threaten THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 7 5 3a » manner, or did propose to do any mischief. When in the act of moving- about it might appear to be used in a threatening manner : and a witness was not to be blamed for his testimony in such cases, for often, with the purest intentions, a most honourable man would be found stating one thing in one way, which another man, with equally pure intentions, would state in another. His lordship next adverted to the evidence of the Itev. Mr. Fove. He should like to know what that gentleman meant by " tumultuous manner." That gentleman had dealt in generals: it was a pity he could not be more 5articular. He had said he was very much frightened. He ( Mr. ustice Park) must say, he hoped and trusted Mr. Foye, being a shillelagh man, was not so much frightened as he said. Mr. Foye's evidence went clearly to show the imbecility of human observation, and that men who gave contradictory evidence were not necessarily guilty of wilful misrepresentation. With respect to the next wit- ness, Baker's evidence, there was only one part requiring observa- tion. He said Mr. Pare stated that every parishioner had a right to vote. That he ( Mr. Justice Park) thought was not correct. He now came to Mr. Gutteridge's evidence, which was given in a very curious manner : why he should have taken so prominent a part in the proceedings the learned judge could not tell: he had no right to be there except as a rate- payer. That witness swore that he saw Mr. Muntz go back after he had quitted his seat, and take his stick from the corner of the pew. Now that was clearly contradicted by Mr. M'Donnell and Mr. Douglas. If Mr. Muntz had done as Gut- teridge had described, there could be no doubt his conduct was cal- culated to lead to excitement. Mr. Gutteridge says, " I was much alarmed myself, lest I should have been thrown over." He ( the ludge) did not know exactly what grounds he had for these fears. ' Perhaps it was because he deserved to be thrown over for the part he had taken. ( Laughter.) Again he says, " I do solemnly swear I heard Pare say, take the book." Now it had been sworn by nearly all parties that Pare demanded only an inspection of the book, and that he ( the judge) would say he had a right to do. This, together with a few other remarkable sayings constituted Gutteridge's evidence. He said Mr. Muntz did not leave under an appreciable time. He ( Mr. Justice Park) really did not know what he meant by that. ( Laughter.) Again, he said he stooped down to preserve the centre of gravity. ( Renewed laughter.) Next came Mr. Knott, whom he considered to be a very respectable witness. He thought him a very decent man; but how far he was contradicted it would be for the jury to consider. From Mr. Rawlins's evidence it would appear Mr. Muntz did not know he was a constable, and it did not appear that Mr. Muntz had committed any violence against him. The only part of Mr. Elkington's evidence worth noticing, was that part which was designed to represent the animus of the proceedings. It was alleged that the present prosecution was got up as a set- off against an action brought by Mr. Muntz against the Advertiser news- paper, Such, however, did not appear to be the fact. Mr. Guest was next examined ; and he swore that he saw excitement in Mr. Muntz's countenance. Now, he wa* really at a loss to know how any gentleman could see excitement in a countenance so disfigured, as he would call it. ( Laughter.) He ( the learned Judge) did not use the terra disrespectfully. Not in the least; but merely for the purpose of showing the difficulty the witness must have had in swearing to the excitement of a countenance so covered. Here finished the evidence for the prosecution; and then came the very eloquent and talented speech of Mr. Sergeant Wilde. It was not his intention to go into the arguments contained in that speech ; but there was one statement in it to which he thought it his duty to advert. His learned brother had stated that the members of the Church of England were Dissenters from the Catholic Church. That he could not admit. He himself was a Catholic; and long be- fore the dominion of the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church ex- isted. He did not wish it to go forth to the world uncontradicted, that the Church of England dissented from the Catholic Church. He respected the Roman Catholic Church, and entertained for many of its members a great esteem. Indeed, some of his relations were of that persuasion; but he could not admit that his own church was a dissension from the Roman Catholic Church. He made this observa- tion for the reason he had stated. He did not wish it to go forth that he had subscribed to the statement of his learned friend. He now came to the evidence for the defence, and the first upon the note book was Mr. Redfern. With respect to that gentleman, he thought he was in appearance a very good set off against Mr. Gutteridge. They might do very well to travel in the same team. He should briefly advert to his evidence. Mr. Edmonds, he said, had been received with the usual applause. He supposed Mr. Ed- monds was an orator, and one of those whose vanity impelled them to be constantly speaking in public. Mr. Edmonds, it appeared, was an attorney. He ( the learned judge) wished all attorneys and counsellors would confine themselves to the discharge of their pro- fessional duties, and not mix themselves up with such scenes- Mr. Redfern spoke to signals amongst the party in the north gallery. If that was true it was very important, because it showed an organ- isation amongst the rector's party. Mr. Redfern said he went to the church without any previoms communication with Mr. Muntz or any body else. That also was important. Again, he stated, that the rector consulted Gutteridge. That appeared correct: it was a pity he had not rather counselled his own good sense. Mr. Red- fern in conclusion had said he observed a good deal of grimaces on the part of Gutteridge, and heard the people call out to him— Punch. That was very likely. Mr. Jones did not depose to anything mate- rial which the other witnesses had not. He said there was a great deal of noise and confusion, which was very likely amongst such untutored people. Mr. Shearman's evidence differed from that of the others. He said Gutteridge beckoned the people to come down. It was for the jury to decide whettier this was so, or whether it was one of those floating ideas that would occur to individuals in the excited state in which they were. The Rev. Mr. M'Donnell said Mr. Muntz had charged the rector with gross partiality. That was not denied : still it did not amount to a riot. The next witness ex- amined was Mr. Douglas: He considered that gentleman entitled to great respect, in consequence of hi3 conduct at the meeting. He considered the sentiments Mr: Douglas had uttered there did him great credit, and entitled his testimony to great weight. The ap- pearance of Mr. Douglas in the meeting brought to his mind an old quotation— * Turn, pietate gravem ac mentis, si forte, virum quem Conspexere, silent, adrectisque auribus adstant j Iste regit dietis animos, et peetora mulcet.' The learned judge added, smiling, that he would translate the quotation into bad English— 4 Then, if by any chance, they [ the irritated crowd] happen to perceive some man respectable for his justice and his merits, they are silent, aud listen with attentive cars : he sways their minds, and softens their hearts by his elo- quence.' What Mr. Douglas said about the stick was striking. He ( the judge) certainly thought he had acted with great prudence in taking it from Mr. Muntz. In conclusion, Mr. Douglas said, ' There was nothing but talking from beginning to end.' Now if that was the fact, he must say it was very hard to charge the de- fendants with a riot." " To finish," said his lordship, " I have now ? one through the wh( le of the evidence, and have stated to you the aw upon the subject. It is true this case has been before the Queen's Bench, but to that you are not to pay any attention. There the court only considered whether there was sufficient evidence to send the case to trial: they did not, by so doing, pronounce any opinion upon it. Therefore, what has taken place there ought not to weigh upon your mind. You will take the whole case into con- sideration, and decide accordingly. I shall close with the observa- tion I made in the beginning, that I hope no conversation that any one of you may have had with any person upon the subject, will operate upon your minds. Although it has been my habit when in circuit to invite the senior counsel to a family dinner on Sundays, I abstained from doing so yesterday, lest anything relative to this trial should transpire. My wish was to keep my mind pei fectly unbiassed, and I hope you have taken the same precaution. You will now consider your verdict." The jury consulted for a few minutes, when it was announced that they wished to retire. An officer was accordingly sworn to take charge of them, and they retired to the jury room at a quarter to ten o'clock, where, after remaining in consultation for upwards of an hour, they came to the following verdict :— " On the second count— for an affray— MUNTZ and PARE guilty ; on the other twelve counts not guilty ; PIERCE and TROW on all the counts not guilty." On the jury's retiring from court, a short conversation took place respecting the trial of Muntz v. Mason and Armfield, for a libel; and the special jury pannel was called over with a view to its being tried. The common jury pannel having, however, been dismissed at the rising of the Crown Court, and only three special jurors being present, it was ultimately agreed that it should be made a remanet. In the course of the conversation the learned judge took occasion once more to recommend an accommodation, and stated the natuie of the settlement he had previously alluded to— namely, the with- drawing a juror. To this Sergeant Wilde at once signified his assent; but nothing but a judgment would satisfy the prosecutors, and, therefore, the Attorney. General declined. The verdict was delivered to the learned judge in chambers. COUNTRY MARKETS, & c. BIRMINGHAM MARKET. Corn Market, April 5. At this day's market the supply of Wheat was short, with a dull sale, at a reduction of 2d. to 3d. per bushel. Best malting Barley maintained the rates of last week ; while stained and inferior samples were almost neglected. Oats without any change in value. Beans fully support the terms of this day se'nnight. Peas unsaleable. " WHEAT— per 62 lbs. s. d. s. d. Old 7 3 — 8 0 New 7 0 — s 0 Irish ti 6 — 7 6 BARLEY— perlmp. Quarter. For Malting 30 0 — 36 0 For Grinding, per 491bs 3 3 — 3 6 M ALT— per Imperial Bushel. Old and new 6 9— 79 OATS- perS9lbs. Old 3 3- 3 6 New 3 0 — 3 6 Irish ti 6 — 3 3 BEANS— perbag, 10 scoreg ross. s. d. s. d. Old 15 3 — 17 0 New 13 0— 14 6 PEAS— perbag of 3 Bush. Imp. FOR BOILING. White 16 0 — 17 0 Grey 15 0— 16 0 FOR GRINDING. per bag of 10 score 14 6 — 15 6 White 15 0 — 15 0 FLOUK- jae » ' jac7i of2S0lbs. net. Fine 44 0 — 45 0 Seconds.... 39 0 — 41 0 Wiieat. Barley ats Beans $ eas . GLOUCESTER WEEKLY AVERAGE. Qrs. Bush. 455 6 23- 2 183 25 0 s. d. 54 29 20 6 34 0 0 0 Wheat, Barley . Oats Peas .. Beans WORCESTER WEEKLV AVERAGE. Qrs. Bush. . 1074 7 579 0 0 41 s. d. . 59 1 . 29 SJ . 0 0 . C 0 . 36 4 NOTICE. WG. MAYHEW begs leave to give Notice that • it is not his intention to retirefrom the WINE and SPIRIT TRADE, as reported. WARWICK, SATURDAY, MARCH 31.— Wheat, per bag, old 21s 6d to 23s Od ; new, 20s 6d to 22s 6d ; Barley, per quarter, 0s Od to 0s Od ; grinding, 0s 0d to 0s Od ; Oats, 0s Od to 0s Od; New, 20s Od to 30s Od; Peas, per bag, 16s Od to 17s Od ; Beans, 15s Od to 16s Odj new, 20s Od to 30s Od; Vetches, 16s 6d to 17s Od; Malt, 56s Od to 64s Od per quarter. CHELTENHAM, MARCH 29.— New Wheat, 7s3d to7s8d perbushel. Old Wheat, 7s 6d to 8s Od. Barley, 3s Oil to 4s 3d. Oats, 2s 6d to 3s 3d. Beans, 5s Od to 5s 6d. HOP INTELLIGENCE.— Worcester, April 4.— The demand for hops in our market on Saturday, was better than has been experienced for some time; and as there was a great falling off in the supply, not more than 100 pockets being pitched, the prices of the previous Saturday were fully maintained. On that day there were 58 pockets weighed, and during the week 64. Borough, April 2.— We have llo alteration to note in the prices or sales of hops, but the trade remains steady. Present Prices, per cwt.:— East Kent pockets, £ 4 4s. to £ 4 15s. line £ 5 12s.; ditto bags, £ 4 Os. to £ 4 10s. fiue £ 5 5s. j Mid Kent pockets, £ 3 15B. to £ 4 108. fine £ 5 5s.; ditto bags, £ 3 15B. to £ 4 4s. fine, £ 5 0s.; Weald of Kent pockets, £ 3 10s. to £ 4 2s. line £ 4 10s.; Sussex pockets, £ 3 3s. to £ 3 15s. flne £ 4 4s.; Yearlings, £ i 2 « . to £ 3 3s. fine £ 3 10s.; Old, £ 1 10s. to £ 1 15s, ,8n* A2 10s.; Old Olds, 18s. to £ l 5s. fine £ 110s. BIRMINGHAM MARKET. Inspector's Weekly Return of Com sold, computed by the Standard Wheat Barley Oats .. Rye ... Beans . Peas... Total Quantities. Total Amount. Price per Qr. Quarters. Bushels. £. s. d. £. s. d. 802 0 2169 14 6 3 1 7 591 0 938 10 0 1 11 9 60 0 69 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, THE WEATHER. April 8 rain rain, wind changeable changeable rain, wind fair fair Murphy. TO CORRESPONDENTS. To a " Poor Reader"— unquestionably. BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL. SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1838. We have devoted a very large portion of our to- day's number to the recent trial of Mr. MUNTZ and his three companions. Although the interest attached to it is, in a great degree, local, there are principles involved in it, which come home, more or less, to every individual in the empire. The parties who have been dragged through the Queen's Bench, and through a Nisi Prius trial at Warwick, were exercising their known recognised lawful rights of parishioners. There was not a scintilla of evidence, offered or pro- curable, of any combination or concert amongst them. That being assembled to join in choosing a parish warden, they might, in the absence of any legal ad- viser, be led into some technical errors of legal form, is quite possible. Is it likely, in any case where plain and free men, uninitiated in the mysteries of the courts, are publicly called on to exercise a constitu- tional privilege, that such technical errors will not be committed ? And if the penalty of any such commis- sion is to be so fearful, what man of sane mind can be expected to risk it ? We do not speak of the convic- tion or of the judgment, whatever that may be, but we ask, if every one who attends a vestry meeting, aud, while there, happens, in his ignorance, to be led into a breach of legal form, be it small or great, is to be visited with the overwhelming expense of such a trial as that which terminated on Monday night— to say nothing of the anxiety and tfouble attendant on it— who can be expected to attend such meetings in future ? The learned ATTORNEY- GENERAL, in the conclusion of his long and very ingenious, but very sophistical reply, deprecated an acquittal, because of the injury which would arise to the popular cause, were such irregularities to receive the sanction of a legal tri- bunal. But, what greater possible injury can be ima- gined to the popular cause, than that it should be ad- vocated under so weighty responsibilities as those which the verdict, if it be allowed to stand, necessarily imposes? We should be the very last to justify noise and strife. Better far, no doubt, would it be for all parties, if they could manage to discuss parish ques- tions, and all questions, with calmness and charity. But we must taKe human nature as we find it; and it is human nature, iu the nineteenth century at least,— we don't know what it may rise to in the twentieth— that when men of opposite opinions congregate in numbers, there will be occasionally noise and strife, let the parties congregating be learned or ignorant, rich or poor, high or humble. What, after it has been stripped of the manifold covering of words in which it is smothered, is the sum of the charge against the defendants in the late trial ? There was a crush ! Who that has ever attended a public meeting for business or for amusement, did not lay his account to a crush ? The very presence itself is not exempt from it. There was alarm ! How ex- pressed ? Was there a solitary exclamation of terror ? There were cries on both sides; and it would be hard to say which were most to be blamed; but word of fear there was assuredly none. Were heads broken or limbs bruised in the terrible affray of the 28th of March ? Not a single blow was struck or threatened. The only violence meditated or committed wayinMr. TROW, who had bis arm in a sling at the time, and who was most courageously thrown on his back by, of all the assailants in the world the most unlooked for under such circumstances, by— a surgeon ! Let us attend for a moment to the particulars of the several charges. The first offender, in point of time, is Sir. PARE. His guilt consists in putting an unne- cessary question to the meeting— iu leaving his own seat— in entering the rector's— in doing nothing while there— in returning. His speeches, even according to the ATTORNEY- GENERAL, go for nothing. They might be bad law, they might be bad logic; they were not rioting or affrayiug. PARE walks on the door of the gallery; MUNTZ, who is more aspiring, walks on the tops of the pews; his stick is laid hold of bv KNOTT— that most consecutive of allreasoners— he fays hold of RAWLINS' stick ; neither hold is retained. He waives his stick over his head ; he holds it like a shillelagh'— so say the prosecutor's witnesses. But he strikes no one, he aims at no one. He returns to his seat. Pierce appears to be busy, he shakes his head, he rushes up the passage— thickening the affray by run- ning away from it. TROW puts his foot into the RECTOR'S seat; aud he puts his hand towards- the parish book. Such is the entire sunt and substance of the uncontradicted evidence against these four indi- viduals. Such are the materials out of which the prosecutors contrived to manufacture a riot or an as- sault, and heaven knows what beside; and out of which the jury were ingenious enough to elicit an affray! We must not be misunderstood— we are very far from imputing to the jury any improper motives in the verdict which they found. But they are men of like passions with ourselves; the impanneljing of them in a box, or the locking of them up under charge of an officer, bestows on them no infallibility, they may still misconceive facts, they may still draw unwarrant- able inferences as readily as other mortals. The jury consisted of ten Tories and two doubtfuls. The nine special jurymen were all Tories. It is, indeed, cu- rious, that in the entire pannel of forty- eight, there should be only two persons, so far as we are informed, of liberal politics. We state this as matter of fact merely. Whether by consequence of their peculiar views in politics, the jury might be disposed to look upon any opposition to established authority, right or wrong, witl) a disapproving eye, it is not for us to say. We impute no blame to these gentlemen on account of their politics; it would ill become us. The venerable judge who presided is a Tory— a Church and State Tory'— but a more impartial, a more liouest charge, was never delivered, than that which Sir JAMES PARK delivered on the occasion. We had heard of the pecu- liarities of SIR JAMES, of his drolleries of expression. We cannot belp thinking, that they who retail his odd sayings, must have been satisfied witli a very slight observance of the learned judge; and must have either been unable or unwilling to penetrate to the broad and deep sub- stratum of strong shrewd sense, on which the quaint humour by which he is distinguished floats. By the verdict of the jury, Mr. MUNTZ and Mr. PARE have been declared guilty of an " affray." An affray in law is, when parties publicly, and without previous concert or intention, fall by the ears, and by the use of dangerous or unusual weapons, cause terror to the people. If the assemblage where the affray takes place'be an unlawful one, the affray will be ag- gravated into a riot; if the falling together be of one individual with another it will be attenuated to an as- sault. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL laboured hard to prove that the motion of Mr. MUNTZ for a new chair- man, made the meeting, from that moment, unlawful. The learned counsel did not perceive the consequence of his rule. A meeting cannot be lawful for one party and unlawful for another. If the legality of the meeting was vitiated by Mr. MUNTZ'S motion, the RECTOR was, thenceforth, the chairman of an unlawful assembly. Of an affray, the only element in the case of the defendants was, the absence of concert or in- tention. They fell by the ears with no other party ; they used no dangerous nor unusual weapons, nor any weapons at all; they inspired no terror into any one. Mr. PARE was certainly assaulted by Mr. FREER ; and Mr. TROW by Mr. GUTTERIDGE ; but an assault upon the defendants can hardly be twisted into an affray by them. Mr. MUNTZ and Mr. PIERCE were neither as- saulted, nor did they assault. Not one of the de- feudants committed a solitary act by which he could be fairly mixed up with the affray, if there were one. And it is peculiar to the affray, legally considered, that no man is liable iu respect of it, unless for his personal conduct. If the cries, if the crush, constituted an affray, let the criers and the crushers be informed against, and not those who neither cried nor crushed. Some dispute arose at the commencement of the reply, as to whether the " information," or the action against the Advertiser was first resolved on. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL, thought he had gained a victory over his opponent, when he showed that there was a meeting to consider of the " information" on the Monday after the vestry meeting— the 3rd of April; while the first notice of the action appeared on the 5th. The learned ATTORNEY- GENERAL might have known, for the paper lay before him, that the intention to proceed against the Advertiser was distinctly and authoritatively announced in the Journal of April the Ist; and, indeed, it was generally known in Birming- ham on the 31st of March. The House of Commons decided, on Friday, against the emancipation of the Negro Apprentices, on the 1st August next, by 269 to 215. On Monday a long con- versation took place on Mr. Buller's bill on the sub- ject of controverted elections. The bill was agreed to be recommitted on the 11th May. Lord Durham's mission was on Tuesday the subject of a party dis- cussion, in which ministers had nearly suffered a defeat, the numbers being 158 against, to 160 in their favour. On Wednesday the house was counted out, aud on Thursday the same process was repeated. There was no important business on either night. In the Lords there has been no question of interest during the week. The coronation is definitively fixed for the 26th June. There is no foreign news, aaid the entire of our do- mestic news has been driven out by the length of our report of the trial, and the inquest on the murder in Snowhill on Wednesday. The revenue for the year, ending April 5, 1838, falls short of that ending April 5th, 1837, by no less a sum than £ 2,332,364. The women's meeting on Monday, in the Town- hall, was the most numerous and interesting in- doors meet- ing that was ever held in Birmingham. We shall recur to it. The council of the Union met on Tuesday; there was no resolution before them, and they sat for but a short time. We have a great many communications and literary topics to attend to in our next number. CHILD MURDER.— Thursday morning, a watchman named Mason, who resided in Blew- street, had a quarrel with his wife, and, in a fit of passion, seized hold of his infant child, about ten months old, dashed it with dreadful violence upon the ground, and killed it. He made his escape, and is yet at large. Ourreaders may remember a charge of forgery made against Thomas Partridge, jun., in October last. It came on for trial on Monday last, when no evidence being produicble, Mr. Partridge was instantly ac- quitted, the learned judge adding, that Mr. Partridge left the court without stain or imputation. OVERSEERS OF ASTON.— Isaac Hill, jun., Bordesley; E. Needham, Ashted- row; G. S. Cox, Hockley Brewery ; J. Fowler, Erdington. BIRMINGHAM CANAL.— The new line of canal across the Flat, ( called the Island) at Tipton, was opened to the public on Monday last. The opening of this line completes the series of works recommended by the late Mr. Telford, for the improvement of the Birmingham Canal. By means of this, and the improvements effected a short time ago, the main track of the canal between Birmingham and Wolverhampton has been shortened seven miles. The new liue just opened is in no respect inferior to any of the works heretofore under- taken by the Birmingham Canal Company. Being perfectly straight, walled on each side, and having the accommodation of a double path, the facilities it affords are probably not surpassed by those of any other canal in the kingdom. The improvements of the main line of the Birmingham Canal being finished, the new water route between Birmingham and Liverpool, by way of the Birmingham aud Liverpool, and Ellesmere and Chester Canals, will now come into full play. The navigable communication with Liverpool through this new route, it is admitted, is the best that can possibly be devised, the distance being- less than that of the railway, and the liue between the Wolverhampton level of the Birmingham Canal and the river Mersey, not being encumbered with a single superfluous lock. Of the several navigable routes now existing between Birmingham and the out- ports, it may be confidently affirmed that the route to Liverpool is'the best, and the route to Loudon the worst. The water communication with London via Warwick and Braunston, ( more than thirty miles longer than the railway) with its cumbrous lockage aud manifold inconveniences and obstructions, remains nearly in the same state as it was when first constructed; no attempt whatever having hitherto been made ( excepting on a small part of the Oxford Canal,) to correct either its circuitousness or bad levels. DREADFUL MURDER AND ATTEMPT AT SUICIDE. On Wednesday evening, the neighbourhood of Snow- hill and Little Hampton- street was thrown into a state of great excitement by the perpetration of a most determined murder. It appears that for some time past an ill- feeling had existed between Mr. Joseph Davenport, landlord of the Pheasant, in Little Hampton- street, and a man named Wm. Devey, a plater. The latter suffering his hatred to become deadly, determined on destroying Mr. Davenport, and on the above day purchased a pair of pistols, loaded one of them, followed his victim to a shop in Snow- hill, and then shot him dead. Yesterday, J. W. Whateley, Esq., coroner, held an inquest at the White Swan, Hospital- street. At three o'clock the following gentlemen were sworn on the jury:— Joseph Cartwright, foreman; John Shutt, Jeremiah Corbett, John Ward, Abraham Horton, Zechariah Parkes, William Finnimore, John Cook, John Rabone, William Hall, Edward Smallwood, Benjamin Morris, John Chatwin, and Samuel Hutton. The jury having inspected the body, returned to the room, when the coroner having very briefly ad- dressed them, the examination of witnesses pro- ceeded :— Mr. Samuel Farrington, living at No, 2, Union Court, Lower Tower- street, Birmingham, locksmith : A little after seven o'clock on Wednesday evening, Joseph Davenport, the deceased, came into Mr. Bat- kin's shop, where I work, and asked if Mr. Batkin was within; I went to call Mr. Batkin out of the workshop, and left the deceased in the ihop ; there was nobody else in the shop when I went; I was away about one minute. Directly after I got back into the shop, Devey came into the shop ; as he entered he went up to the deceased and said, " D— n your eyes you have been the ruin of me." Nothinghad been said by the deceased up to that time; the deceased then said to Devey, " What do you follow me for ?" Devey re- plied, " Now I will settle you." The deceased replied, " What have I done to you?" Before he could say any more he was dead; Devey raised his right hand as if going to strike the deceased ; I little thought it was a pistol he had until he snapped it at his head; the pistol did not gooff, upon which Devey did something with his right band and presented it again, and fired off either the same or another pistol at the light side of the head of the deceased, who fell instantly on the ground, and died without once moaning or speaking. Devey put the pistol close to his head; the deceased had not given him the least provocation; when Devey snapped the pistol the first time, the deceased thought to escape into Mr. Batkin's parlour, but Devey follow- ed him up close, and fired off the pistol before he could lay hold of the button of the door; the deceased fell against me; after I had removed the body, Devey said, " Take me now, take me now;" he then walked out of the shop. As he was walking out he pulled out a knife and began to cut at his throat; a young man named Leeson, who was passing, stopped him at the door, and he was brought back into the shop; all this time he was cutting at his throat with a shoemaker's knife. The knife was produced; it was covered with blood. Witness : The knife was picked up from the floor where he was standing. Devey was then taken off to the Hospital. The next morning I found in the shop a pistol mould and a woollen pistol case. The case is quite new. The deceased was shortly after the affair removed to his own house in Little Hampton- street. The deceased bled a great deal from the left side of the head. By a Juror: Had Devey a handkerchief on his neck ? — I think his neck must have been protected, or he would have finally destroyed himself. Coroner: We are now enquiring into the cause of Davenport's death. Mr. George Leeson examined : I live at No. 4, St. George's- terrace; I am a factor; I was passing to- wards Mr. Batkin's shop, oti Wednesday evening about a quarter- past seven o'clock, when I met Devey coming towards me; I knew him; just as he had passed the door he looked into the shop, stopped, turned upon his heel, and went into the shop ; when I got to the door, which was almost instantly, I saw the deceased standing at the end of the shop, and Devey standing by his right side ; I stepped in the doorway, because the impression upon my mind was, that he was going to strike Davenport; I thought this from his attitude, and also because they had not been good friends latterly. I saw Devey raise his right arm close to the head of the deceased, and I heard the report of the pistol; Davenport fell instantly to the ground. I did not hear any conversation between Devey and the deceased. Farrington was standing close to the deceased. As soon as the pistol was fired, Devey walked quite coolly towards me; I laid hold of him with my right hand by the collar, and said, " Come, Devey, this game will never do." He re- plied, " Very well, you may do what you like with me, Mr. Leeson." He then threw a pistol out of his left hand towards the gutter in the street, and at the same time he dropped another pistol from his right hand by my feet; I stooped and picked up the pistol he had dropped from his right hand, still keeping hold of him ; when I raised myself and looked at him, he was cut- ting his throat with a knife similar to the one pro- duced ; I made a grasp at him, but he went towards the shop; a crowd of persons then rushed into the shop, and I was carried away from the door, and the pistol dropped from my hand; I then saw Devey taken to the Hospital. On Tuesday evening, between seven and eight o'clock, Devey came to my warehouse in Little Hampton- street, next door but one to that occupied by Devey. The house of the deceased is nearly ^ opposite Devey's house, it is the sign of the " Pheasant." Devey rents a mill power fi- omjhq, and not having paid me according to his agreement, I had sent for him. After conversing about our own affairs, he said, " Davenport was the greatest enemy he had, and he ( Devey) had been the best friend Davenport ever had. I said I thought him mistaken respecting Davenport, from what I knew of the deceased, I al- ways took him to be a man who would not injure any one. He said he would give me a proof of it. He said he only owed one quarter's rent to the gas office, and Davenport had sent them word that he was removing his goods, aud they had sent the bailiffs into his house. He did not allude to the trial at Warwick between Rowley and him. Mr. James Webb examined : I was passing the shop of Mr. Batkin on Wednesday evening, when I heard the report of a pistol, and presently Devey ad- vanced towards me, saying, " I resign myself, I shall die happy;" he then pulled his handkerchief from his neck, and inflicted a severe gash on his throat; I flew to him, and caught hold of both his arms ; I can't say if any other person had hold of him; he retreated back, and I saw him drop two pistols, one of which I picked up. [ Witness here produced the pistol, which is a small sized pocket pistol, quite new.] It was quite warm at the breech when I picked it up. Miss Emma Davis examined : I live with my sister in Weaman- street, and we carry on the business of gun and pistol makers; I saw Devey to- day in the hospital; I saw the same person on Wednesday last, about three o'clock in the afternoon, at our shop; he asked me if we had a pair of common pistols, and I showed him a pair; the pistol now produced is exactly like one of those I showed him; he paid 10s. 6d. for them; that sum included bullet moulds and a key; he then asked me if we sold bullets, and said he would take half a pound; we had none then ready, and he said he would call again in half an hour; in the in- terim we cast the bullets; he came again in about an hour, and my sister gave him twenty- eight bullets, being half a pound, according to the mould No. 56; He asked for a few copper caps, which I gave him ; he was very particular in inquiring how to load them ; I took one of the pistols aud unscrewed it, and showed him how to load it; he fired it off several times; he never mentioued to me what he wanted them for. Caroline Webley, the sister, corroborated this testi- mony. Mr. Bindley, house- surgeon at the hospital, ex- amined : I saw the body of the deceased to- day. On the left side of the head, above the ear, there was a circular hole about the size of a sixpence; around the orifice there was a good deal of coagulated blood, on passing my finger into the hole I found a similar hole through the bone of the skull; near the middle of the head on the right, the scalp was puffy, and I felt the bone was fractured beneath; I took off the scalp on the right side of the head and found the loose fragments of bone; a large quantity of blood escaped, and I found the bullet I now produce lying close to the bone; the bullet had passed in an oblique direction through the brain, causing almost immediate death; Devey was brought to the hospital on Wednesday evening, a little after seven o'clock; he had a deep wound across his neck, which was bleeding profusely; the windpipe was opened, but no blood vessel of mag- nitude was divided; he is going on very well, and is likely to recover; soon after his admission he gave me from his breeches pocket a paper I now produce; it contains 31, lis. 9d., a key, two small account bills, and a note, on which is written, " Call a sale imme- diately, for the benefit of my wife and child. The lower premises for my creditors." I afterwards found a new pistol bag, a pistol key, and twenty- seven pistol bullets. Coroner : That corresponds with the number sold ; twenty- eight were sold to him. Juror: There was one found in the pistol which did not go off. Coroner: The women might perhaps give one over. It is immaterial. Witness: Devey told me bethought he purchased the pistols in Bath- street; I was present when Mrs. Weobly and her sister were in the hospital; Devey told me after they left, that it was from them he purchased the pistols. Frederick Watson, of 83, Lower Tower- street, ex- amined : I knew the deceased by sight; I knew Mr. Devey; on Wednesday evening I was standing at the bottom of Devey's entry, when I saw the deceased going down the horse- road towards Batkin's shop ; 1 then saw Wm. Devey coming down the street; he had his hands in his breeches pockets, and his white apron on ; the deceased was perhaps about ten yards a- head of Devey; the deceased was in the horse- road, and Devey on the foot- path; I walked leisurely down the street, and so lost sight of them; I worked for Devey, and on Wednesday morning last I went into the shop where he was at work, and he desired me to stick close to my work, for he did not know whether he should not have to go out of the way for a time; he had been gazetted on the Friday before as a bankrupt; I never heard him say anything about Davenport. Coroner: There can be no doubt the deceased went to Warwick to give evidence in a case in which the prisoner was concerned; but it is not material for this case, and I need not call any evidence upon it. There is, unfortunately, abundant evidence to show the malice entertained by the prisoner towards the de- ceased. It is, however, only justice towards the de- ceased to say, that it was not in consequence of infor- mation given at the gas office by the deceased, that Devey's goods were seized. The fact was, that Mr. Redfern saw that his name was in the Gazette, and he felt it his duty to attend to the interest of the company. There was another circumstance connected with the case, which he should state. Information had been communicated to him, that there was good reason for believing that other persons besides the prisoner Devey had a guilty knowledge of the transaction. It had been stated that another person had purchased the pistols. Now if such had been the fact, the person who purchased them and gave them to the prisoner Devey, knowing the use it was intended to make of them, the person so purchasing would be an accessory before the fact. From the evidence, however, there could be no doubt that it was Devey himself who bought the pistols. He should call up the man wl « i had been arrested on suspicion, and they would hear his statement. Richard Lawley was then brought into the room by- Hall the officer, and the following examination took place. Coroner: Where do you live, and what trade are you?— Lawley: I lodge in Ward- street, and am a shoe- maker by trade. Coroner: I am now about to ask you some ques- tions, which you may answer or not, as you please. If you think they will affect you do not answer them. I do not press you. I want to know if you are ac- quainted with the prisoner Devey?— Lawley : I know him, but I am not fit to answer any questions at this time. Coroner: Why not?— Lawley: Because I could not answer any one at this time. Coroner: Why not?— Lawley: I have a complaint upon me which makes me giddy. Coroner: Did you see Devey at any time before Wednesday ?— Lawley: I saw him on Monday morning. Coroner: Did you see him since?— Lawley: I saw him on Tuesday. Coroner: Did you see him on Wednesday?— Lawley: No, sir. Coroner: Did Devey say anything to you about Davenport?— Lawley : Nothing at all to me. Coroner: Do you know that knife ( holding up the knife with which Devey attempted to cut his throat.)— Lawley ( hesitating): I do not know that knife. Coroner : Is that a shoe- maker's knife?— Lawley: It might do for a shoe- maker's knife. Coroner: Did he ever borrow a knife from you?— Lawley: No, sir. Coroner : You mean to say that?— Lawley: Yes. Coroner: Did you ever hear Devey threaten Daven- port ?— Lawley: No, sir. Coroner: Did you ever hear him say that some per- sons had agreed to do him harm ?— Lawley: No. Coroner: Do you mean to state that?— Lawley: Yes. Coroner: What did you hear Devey say about the law- suit at Warwick ?— Lawley : I would rather not say anything about it, because perhaps I may do my- self more harm than good. ( Sensation.) Coroner: You may answer or not, but I ask you if you do not know there has been a plan laid to injure Davenport by some persons, in consequence of his having gone to Warwick assizes ?— Lawley ( after much hesitation) : I have heard nothing, only what has heen talked about the town. Coroner: Where were you on Wednesday afternoon? — Lawley : At Smetbwick in the afternoon. Coroner: I do not think it right to press him fur- ther. He has a right to refuse answering any ques- tions. I shall not press him further. Lawley was then removed out of the room, upon which William Hall, the officer, stated the circumstances under which he apprehended Lawley. He said he received an anonymous letter on Thursday night, stating that there was reason to believe there had been a conspiracy to injure Davenport, and that a man named Lawley was concerned in it. He went on Friday morning- to the house in Ward- street, which was men- tioned in the letter, and there be found Lawley, whom he immediately knew. He pulled out the letter, and read it for him, and told him he might say what he pleased respecting it. Lawley became quite weak, and had nearly fainted, but they gave him some water, and he recovered. The woman with whom he lodged asked him what was the matter, upon which he re- plied, " It is for Davenport's affair, aud I suppose they will hang me." Hall said he bad nothing to fear, if he had not done any mischief. He then took him to prison. The Coroner then said, there was not sufficient evidence to detain Lawley any longer. Under all the circumstances, however, and considering the manner in which he had answered the questions put to him, the jury would, no doubt, say bis detention had not been unreasonable. Indeed, it was the bounden duty of the officer to take him. With respect to the case before them, he had only to say, if ever there was a case clearly proved, it was the present. There could not be the shadow of a doubt that the prisoner Devey killed the unfortunate deceased, and under the influence of malice. He considered it unnecessary to go at length into the evidence. The jury consulted for one minute, and returned a verdict of " Wilful Murder" against Devey. Devey is perfectly composed ; he expresses regret for what he has done, and says he is willing to die. GENERAL HOSPITAL, APRIL 6.— Physician and Surgeon of the Patients of the week, Dr. Eccles and Mr. Hodgson. Visitors, Mr. John Cadbury and Mr. J. Moore. In- patients admitted, 21; out. 101. In- patients discharged, 28; out, 97. Remaining in the house, 165. BIRMINGHAM DISPENSARY, APRIL 6.— Sick patients relieved, 362; midwiferycases, 16 ; children vaccinated in the month, 417. BIRTH. On the 3rd instant, the lady of Mr. W. S. Harding, of a soil. MARRIAGES. Oil the 28th ult., at Carr's- lane, by the Rev. Mr. Swan, Mr. Gideon Goold, of Howard- streefc, to Catharine Sarah, fifth daughter of Mr*. Allen, of St. Mary's- square. On the 31st ult., at St. Philip's Church, by the Rev. Mr. Downes, Mr. Henry Shaw, of Islington- row, to Sarah Gardener, of Snow- hilL On the 25th ult., at St. Philip's Church, Mr. George Allporfc, to Miss Celena Oakley, both of this town. DEATHS. On the 29th ult., after a short illness, in his 64th year, the Rex* John Todd,— thirty. seven years minister of Frankley and St. Kenelms. On the 5th instant, Phillip Henry, youngest son of Mr. D. B. Smith, of Frederick- street. On the 5th instant, Mr. Isaac Parsons, of Suffolk- street, in the54fk year of his age. On the 2nd instant, aged 34, Elizabeth, wife of Mr. John Anderson, tobacconist, of Sherlock- street. THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 198. 7 ( Continued, from page 3.) for the scene in St. Martin's. He knew such scenes had taken place in many churches ; he knewthat while the walls of that sacred building were desecrated by holding meetings connected with secular affairs, and with topics of irritation, feelings were brought into collision, which should subside on entering that place. Whoever, then, expected to obtain a decent demeanour, whoever desired and hoped to see that state of mind suited to the sacred edifice, they had but one course to pursue— let that place not be appro- priated to matters so little calculated to produce those effects. Upon the present occasion, he re- gretted that in a town where difference of opinion pre- vailed to such an extent, where party feeling ran so high, he deeply regretted that, at a meeting which was expected to be attended with much excitement, it should have been thought right to hold that meeting in a church. The mischief, to his apprehension, was incalculable; and notwithstanding all he hail heard ot the indecency and tumult that prevailed, and notwithstanding his having taken a different view of its real character from that which he was sorry to see prevailed else- where, yet still he deeply regretted it. They were all more or less the creatures of habit and association— by these feelings their feeble virtues were much strengthened, or their bad passions called into operation. To see, then, that church, which it were to be desired none should enter but with those feelings so justly described by Mr. Douglas on the occasion ill question— that hallowed place, in which the care of the Almighty was petitioned for, and his blessing invoked for the preservation of the happiness and salvation of thousands, and that minister, whom tiiey should look upon as the mes- senger of the Most High, to calm the tumult of passion and angry feeling— to remind the rich man of the fleeting tenor on which he held his worldly gifts, and the poor and the op- pressed that their condition in this world was for wise though unseen purposes, and that heaven did not overlook them ; to see in their rector, whom they beloved, a political partisan, lending himself to one party to the injury of another— to see, as they looked to that altar, which should be the emblem of peace, and love, and forgiveness, and mercy, a spot which reminded them of scenes of angry collision and strife, was deeply afflicting— collision and strife would come, but surely that sacred edifice should at least be free from the pollution of such scenes. He repeated, on one side and the other, each hallooing and shouting in their turn, the scene was to be lamented, and in the greatest degree censured. But he would, at the same time, say, that such a scene was not pecu- liar to St. Martin's, while he would beg them to under- stand, that he was not the apologist for any portion of the conduct exhibited there that day. They had had tbepartisans of one side to represent that scene, and whenever a court of justice was embarked in the investigation of a scene like this, he asserted they must expect nothing like accuracy or truth. Were they strangers to the effect that political bias produced on the mind, when judging of the actions of those of opposite views? Were they aware that that which the partisan might do under the garb of loyalty, would, when done by an opponent, be construed into rebellion, that the statements of facts will take their hue and colour from the imaginations and prejudices of those who give them ? He had already said he was most anxious that respect should be paid to that building; and he would also say, that he would wish every sentiment of honour and respect to be ren- dered to the clergyman; for be deeply felt, whenever occasion has arisen to express censure on a clergyman, that the injury was not near so great to him as to tho^ e who sat under his ministry. To diminish the confidence and esteem for a pastor,' was inflicting an injury, not only on him, but the community. Under this con- viction, he never had to express an opinion harsh or un- favourable to a clergyman, but he wished to do it with as much respect to him as he could possibly observe. He believed the gentleman with whose name it was pretended to sanction that prosecution, was an honourable man. He believed he had been mistaken, and that he had been led into a course which his cooler judgment would not approve. He had seen him in the witness box; and as far as his ( Mr. Sergeant Wilde's) judgment went, he appeared to administer truth and veracity, never attempting to keep back, by any subterfuge, that which was favourable and due to others. He imputed the errors into which he had been led, to mistake and misapprehension. Beyond this, he had nothing to say of him. He believed, if the suggestion of the court at the commencement of this trial had been at- tended to, that that gentleman's usefulness would have been much extended, instead of attempting, as it was sought, to procure paltry triumph to a party. But the present contest would not end here. This, he fearlessly asserted, was an attempt to pollute these walls, by seeking, under the sanc- tion of a court of justice, the injury of one party at the expense of another. But the truth would be known in the town of Birmingham ; for, if it were possible that the defen- dants should be convicted, the truth would still be known, and the people would consider the court of justice had been polluted arid the altaf of judgment had been stained. Out of what had ( his contest arisen ? They knew the greatsubject of political dispute in the town of Birmingham, between the parties calling themselves Tories and Conservatives, and those on the other hand known by the names of Whigs and Radicals. A question had arisen between them— one which ought to have been altogether of a religious nature, respect, ing cimrch rates, whether Catholics and Dissenters of every denomination, including Quakers, should be called on or not to contribute towaids the general purposes of the church, independently of the established support it received by other means. They knew that that ques- tion was not yet settled by law, and it was not right that such questions should be suffered to continue afloat. The town of Birmingham was much agitated on the subject, the Conservative or Tory party being advocates for the church rate, and the Liberals and Radicals appearing opposed to it. Thus the subject had insensibly got mixed up with political questions. Under these circumstances, the election of churchwardens hail been a signal for putting in motion the political feelings of the respective parties— those who wished for one candidate expecting that that candidate would oppose church rates, and those who resisted him not wishing that he should do so. And here he( Sergt. Wilde) • would observe, when an advocate came before a judge and jury, he apprehended it was his duty to abstain as much as possible from the introduction of his own personal opinion. As this rule applied to himself, he deemed it altogether un- important; but when a gentleman of rank and high profes- sional reputation, thought it right to introduce opinions of liis own for the purpose of influencing the judge or jury, he thought he forgot his place, the place in which he stood, and the duty he owed to himself and to his character. The Attorney- General rose to explain : He said he had most cautiously and scrupulously abstained from touching on any topic such as his learned friend had referred to. He appeared there merely as counsel for the prosecution, and, lie- believed, in no degree had he transgressed the line of his duty. Mr. Justice Park knew not to what his brother Wilde alluded. He ( the learned judge) had no party feelings on the subject. The Attorney- General would, however, have an opportunity of explaining more fully, if the learned ser- geant called witnesses— if he did not, he ( Mr. Justice Park) would take care to take the edge off his observations. The Attorney- General: I have expressed no feelings or opinions. I have spoken only from my instructions. Mr. Sergeant Wilde resumed: The interruption of his learned friend was of a nature completely unusual. He had attended closely to the speech of his learned friend. He was to follow him, for he should call witnesses, and many. He had observed the temper and tone of his learned friend's speech. He saw not only what impression he was seeking to make, but he saw the indications of the topics he would revert to in his reply. His learned friend, he need not say, was amongst the most powerful and dexterous of ad- vocates. Let them look at the strain of " piety" that ran through his speech— the indecency of proposing a Dissenter as a churchwarden, and other topics intro- duced ! He ( Sergeant Wilde) knew not whether these were his learned friend's opinions, or that he introduced them be- cause they were the opinions of the jury. His learned friend knew the prevailing opinions of this county; he knew that his case would require politics to be thrown into the scale; and he ( Sergeant Wilde) knew, as his learned friend had avowed, that opinions might be expressed as an advocate, which the man did not entertain. He only begged to caution them as to what they had heard. If it were right and true that a man might advocate opinions which his conscience disavowed, for the purpose of obtaining a conviction, he knew in what a fearful situation a defendant was placed in the hands of such a man. He begged to know whether his learned friend was expressing his own opinion, when he told the jury of the indecency of proposing a man like Winfield. He ( Sergeant Wilde) asked if these were his own opinions, or if they were put off and on like his gown and wig? He- asked his friend, was it his opinion that Dissenters should be taxed to defray the expense of ceremonies" which, whatever others might think of them, they regarded as unscriptural and unjust ? Was it right, that Quakers should be compelled to part with their property, or it might be, visited with a heavier punishment, by being sued to appear in the Ecclesiastical Court? If these were opinions that might be conscientiously entertained, where, was the indecency of Dissenters supporting a churchwarden to prevent such an outrage on their opinions— such an infringement of their rights ? He begged, therefore, when his learned friend talked of piety, to say, was piety to be served by getting a verdict which would fasten an unjust and oppressive impost upon Dissenters, and upon individuals? They had heard it stated, that the party in favour of church rates issued a circular to tlleir friends, to procure a meeting at the church; they found that a com- mittee was appointed to conduct the election of Brown, ane of the candidates— they found, when they arrived at the church, that the rector, at a public vestry meeting, was fastened in the vestry with the friends of one candidate— they found that committee, or the friends of that candi- date, inducing that clergyman to depart from the couise pursued in the parish from its earliest history— first, that he would not have a show of hands; and secondly, that he would adopt an act. of Parliament which his friend knew was an ex- tremely doubtful one as applied to Birmingham, and which applied only to a parish which had not an usage of its own. They agreed to apply this act for tire first time, and in a man- ner calculated to defeat every one of its piovisions. It had been the custom at Birmingham always to have the election of churchwardens by a show of hands. It was proposed in the present instance to alter this mode, and take the votes 011 the principle of Sturges Bourne's act. A number of individuals were appointed to take that poll; and if any- thing could tend to reconcile persons to the adoption of such a course, it would be that proper means were taken to secure the honest execution of that act of Parliament. There was in Birmingham a grand levy book, containing the names of all persons rated, with the amount of their rates ; yet the ten poll clerks were sent into the church without any means whatever of ascertaining the number of votes which any one voter professed to have, whose vote they should enter in the papers supplied them. Those ten poll clerks, without check or controul, were nominated by the friends of one candidate, some of them unknown to the rector, and announced for the first time in church; one of them, as it appeared, the honorary secretary to the committee for managing the election of one of the candidates. The election took place, and the rector was advised to say— No one has polled for a quarter of an hour, and I close the poll— 1 don't tell what the numbers are, but I tell you he is elected by a large ma- jority. It was said that Englishmen loved fair play even to their opponents. Did the feeling still continue to exist? Was it to be said, that the town of Birmingham was not to have an hour's notice that the custom was to be altered ? At the moment they were to be told " We take the poll here, and take it differently from the way in which it has ever been taken— it will be taken by the friends of one side, without the probability of a check on the other." Could anything be more monstrous? Could anything be more gross? And then the people are told, " We have got an opinion." Who had taken it, and from whom had it been taken ? They found it was the opinion of Sir William Fol- lett, whom tliev all knew was a strong politician. Much depended on the prescription they received from then- physicians, and their lawyers too, on the symptoms which they gave them; but the people in this case had not even the gratification of hearing the statement graced by the name of Sir William Follett. They are told—" I have an opinion— it satisfies me, and I am content." Great pains had been taken to get up this election, and the rector was made the instrument for carrying it into effect. They had an act of Parliament to adjourn it to any other place, but thevdid not think proper to avail themselves of it. Did they mean to make what is called a " stalking horse" of the church ? Did they think their own designs could be best promoted by impeding there the opposition which they anticipated? If such was their motive, he should like to know how much the cause of piety would be served by it ? This was said to be a prosecution by the rector and churchwarden, and he had not a shadow of doubt ttiat it was got up at an enormous expense, with all the power too, that his learned friend, the Attorney General, could add to it. His lordship bad said that the presence of the Attorney- General, and his own, might have been dispensed with, and that a simple statement by the junior counsel would have sent the case sufficiently to the jury. He quite agreed with his lordship, for he assured him they had neither of them appeared thereat a trifling expense. But this was a peculiar prosecution, got up by subscrip- tion, the object of which was, to prevent that mandamus which had been moved for, from disturbing Mr. Brown's election. A witness was called to prove how alert the parties were. All of them were connected with a particular institution at Birmingham, called the Loyal and Constitutional Associa- tion; and all their opponents, oragreat number of them, . were members of the Political Union. They thought, knowing the. political feelings of the county, that by the introduction of particular topics, the jury Would be seduced to lend their aid in this matter. To what degree they would be able to divest themselves of this feeling, he knew not; but he believed they would discharge their duty as honest English gentle- men, fearlessly and manfully, and he had little doubt as to the result. The meeting was called. It took place in the church. He had already expressed his opinion of the general impropriety of the conduct which there prevailed. This was not limited by its takingplace in a church; he would admit more— he admitted what took place there would have been wrong had it taken place elsewhere. But he regretted, after the calm, deliberate, and excellent speech of Mr. Douglas, that they did not recollect they were in a church. He should have hoped the speech of that gentleman would have recalled the wandering thoughts of those persons, and brought to their recollection where they were. He had no doubt, if the rector had stood in a different situation, a few words from him would have had considerable effect— beyond that which Mr. Douglas pro- duced. The conduct pursued by both parties then, was im- proper anywhere; but he wished to know what public meetings were exempt from such tumults, except where all were of one side; he wished to know, whether this conduct, taking place in a church, was open to greater censure than if it had taken place elsewhere. He was not now in an ecclesiastical court, or pleading under the act of Parliament of Edward the VI., which was not applicable here; but he wished to ascertain whether the conduct which took place in St. Martin's church was open to any different legal construction, to what it would have been if it had taken place elsewhere. He was not saying for a moment that the moral impropriety was riot greatly increased. He perfectly agreed in that, but he would say, that was no riot in a church which was no riot in any other place. The transaction having taken place in a church, did not, in the slightest degree, alter its legal cha- racter. They were not in an ecclesiastical court, as he said before, but a common law court, on an indictment for a riot; and as to the getting up of the prosecution, he would beg to call their attention to the difficulty experienced in framing the information. The first count was for riotously assembling in church to obstruct the election of a churchwarden- making a riot there, and assaulting Mr. Gutteridge, Mr. Freer, and Mr. Rawlins. He supposed it was Trow that assaulted Gutteridge, when Gutteridge pitched him back into his seat! he supposed it was Pare who assaulted Freer, when Freer prevented his going into the pew! Now he ( Sergeant Wilde) asked, who it w: is that obstructed the due and lawful election of churchwarden? Was it not those who appointed the wardens and the poll clerks, all on one side? Did not they obstiuct it ? His learned friend had proved there was a bellman sent round to tell the people to come to the church. He had proved this, in order to counteract the facts which had come out respecting the circulars and handbills. But what connection had Mr. Muntz with the bellman or the placard ? Was it his fault that the Conservatives, and those in favour of church rates, were col- lecting their forces, and that means were taken by the oppo- site party to oppose them ? What had he to do with these tilings? Mr. Muntz went thereas a parishioner. Aye, and he went there to preserve the peace; and he would not have been there for that purpose, if he was not a man of charac- ter and influence, and able to do so. He asked whether the influence Mr. Muntz possessed, was ever exercised for the purpose of inciting his fellow- townsmen to a breach of the peace? No, his character, his station in society, and above all, his own well regulated feelings, would prevent this. Mr. Muntz was there in his individual character, and had no more to do with the bellman or the placard, than any one of the jury. They might have produced the bell- man, or the . printer of the paper, if they wished, or if they could, to prove that the meeting was premeditated. No doubt some persons on each side took pains to procure as many attendants as they could. But mark the unfair- ness of the prosecution. He did not perceive that the papers in question affected Mr. Muntz in the slightest degree, even if he had had anything to do with them; but it was not proved that he had. Two parties had assembled; one called by circular, the other by the bellman and advertisement. Now, what said his learned friend? There was great impropriety arid strong evidence of mischief, for they told the people in this advertisement that the parishioners had a right to vote. This was urged by the Attorney- General as a wish to get per- sons there who had not a right to vote. He ( Sergt.! Wilde) asked whether the legal adviser of the parish had not an- nounced that the parishioners had aright to vote? He asked them; should a man be deemed guilty who attended under these circumstances? He asked where was the criminality ? But motive was the question, where piety was the object. Did not their own vestry clerk give this as his opinion ? His learned friend objected to raising this question as irrelevant. He ( Mr. Sergeant Wilde) thought the opinion of a man of law, and a legal adviser of the parish was not irrelevant. Where the guilt was to depend on a point of law, they were not to be shut out from a legal opinion upon it. Not only were they justified in raising this question, but it would turn out they were right too, and that this was merely an attempt on the. part of those pious persons to impute guilt under the mask of a wretched piece of hypocrisy. Was it contended, when meetings were held in churches, that people were to be restrained from advocating their civil rights, irnd that they should not contend for them vehemently when the time and the occa- sion demanded energetic measures? What had they to restrain them? Nothing. This was a meeting held for a lawful purpose; and here it was most material to consider, where a riot was committed whether the meeting was a lawful one or not. If men assembled for a lawful pur- pose, and a conflict turned out, what was the con- sequence? Was it a riot? No. It was an affray. If, on the other hand, men went to an unlawful meeting, and a conflict took place between two parties, the guilt was imputable to all. But if men went to lawful meetings, in the event of a conflict, every individual was responsible alone for the acts which he himself had committed. He did not deny that there was extreme indecency, noise, and tumult in the church during the day, but he did deny that in point of law, it amounted to a riot. He was only interested in touching this question, when it was at- tempted to make one man at the end of the church con- nected with another, in an opposite quarter, and responsible for acts which he neither stimulated or could control. He denied the application of such a doctrine. The man guilty of the indiscretion of attending a meeting not called legally, may be made responsible for the acts of others. The law does this in. order to deter persons from attending un- lawful meetings, where, if violence or murder be committed, such person may be involved in the guilt of that murder. But the law in this country invited men to attend for the protection of their civil lights. It was their duty to attend; and here they were attending to discuss the right of elect- ing churchwardens. Could a man be made responsible for ail the acts committed at such a meeting? Could cruelty be so great, or prejudice so blinded, as to mix him up with the acts of pel sons attending such a meeting. Snch a proceed- ing would bring the law into contempt— it would make it a snare, and would deprive it of the sanctity which belonged to it, as the safeguard of their liberties. This meeting then was for a legal purpose. Much irritation pre- vailed? Who produced it? Let gentlemen forget for a moment the question to be agitated; let them con- ceive it to be of indifferent matter. The person who pre- sided arranged the whole proceedings with one of the two parties. Let them bear in mind that he was the chairman ex officio, one over whom they had the less controul. But there was a mistake here. Suppose the clergyman had a right to preside, he was the organ of the meeting, not the arbiter or controller of that meeting. He did not constitute the meeting. It was the duty of the chairman, whether it clashed or not with his own opinions, to attend to the direc- tion of that meeting; or, if he disapproved of it, to leave the chair. It was not the law that he was to controul that meeting; the people were there for the exercise of a civil right. The chairman was in communication with the paity on the other side. He changed the whole pro ceedings. He did not condescend to tell his reasons, but he said, " I have reasons of my own, and I shall per- sist in them." He ( Mr. Sergeant Wilde) said he had no right to treat the meeting with that contempt. He owed it in point of duty to give proper notice, if he thought fit to deviate from that which had been usage; but what could they expect, in the town of Birmingham, if the usage was changed without notice ? Was it their duty to submit to this? Were they to be told to submit and then appeal? Submission was a great trap. Let your op- position pass by, and you may be said to forfeit your right. He asked, in point of law, if the clergyman deviated from a certain course to pursue one which was sure to defeat a fair election, had the people no right to oppose it? Let them recollect, too, that the rector did not come alone ; he was associated with a particular party. He was met, on entering the organ gallery, with cheers. What was the natural consequence ? He was met by disapprobation on the other side, and then, forsooth, a riot was begun. They think the marks of disapprobation were addressed to the clergyman alone, but let them recollect that he came as the partisan of a party. A shout was set up by one side and a cheer by the other. Here then'they were to have a construction given to the hootings and yells different from that known in other meetings where such indecencies oc- curred. Well, the parties expressed disapprobation, and a court of justice was to be prostituted by calling that a riot. Let them now take up the charge as it affected Mr. Pare, in whom he was no further interested than as he was mixed up in the general question. Let them look at it, not. with the eye of partisans, but fairly and impartially— not pickings out a little patch here and there, and endeavouring to make out a case which could only be made out on the general broad features of it. Let them see what Pare did. He began bv saying he thought there was an objection to the " mode in which the election was conducted. Had lie not a right to do so? He pointed out what he conceived to be an evil in former elec- tions. The chairman asked how he thought to make this bear on the present question. Mr. Pare replied, I pro- pose to ask how this election is to be conducted. Well, if Mr. Pare thought the former election had not been pro- perly conducted, what was to prevent him addressing the meeting, and putting them to right? Suppose it irrelevant, ( which he did not think it was) he still had a right to ex- ercise his own judgment. He was there as a parishioner. There was a suggestion, that the time he made his objec- tion was not the proper moment, and he immediately gave way, on the understanding that he was to have an opportu- nity of addressing the meeting on this subject. Was it in- tended that he never should have this opportunity? It was; that intention was acted on. He was addressing the meeting on a pertinent subject— the right of voting. He was requested to desist; he did so. The church- wardens were proposed by the rival parties. During this time there was considerable noise; the meeting went on, upon which Mr. Pare again addressed the chairman. Had he a right to do it? What, would his learned friend say, he had no right to address the people to excite them? What did any one address a meeting for, if not for the purpose of producing excitement? What did his learned friend address his Dudley electors for, if not for the purpose of exciting them? Undoubtedly it was to excite them to a particular purpose. Had Mr. Pare then not a right to do so? He saw the chairman was proceeding on a wrong principle, and the rector replied— " Sir, my mind is made up." The rector did not con- descend to give any explanation. He did not say that he had the opinion of the Attorney- General, Sir William Follett, or any person whose name would excite respect or deference. Not at all. He spoke by the dictation of one party, and no further would he go. Mr. Pare, on this said, " As you won't let me know the authority on which you are induced to take this course of election, if you won't take a show of hands, tell us why, or if not, tell us where is the vestry clerk." The vestry clerk was ill. The young man produced said he knew nothing about the matter. Here was a great matter at stake. They were proceeding to the election. When was the time to dispute that election ? Then and then only. Mr. Pare then wishes to know the course by which the vestry clerk was elected. This was not the time for showing the books. Pray when was the time? Then or never. It was the time, and only time. The time to see whether you act rightly, is before you act. It was natural— it was judicious— it was perfectly in order, and decorous to ask to look at that book. But the rec- tor refused to look at it himself, or permit any other person to do so. Mr. Pare then appeals to the vestry— " Shall I inspect it?" " Yes." Had the vestry a right to inspect it? He said they had. How were they to ascer- tain they had that right? By asking it. Mr. Pare was at some distance from the rector. He asked for the book. The rector refused. He asked the rector to inspect it him- self. He refused. He then asked the meeting to autho- rise him to do so on behalf of the meeting. What was there illegal in this proposition? Nothing in the world. This then was to constitute a riot! The people were in a state of excitement. The authority of the meeting was given. The noise and confusion went on. If it was proved that noise and confusion constituted a riot, he would admit a riot at once. The rector refuses to give him permission to inspect the book— the vestry gave him power to do so— it was illegal and improper to prevent him the right of inspecting the book. The chairman would not put some of the questions proposed; and here he would ask, was a vestry meeting at which the clergyman presided a nonentity? Had they, or had they not, a right to express their opinions ? Where was the law to prevent them from doing so? He knew of no chairman in this country, from the speaker of the House of Commons downwards, exempt from the opinions of the body over which he presided. Mr. Pare proposes a vote of censure on the rector for refusing to put a motion to the meeting, to the effect that he was lending himself to one side. Mr. Douglas seconded this proposition. Where was the law that made it criminal for a man tp make such a motion at a public meeting? Mr. Douglas thought the con- duct pursued by the chairman improper— that he had aban- doned the duties of a chairman ; yet, on his suggestion, the words " arbitrary and unjust," were struck out. They would find how this was received by the meet- ing ; they would find, notwithstanding the noise, that the meeting was not quite insensible to reason. Did they want to show the character of a'riotous meeting? If they did, let them mark the manner in which Mr. Douglas's speech was received Mr. Douglns, who addressed them in terms advising them that harshness of language to the rector was unnecessary— that they were bound to conceive he was acting, not from ill design, but from mis- apprehension— that if he differed from them they were still bound to- treat him with respect. How were these sentiments received ? Cheered from one end of the church to the other; by the north gallery, of course, because they tended to re- move all blame from the rector, and promoted the course they had advised, but south, east, and west re- echoed the cheers. Mr. Douglas proposed that the harsh epithets should be struck out ( and it was a pity there was not a Mr. Douglas to be found in every public meeting) and that the resolution would not be a whit less strong. What said Mr. Pare to this? The moment the words were uttered he acqui- esced that instant. They found they could not get what they eonceivcd to be justice and propriety at the hands of the rector, but, notwithstanding this, no sooner was an amelioration proposed In the terms of the reso- lution, than it was universally adopted. Now they found the meeting not insensible to Mr. Douglas's appeal for carrying the resolution, which brought him ( Sergeant Wilde) to this. Had such a meeting a right to express its opinions of a chairman? They had heard a resolution carried at a time when the meeting was in a calm deliberate State, seconded by a gentleman, unexceptionable in his con- duct, and acceded to by all present. He begged, then, to know where was the law that would make this meeting- whatever the noise might be— riotous up to this moment? The chairman would not put the motion reflecting on his own conduct; nor, it would appear, any other. It was said the rector had a right to proceed, ex officio, to the election of parish wardens. He ( Sergeant Wilde) should not go into that question. He appointed one, but he had no right to interfere in the election of the other. It was thought by Chief Justice Ryder, that he had not a right to preside at the election of parish wardens. The question of the right of the rector to preside, had lately u ndergone more formal discussion than it had undergone aforetime, whether it received a final legal decision he knew not; but it was thought proper that it should be so. It was, however, a singular fact that the question had never arisen but where disorder, misunderstanding, and dispute, had taken place, arising out of such proceedings. But no matter. Now for the authority. Was it to be found in the books? His learned friend treated it as a matter beyond all doubt. Lord Tenterden would not pronounce an opinion on the point, but his learned friend rushed over the difficulty, and pro- nounced his without hesitation. But whether right or wrong, he did not apprehend the proposing that some one else should take the chair, could be considered illegal. He did not apprehend his learned friend, the Attorney- General, would call for criminal punishment for that. Mr. Winfield came to the front ot the gallery. The rector would not vacate the chair. There was no attempt to dispossess him of it. The whole guilt consisted— if guilt there was— in the expression of an opinion. The clergyman sat there invested with all the authority he held from the first hour of the meeting. Now, he asked, when Pare requested the inspection of the book, did he in- cur legal guilt; or whether, when he proposed they should express an opinion unfavourable to the chairman's conduct, had he a right to do that? He knew of no law, he was utterly ignorant of any that could be brought by possibility to bear on such an offence. He should presently call their attention to the rector's evidence, but he should beg to call their attention now' to this important fact. Mr. Muntz made his speech to the meeting. Was the fact of his having made that speech to be laid hold of as evidence of his having been guilty of a riot? How did he express himself? Who would be most likely to take exception to that speech,- if it was really exceptionable? What! was that speech such as the rector could find no fault within tone or temper? This was the opinion of the rector, and yet this was the inflammatory speech which made him responsible for a riot. Where was the candour where was the justice of this ? When words were used that seemed equivocal, the words " insensible being," Muntz im- mediately explained them. He knew not what the " tone and temper" of his learned friend's reply might be, but as he had expressed himself so guardedly at the outset, he hoped the same " tone and temper" would characterise his closing address; and though his learned friend had in opening so far forgot his own feelings and sense of propriety, as to reflect on the personal appeaianceof Mr. Muutz, he trusted he would not be found pandering to the bad passions of his clients, by again having recourse to so unworthy a mode of attack. It was well known that his lordship was not partial to cer- tain peculiarities in the appearance of individuals ; and it was thought by the party opposed to Mr. Muntz, that by com- pelling his presence in court that day, it would have a ten- dency to excite a prejudice in his lordship's mind. The Judge ( looking, at Mr. Muntz): If that was their object, all I can say is, they have failed. Sergeant Wilde: Every pitiful manoeuvre was practised by the party; and his learned friend, he regretted to say, had lent himself to his clients for this unworthy pro- ceeding. His learned friend knew that Mr. Muntz w. as a gentleman of the highest respectability; and he would ask him if he was not aware that an offer was made to Mr. Muntz, if he would confess himself guilty, that the party at whose instigation this prosecution was got up would ^ forego all further proceedings ? Mr. Muntz indignantly spurned the offer, for he valued the respect of those who knew him, and his own character, too much, to lower himself for a moment so far as to accede to terms which must condemn him when he did not deserve it. He was not to be intimidated. Mr. Muntz would feel the disgrace of such an admis- sion, more than any punishment that could be inflicted on him. He felt convinced when this case was known, that he would receive not only an acquittal here, but every place else— and therefore he was deter- mined to apply— first to the justice of his country for an acquittal from legal guilt, and next to the public for an exculpation from ail moral guilt. If Mr. Muntz would only forego this honourable and manly course, his op- ponents were ready to say—" Oiir piety is satisfied." Having gone through Mr. Muntz's case, let him see what remained. He had to complain of much misrepresentation on the other side, which he attributed to misapprehension and confusion, but he trusted, while he gave those who made these mis- statements credit for misapprehension, that the jury would likewise exercise their judgments in detecting those discrepancies, whether they arose from strong political feelings, or the excitement which was produced. Let them see the care and order observed at this meeting. They had Mr. Elkington, the honorary secretary, whose curiosity induced him to stand on the edges of the pews. So it ap- peared, standing on the pews was considered nothing in- decorous, and, therefore, Mr. Elkington stands, with others, on the tops of the pews. The streetkeeper, on getting over to another part of the church, crosses one of the pews, and receives a kick on the hip. Mr. Guest gets over the third pew, passing into the first, but why, or wherefore, he cannot tell. Mr. Muntz also gets over a pew, and he, for- sooth, pulls out his stick for the purpose of exciting the mob. This stick is charged with all sorts of mischief. Mr. M. is a most guilty man, because he gets over the pews. What is his guilt? He leaves his seat— none of the wit- nesses see his stick for any. length of time— lie is absent a minute or two, and he is back again. I claim credit for that gentleman, that he acted from the very best motives, that his sole object was not to make, but to pre- vent disturbance, and that nothing else influenced him. Mr. Pare, at the time of his going to ask an inspection of the books, went to the pew of the rector. He ( Ser- geant W.) could not call Mr. Pare before them, he was madeaparty; he ( the Sergeant) could not state his mo- tives, they must be inferred. He was evidently desiious of consulting the book, while those about the rector stimu- lated him to refuse it, Mr. Pare, having got the authority of the meeting, where did he go unsupported by his friends? To the rector, to the place where he ( Pare) was to be sur- rounded by his enemies. He went thither to appeal to the rector personally. How is he met? He has not even an opportunity of making his desire known— he is met by one of the vestry men— and he is pushed back. He goes to the rector's seat, and what are the expressions attributed to him ? " I am come in a formal manner to demand the book. If you will give me a formal refusal I will return to my seat." Seeing Mr. Pare laid violently hold of, every one near rushes forward to see what is going on. They are carried on by the pressure from behind. The jury had often heard of the pressure from without, the pressure from behind was quite as powerful. There was, in fact, a general rush, not of the partisans of one side only, but of both. The whole of the alarm created at the time, as re- peated by witnesses, was caused by that rush. It was rude and indecorous, but it was very natural. They would find such a practice prevailing as much at the court of St. James as at St. Giles. Gentlemen will readily excuse it, for they well know, when any matter is going on, of pe- culiar interest, there will be a squeeze to see it. What blows were struck during the struggle ? None. Who i was laid hold of ? Trow ! Whether he is dying of the 1 treatment he then received, I know not; I believe he is not at present expected to live. Where are the persons that were injured ? The numbers increase rapidly, and to- day we heard of not less than of fourteen street- keepers ! The moment Mr. Pare left his seat there was then a ge- neral crowding. Did Mr. Pare attempt to seize the book ? Trow is asserted to have endeavoured to do so. Who encouraged him, who supported him in that endeavour, if it were made? No one. Two boys from the south gal- lery were also said to have made a similar attempt. Who encouraged them? No one. What he ( Sergeant W.) wanted to know was this. There was a number of street- keepers present. There was a number of boys in the south gallery known not to be late payers. Why were they not told to go out? It was plain, from the evidence, that Mr. Paie left his place to inspect the book only. He ( Sergeant W.) asserted that Mr. Fare's deportment war- ranted no such allegation as that he meant to seize it. Guilty intention was the gratuitous imputation of his op- ponents. He did nothing inconsistent with what he de- clared his intention to be. Did they suppose, if the gentle- men in Mr. Muntz's pew had believed it was his intention to seize the book by force, that they would have assisted him? Not one of them. A few minutes of Confusion took place— he ( Sergeant W.) had asked the rector if it were more— and at the end of that space of time every one Te- turned to their seats, and all went on as if no confusion had ever existed. Was it English law, was it English justice, was it common . humanity, that this violence, or whatever else they might please to call it, should he tor- tured into a charge of riot? He found that in this church, after this tremendous breaking of the pannels which was spoken of, after all this had occurred, nobody seemed' to' think at all of anything that had happened. They went on to. the. close of the meeting quietly, and then separated. What became of Mr. Pare ? He returned to his seat as soon as Mr. Moseley gave him a refusal. Thither he returned quietly, and it was to this conduct that was imputed the intention to commit a riot. They had been delayed for hours by having their attention called to hootings and noise, as indications of riot, while these were merely an expres- sion of irritation from both parties. They had heard of persons crying " Throw him over." Would any one say that such expressions were used seriously? Whether they were used by one or both, they were such as every one must have heard at public meetings, where not the slightest inten- tion or wish to give effect to them existed. He asked them, was there a colour of pretence for supposing Mr. Pare meant to seize the book, or to offer the slightest disrespect to the rector? While the pressure was going on Mr. Muntz left his seat. He ( Sergeant W.) would ask, were innocent or guilty motives to be presumed in such a case ? Mr. Muntz passed over the back of the seats, and one wit- ness examined to- day said, that he attempted first to pass the pew door, but could not do so, and was thus obliged to choose the other mode. He ( Sergeant W.) would prove' that when Mr. Muritz left his seat, he said to those around him, " There will be confusion, and I will endeavour to prevent it." He was not certain, but he believed Mr. Douglas was one of those who heard him. Again, it was said Mr. Muntz waived his stick over his head, and they heard from Knott that, on getting over the back of the pew, he raised it. But there was not an imputation even why he did so. There was not one word of truth in what they had beard of his going back to get his stick after Mr. Doug- las took it from him and put it aside. Mr. Muntz was going forward to prevent the people from pressing on, when he met Mr. Rawlins. Rawlins had chosen to say, without the slightest reason, that Mr. Muntz knew he ( Rawlins) was the parish constable. " He must have known me," said he, " he had known me for years." Was that person for years the parish constable, then? Mr. Rawlins had a stick in his hand, and tiie fact was, he had raised it for the purpose of striking some one. Mr. Muntz laid hold of it to prevent him, but the moment he was informed Rawlins was a con- stable, he quitted it. Mr. Rawlins was a partisan of the rector, inflamed by strong feelings; he ( Sergeant Wilde) would like to know what use Mr. Muntz meant to make of his stick. It was a slight stick, not the thickness of his finger. Mr. Rawlins said Mr. Muntz attempted to wrest it from his hand; but on being questioned if it was broken in the struggle, he admitted it was not. Mr. Gutteridge is the gentleman whose evidence differs from all the other witnesses; for this person assigned decla- rations and motives to Mr. Pare which all the rest shrunk from. They found that this was a meeting composed of persons of various creeds and politics; Church of England men, who thought that church rates should not be imposed but by the consent of the parish; and Dissenters of various denominations, who thought it unjust that they should be taxed to support a form of worship which they could not approve of; and he asserted that this prosecution was got up for the purpose of deterring Dissenters, by fixing on them the guilt of a riot, from exercising and defending their legal rights. They had heard of the hand- bills which were distributed about the church, which the pious party had got in the vestry. One of these he would read to them, it was headed " Civil and Religious Liberty," printed in large letters. [ The learned sergeant here read the hand- bill in question, which was circulated in the church on the day of election, commenting on the terms employed in it, und particularly on the classification of Dissenters with " Papists and Infidels."] Whether the taste or the argument displayed in this bill was bad or good; whether the opinions it contained were correct or otherwise; whether with the concurrence of his own judgment or not; his learned friend ( the Attorney- General) was prepared to advocate all of it—( laughter.)— he ( Sergeant Wilde) knew not. Whether the Church of St. Martin's was an old foundation or not, he knew not, but this he did know, that those who associated Roman Catholics with Infidels, would do well to recollect that they were dissenters from that religion; that their ancestors were Catholics; that those buildings which they vene- rated, and to which they rescrted for every blessing that religion could bestow; that the most beautiful and va- luable of those churches had been handed down to them from their Catholic ancestors. It was not fair, therefore, however they differed from them, however confident in the superior excellence of the worship they professed, or how- ever satisfied of the value of that liberty they enjoyed, to class them with Infidels, still less to offer an insult in that church, which, for aught he knew, had heard the voice of the Catholic priest dealing out truths and doctrines, prayers and thanksgivings, many of them in common with them- selves, with the apparent sanction of the rector, to class these Roman Catholics with Infidels; the contest at the same time being, whether a churchwarden should be elected to impose church- rates on the " Papist," " Infi- del," and " Dissenter," in common with the Churchman. This bill, they would recollect, was printed two days before the meeting. Who then was it, he asked, that prophesied that brawl and contention should take place in that church ? This was done to excite the Churchman against the Catho- lic and Dissenter when they should be assembled together. This was done by the people in the vestry, who by the dis- tribution of those bills about the body of the church, deter- mined to insult those who differed from them. He asked, did Englishmen love fair- play— did they love justice— should such a party doing this, come forward and prosecute others for a riot? Should he go with them through the evidence which had been brought before them— he feared to fatigue them, for he too, should have to call a considerable number of witnesses. His learned friend said that he ( Sergt. Wilde) should call none, that if left to his own judgment, he should call none. Undoubtedly, if he acted on his own view of the evidence, he should call none. He was content with the case as it stood, if clearly examined. When he followed up every individual circumstance, and found not a single act done or spoken by Pare or Muntz to which an exception could be justly taken, he would not hesitate a moment in trusting them with the construction of the case. But if his learned friend meant, that in the exercise of his own judg- ment, he should not now call witnesses, he was mistaken. He ( Sergt. Wilde) had seen the impressions made by the description of the noise and the confusion, and he wished to remove them. If this had been a case in which he him. self was alone concerned, he would be content to rest it here, according to his own judgment— that judgment being to satisfy the judge and the jury. But he had another duty to perform; he had to satisfy Mr. Muntz— aye, and those to whom Mr. Muntz was known. He was not content on Mr. Muntz's behalf to escape legal guilt— still less legal punishment. He thought the impropriety of the conduct of this meeting, and others of a similar kind, was now admit- ted to be so great, that this prosecution could produce little good. The condemnation pronounced by his learned friend, and which public feeling sanctioned, convinced him that piety would be more served by that correction which good feeling pronounced on that conduct than by any prosecution like this, set on foot for party purposes. Did they think that the Dissenters of Birmingham would be satisfied— did they think the politicians of Birmingham would be satisfied, were he to rest his case here? No, the circumstances of til is disgraceful proceeding must be published to the world. It was an attempt of one party to persecute another— he would be able to prove to them that it was an action com- menced on false representations of the case— he would prove that the election had been set aside by Lord Den- man— that there was now a mandamus to proceed to a new election, and that this prosecution was got up to support a proceeding which had been declared to be illegal and improper. What good did they expect from bringing this action, either to the political party in Birmingham who kept up ill feeling and animosity for their own purposes ; or to the sober- minded and religious sects who were alike irritated and annoyed at the repetition of such scenes. He should call several witnesses to prove the part that Muntz had taken. With respect to the other parties, they were not connected with him, though on the general ques- tion he was obliged to go into much of what affected them. He had before stated, that he was unwilling to do that which he could do with considerable effect, namely, to analyse the evidence of each witness; it would he at the peril of trespassing too much on their time. He wished their atten- tion to be directed to the broad features of the case. He wished them to bear in mind the numerous discrepancies that existed in the evidence of these witnesses. Let them be just. Let them he impartial. He trusted they had had sufficient experience and knowledge of the world to know, that scarcely two persons could be found of such correct observation, that after they had left that church they could have given the same account of the proceedings of that day. All the witnesses had told them what they thought of the scene they described, the inferences they drew, and the motives they imputed to the conduct of those who took part in it. Yet they found that some of those witnesses could not analyse their own motives; for Mr. Guest could not tell the particular motive that impelled him to leave his pew, and cross over to another. In calling his witnesses before them, he begged to state that, according to his apprehen- sion, this meeting was deficient In several essential qualities of a riot. It was legal in itself, the individuals prosecuted having no object in view but the legitimate object of that meeting. Let them take what they would tell him Mr. Muntz did, and what he said, and nothing but the grossest want of charity could— to a person in so respectable a station of life, and opposed to them in political feelings— impute to him guilty intentions. Mr. Muntz got up for the purpose of preserving order, and the moment he found a constable there charged with the preservation of order, he returned to his seat. The first count in the indictment charged the de- fendants with riotously assembling in a church, for the pur- pose of obstructing the due and lawful election of a church- warden, with making a riot, and with assaulting Gutter- idge, Rawlins, and F'reer. He asked, was Mr. Muntz there engaged in preventing the due and lawful election of a churchwarden, or in obtaining it? He went there without any previous arrangement or concurrence with any body, and when there he sat down until he found there was an im- pression that the rector was acting unfairly, and then he rose up, and made the speech he did. Now, lie asked what proof was this of riot, or obstruction, or assault ? He was again charged with endeavouring to disturb the pe » ce, and en THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 7. 7 dangering the persons there lawfully assembled; and en- deavouring to make a riot, and inciting and stirring up persons in a church to make a riot. The very contradic- tory terms in which this count was drawn up, refuted it- self. Every act imputed to Mr. Muntz had a rational ex- planation 011 the face of it, but as to his being there for any such purpose, there was not a tittle of evidence to war- rant it. He was next charged with an affray—- next for an assault on Mr. Moseley— next for an assault on Mr. Foye next for an assault on Mr. Freer, and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty. He ( Mr. Ser- geant Wilde) would here remark on Mr. Foye— that gen- tleman who spoke of the shillelah. Did they observe the haste— the impetuosity of that gentleman's manner; he was the person who supplied the information to the Bir- mingham Advertiser— he was a man involved up to the chin in these transactions, and the responsibility of them— he chose to give them an account of some expressions which he made useof to Mr. Muntz; Mr. Foye said he called on Mr. Muntz, from his influence upon the people, and from his station in Birmingham, to assist in quelling the tumult. What ! call on Mr. Muntz, from his station and influence, to assist in quelling the disturbance? This was what Mr. Foye said, but he afterwards acknowledged that he called upon Mr. Muntz from such a distance that he did not know whether he heard him or not. Why call upon him to quell the tumult? If Mr. Muntz had been endeavouring to excite the tumult, would Mr. Foye call on him to quell it? No; it showed that Mr. Muntz's conduct madesuch an impression on Mr. Foye, that he might properly call on him to assist in quelling the tumult. This was the true meaning of it. Then came the assault on the consta- ble. He defied human ingenuity to find out if Mr. Raw- lins held down the stick, as he stated, how, or under what pretence, Mr. Muntz coidd have seized it. But if Mr. Muntz thought he was an unauthorised person, and saw him using it, it was quite consistent with his conduct and character, that he should prevent him committing vio- lence upon others. This Mr. Rawlins told them,' lie was obliged to strike several persons in the gallery with his staff. Now, it was the duty of peace- officers to take per- sons into custody who broke the peace— it was within their authority to prevent a breach of the peace, if necessary with a blow, but they had no right to strike individuals except actually to prevent a breach of the peace at the moment. Peace- officers had no right to strike persons for making a noise. If persons disturbed the proceedings of a public meeting, they had a right to remove them— any man misconducting himself might be removed ; but it must be a clear case of interruption, as they were there in the exercise of a civil right. He referred to this, not for the pur- Eose of discussing the propriety of Rawlins's interference, ut when it was said that his stick was wrested from him, they would bear in mind, supposing for a moment, that such an attempt was made, under what circumstances this occurred, and that it was in the hands of a man who ac- knowledged that he made a free use of his staff. He saw no reason why Mr. Muntz should not lay hold of the stick when he found a person, of whose official situation he was utterly ignorant, about to commit violence upon others. Why, if Mr. Muntz was breaking the peace did not that officer take him into custody? But Mr. Muntz did not break the peace, and hence they found that the indictment charging him with this riot and assault, was spread out diffusely over a number of alleged acts for the want of a cir- cumstantial charge. If it was founded in anything like honesty or good faith; he contended that it was founded in the grossest misapprehension. His learned friend had stated to them that the Court of Queen's Bench had granted this information. Yes, the Court of Queen's Bench had granted the information, but, whether on this evidence or on affidavits corresponding with this evidence, they did not know; but this he ( Sergeant Wilde) did know, that one half of what was stated in court that day, would make out a clear case for granting a criminal information. The witnesses said there was tumult, and yells, and hisses on one side, but they suppressed all noise on the other; they had heard of Mr. Muntz flourishing his stick above his head on one side, but they had not heard a syllable of the violence used by the other; they had heard of eating and drinking by one party in the church, but every indulgence of a similar kind was suppressed on the other. They had stated half of the case", and the Court of Queen's Bench very properly made it a case for enquiry on both sides. They had now got, not the whole, hut as much of the whole as they could expect from one party. He ( Sergeant Wilde) fully agreed in the observations of the learned judge, that there was much disturbance on the side of both parties ; but whatever might have been the conduct of the political parties on one side or the other, he was satisfied, after the jury had heard the evidenceon bothsides, that they would re- tire from that box with the full conviction on their minds that Muntz did not do a single act, or say a word that could be tortured into exciting the people to a breach of the peace. He dealt not with the silly and trifling story of this or that man representing Mr. Muntz's stick in various positions. But let them look to the general conduct— he struck nobody— he insulted nobody. He went from his pew till he met with a police officer, and when he found one he returned to it again. He appealed to them to weigh the facts, to be stated by the witnesses he should call, as care- fully as those which they had heard on the other side, and he called upon them, when they came to the close of their labours, not to lend themselves to the political purposes or objects of any party. He appealed to them, as jurymen and gentlemen; for though satisfied that he should have every reliance on their oaths, he had equal reliance on their honour, for the man who would not be influenced by his honour would be entitled to little reliance on his oath." He was satisfied that the jury could not leave that box without being satisfied that this was a party question— that this pro- secution was got up for party purposes and party objects— that the prosecutors themselves contributed to make the noise and confusion, the whole of which they endeavoured to pass upon their opponents. He called on them, therefore, as men of the world— as men of sense and discrimination— to give a natural and fair construction to the noise and confu- sion that took place. When they were told there was alarm and terror, let them look to the scene and the cause of that terror, the greater part of which was caused by the pressure from behind. Now the foolish curiosity, or the impertinent conduct of those— be they of what party they might— pressing forward to see what was going on, was no legal of- fence— no violation of any law. He trusted, therefore, that the present case would prove another added to the long list of those which they heard, that whatever attempts might be made to influence an English jury, they had sense enough to understand, and integrity enough to uphold, the law— that they would give confidence to the men who entrusted their lives, their property, and, dearer still, their cha- racter to their keeping, and that to whatever sect or party they belonged, they might still feel confident that justice would be done them. He regretted to occupy their time so long, but as he before stated, he knew he could not keep attention alive beyond a reasonable period. He trusted to their intelligence in attending to those dis- crepancies to which he had alluded, and when those allow- ances were made, he confidently anticipated the result which he had stated would be come to. He had observed in the course of his observations, less on his learned friend's speech than he intended to have done. Whether he would take advantage of this in his reply, he knew not; but should he do so, there was another quarter to which he trusted— he trusted that his lordship would not fail, at the close of the case, to bring their attention to the object of this meeting— to the particular conduct of the defen- dants ; and place it before them ill such a light as to enable them to come to a fair conclusion upon the case, and he bad no doubt that the aquittal of his client would be the consequence. Mr. Humfrey said, he appeared on the part of Mr. Pare, whose case had been so ably attended to by the eloquence and talent of the learned gentleman who had just addressed them. After the speech of Mr. Sergeant Wilde, he felt he would be doing injustice to his client were he to occupy their attention at any length. Indeed, he should not have thought of addressing the jury at all, were it not that he feared that in the great gratification they had felt in listening to the splendid address of his learned friend, they might probably forget the real part which his client, Mr. Pare, had taken in the transaction. Mr. Pare, who held an office of considerable importance, that of superintendent registrar of Birmingham, was a Dissenter, and one who had taken an active part for many years in parochial affairs. He went, on the occasion stated in the indictment, to St. Martin's church,, for the purpose of assisting in the election of a churchwarden. He was a rate payer, and had an undoubted right to be present. The contest for the office of warden had for years previous been governed by a particular usage, be went to the meeting with the expectation that the busi- ness of the day would be conducted as usual, and the elec- tion fairly gone through. It was true he had seen placards and circulars which had been issued by the opposite party, a specimen of which had been already read to the court, and from these placards, and other indications of hostility, be was led to believe there would be a strong contest. He knew his opponents were determined on carrying their object, and he was determined that he would neither do or say anything coutrary to law and usage, and by that determina- tion he had acted throughout the whole of the proceedings. What was the first thing which it appeared from the evi- dence his client did? Why he quoted a law hook. He read to the meeting a legal opinion of great importance in support of the view he had taken of the point in dispute; and fiom this legal opinion argued with much force and reason, that the course which the rector was pursuing was wrong. It was true the Attorney- General had denied Mr. Pare's law, and brought it as an imputation against him; that he did not know the law better. It was not a wonder that Mr. Pare did not know the law, when the most learned of its expounders differed in opinion upon many of its points. Whether he knew of the latest decisions in the law courts upon the subject, he ( Mr. H.), did not know, Mr. Pare could hardly imagine that he did. Mr. Justice Park: If he did imagine he knew all the points, he was very likely to deceive himself. Mr. Humfrey said his lordship was perfectly right, for the most contradictory decisions were occurring every day. He ( Mr. H.) knew of a decision that had lately been given in the very court of which his lordship was a member, and a contrary opinion was delivered in another court shortly after, so that there were two decisions, one being one way and one another, and the question was then pending in ( be Court of Queen's Bench, which had yet to decide which was right. To return to Mr. Pare. He goes to the church, and when he gets there he finds his opponents armed to the teeth, and he and his friends wait with great anxiety until the rector and his friends, who had been closeted in the vestry, should come into the church. In this state of things the rector made his approach. Not a human being could tell what course he intended to pursue except himself, and the favoured few whom he admitted into the vestry. He walks up the church, attended by the strongest and most violent partisans of one side, and he is received with cheers and acclamations by his friends. He would ask if the rector's friends coujd not restrain themselves, could they expect the other party to be silent? Certainly not. Well, Mr. Pare was prepared to go on with the election, and he had with him a treatise on the laws by which such proceedings were to be governed. The business commenced, and he ( Mr. H.) would say, if ever there was a meeting held at which less forbearance could be expected on the part of the people, it was the meeting at which the alleged offence took place. He contended for it, that, according to the evidence they had heard, Mr. Pare manifested a forbearance much to be wondered at, because it was clear that if ever there was conduct calculated to cause excitement, it was that of the rector and his party. Upon all former occasions a show of hands was taken. On all former occasions poll- clerks, when required, were appointed indiscriminately; but in the pre- sent case, what were the facts? Why, the show of hands was refused, and then comes the scrutiny of a committee appointed to carry the election of one of the wardens, with a list of poll clerks ready to go to work, and that without ever receiving the sanction of an approval of the meeting. What was the state of the anti- church rate party? Why they had not a single man of their party amongst the poll clerks to see bow the election was carried on. Ten men, strong partisans of one candidate, were appointed to take the votes. Was there ever before such a mode adopted for carrying 011 an election ? He really believed not. Such conduct was calculated to excite not only surprise, but dis- approbation. Well, under all this provocation, what did Mr. Pare? Nothing but what was perfectly legal. He de- nied the right of the rector to adopt such a mode of election, and he asked the rector to allow him to look at the minute book, when the rector said, " This is not the time nor the place." Than this answer a more insincere, a more spe- cious, a more seemingly honest, and a more perfect denial of right and justice never was made. Mr. Pare, confident of the propriety of the course he proposed, again ad- dressed the rector and said, " I am satisfied your pro- ceedings are illegal;" and doubting whether he ought, as an individual, to demand an inspection of the book, he asks permission of the meeting. He appeals to bis fellow parishioners and says, " Will you authorise me to de- mand a sight of the book?" They give him authority to inspect their own book, and be goes to the rector's pew for that purpose. Was he not acting perfectly in accordance with law in so doing ? Had not the meeting a perfect right to the book ? Was it not their own book ? Certainly. The rector had no more light to the book than any other man in the meeting. It did not belong to him. Hg had not even manual custody of it. The clerk was the person in whose possession it ought to be, and in whose keeping it was, for the use of the parishioners, and not of the rector. Bat what was the object of Mr. Pare's demand to see the books? Why, to get a formal refusal, in order to enable him aud his fellow parishioners to go to the Queen's Bench, and protest against the election. They did get the answer, and they went to the Queen's Bench, and the result of their application was, that the election was set aside. The Queen's Bench declared that such an election could not stand an instant, and issued a mandamus calling upon the parishioners to proceed with a new election. The At- torney- General bad stated that no mandamus had been issued. The fact was, the church- rate party had not dared to make a rate. If they had, they would very soon find whether or not a mandamus had issued. The instant they attempted to impose a rate, that instant would proceedings commence against them. He had stated the whole of the conduct of Mr. Pare. The only speech he made, the only observations he made, were quite natural and appropriate. True, he designated the rector's conduct as unjust and arbitrary; but although having such strong reasons for so doing, the instant it was represented to him that it was better to strike out these words lie consented, and was satisfied with merely protesting against the ille- gality of the proceedings. Mr. Pare exercised a common legal right, and if others at the time thought proper to commit violence, although in this case there was no proof, he could not be charged with a riot. It would be mon- strous if a man was to be subject to such a charge under such circumstances. No man could ever exercise his rights if such were the law, because the moment he attempted to do so, that instant some person or persons, interested in preventing him from doing so, had only to create a disturb- ance, and then cause him to be charged with a riot. What- ever Mr. Pare said, most certainly it never was pretended that he took any part in what was termed the riot, and fully confident that such jvas the fact, and that there was not a particle of evidence to affect him, he left the case in the hands of the jury with perfect confidence. Mr. WADBINGTOH then rose and said, he had the honour of appearing before them as counsel for the two remaining defendants, Trow and Pierce. To the first of these two defendants the issue would in effect be almost immaterial, for he was on the bed of death, but Mr. Pierce he hoped would yet live long untainted and unsullied by whatever had occurred in court that day. Gross and monstrous as the indictment against Mr. Muntz was, that fell into the shade when compared to the prosecution against Pierce. He was a respectable man, and had filled the office of churchwarden for the parish of Aston, and he believed he had filled some parochial office also in Birmingham. The charge contained in the present monstrous indictment against him was being concerned in a riot, and with causing and inciting others to riot; he was also charged with an assault on the Rev. Mr. Foye, with an assault on Mr. Freer, with an assault 011 Mr. Gutteridge, and with an assault 011 Mr. Rawlins. Did gentlemen, when he stated all this, believe he was speaking the truth or only indulging his fancy ? Xt was a fact, however, and that respectable man Mr. Pierce was dragged through the Court of Queen's Bench, and an information obtained against him on the evidence of witnesses whom he could not cross- examine. Was Mr. Pierce a rioter? He ( Mr. Waddington) doubted whether there had been any riot at all; but that had been dealt with by the learned Serjeant, and stood on grounds it was im- possible to move it from. Was it to be endured that a man like Mr. Pierce, of unblemished character, of unsullied reputation, was to be dragged into a court of justice, and charged with an offence in support of which not a particle of evidence could be adduced. Mr. Pierce was a rate- payer of the parish of Birmingham, and was his going to the meeting illegal or riotous? Was his remaining there to poll a riot? Was his being iti the crush a riot? Was there any one act which he did which the Attorney- General could construe into a riot? He wanted to know upon what ground the Attorney- General could charge him with a riot. He most positively declared he never knew such a charge sustained by such evidence. Let them only follow him for a few minutes while he briefly adverted to the evidence against him. The Rev. Mr. Moseley said Mr. Pierce was apparently taking a violent part. That was language which might do very well to put into an affidavit to obtain a criminal information, but was it lan- guage which would stand the test of a court of justice? The fact was, Mr. Pierce in place of apparently taking a violent part, took no part, and he ought never to have been charged with a riot. But what was a riot? He would tell them. There was a case tried at the last assizes for Leicester, in which he had the honour of being counsel, there people assembled before a poor- house, confined the keeper in that house, and re- strained from his liberty a magistrate who came to quell the tumult, and when he afterwards got away to the vicarage house, pelted him with stones on his way thither, and sur- rounded the house, nor could he escape till night shrouded the earth with her darkness. That was a riot, but even there the learned judge had said, that if persons were inno- cently there, neither throwing stones nor inciting others to do so, it would be an injustice to find them guilty. It was a remarkable feature in the present case that not one of the parties included in the present indictment was spoken of as having shouted, hissed, or yelled ; however, there he was in the indictment, and it would be the jury's pleasing duty to acquit him. Mr. Baker had stated that Mr. Pierce had shaken his head. He supposed he had shaken it tumultu- ously. ( Laughter.) Why, bis lordship then on the bench sometimes shook his head at the counsel when he thought they were going wrong. It was a gentle intima- tion that they must alter their course or he must interfeie, but he did not think the jury would be inclined to think his lordship ever gave it a tumultuous shake, or that his court was a riotous court. Well, but his client, Mr. Pierce, was charged with an assault upon Mr. Freer; and what was the fact ? Why the most extraordinary that ever transpired in a court of justice. Freer, the man whom Mr. Pierce was charged with assaulting, actually swore he never saw Pierce at all in the church. ( Laughter.) Elkington swore he saw all that was done, and yet he swore he saw Pierce do nothing. ( Renewed laughter.) Gutteridge saw him reach over the back part of a pew. Robins saw him do nothing. Guest saw him rush up a passage, and Cox saw him do nothing. - Now that was the whole evidence against Mr. P erce, and what, he would ask them, did they think of the case ? He appealed to the court when he said, he never, in the whole course of his experience, heard such a case sup- ported by such evidence. He would suppose that Mr. Pierce had been indicted by himself, what would the prose- cutors have done? Why, unless for the sake of piety they could have prevailed upon some jury to find him guilty rather than permit such wicked proceedings in a church, it would be impossible ever to convict him. The whole case was, dexterously got up, but when touched with the spear of truth, it would fade into air and become the base- less fabric of a vision. With respect to Mr. Trow, he was labouring under illness which would, he feared, prove fatal, and the consequence to him would be trifling, let their verdict be what it might. Up to the moment that he went to the rector's pew, he was perfectly still, and what evi- dence had they that he did not go there for a perfectly legal object. Was it hinted by any of the witnesses that Trow ever raised his hand to any man, or threatened any man ? The first thing almost that they heard of Trow, was when he was struck, and knocked down by Gutteridge, a man who had done himself very little credit in that case. Sup- pose, in the rush, Gutteridge and Freer went to the pew in which Muntz and Pare and others were, and that they were knocked down, what would the Attorney- General say? Why he would condemn the man who struck them in the strongest terms. But when Trow goes to Gutte- ridge's pew, and is knocked down, forthwith issues a crimi- nal information against him. As he before stated, it was of little importance to Trow how they decided ; still, he thought they ought not to embitter his last moments with the reflection that he had been convicted by a jury of his country, and that of an offence which he 110 doubt depre- cated as much as any man in that court. He could not see why, to gratify party feeling, the last scene of a virtuous life should be rendered unhappy. He would say, let Trow have the satisfaction of knowing, before he closed his mortal life, that he stood honourably acquitted by a jury of his country. It was now about twenty minutes to six o'clock, and Mr. Sergeant Wilde said that he intended to call witnesses, but it was then too late. The Attorney- General wished the examination of wit- nesses to be proceeded with at once, if possible. The Judge said he was willing to proceed, if they wished it; if not that evening, he hoped they would be able to finish the case 011 Monday night. The sessions were fixed for Tuesday; and they could not commence so long as he and his brother judge were in Warwick. The court then adjourned until Monday. THIRD DAY— MONDAY, APRIL 2. This morning the case was again resumed. The first witness examined was Mr. Clement Redfern, who deposed as follows: I am an attorney, resident in Bir- mingham. I attended the vestry meeting at St. Martin's Church, in March, 1837; I have attended vestry meetings on former occasions; I entered the church on the last occasion at ten minutes past twelve o'clock; the business had not then commenced; I did not see the rector come into the church ; I saw a party proceed up the north aisle, and from thence to the rector's pew. There was applause by one portion of the meeting and expressions of disapprobation by the other. There was a strong expression of feeling, simi- lar to what I had seen on former occasions. I heard the business opened; Edmonds, I believe, was the first per- son who addressed the rector; he was received with ap- plause, as he usually is; there were expressions of disap- probation in the north gallery. Paie was the next person who addressed the rector, and he was interrupted by the persons in the north gallery by shouts, yells, screams, and every such description of noise; I heard a sound resembling a humdrum sort of noise, like the noise of a tamburine; it continued almost the whole time Pare was speaking; there were cries of " turn them out," from the other side. Fre- quent appeals were made to the rector to keep order by Winfield's party; order was not procured, and the noise continued. I observed a person in the north gallery giving signals by raising his arm, and that signal was answered by a burst of every description of noise from the church party. I remember Muntz addressing the meeting; he was received with applause and disapprobation— disapprobation from the north gallery. Muntz has been in the habit of addressing the people of Birmingham; it might be half an hour or three- quarters after the business commenced before Muntz spoke at all; he complained of interruption, and alluded to the drumming noise. The interruption from the north gal- lery was extremely violent; that noise was directed exclu- sively against Muntz's or Winfield's party; by Muntz's party I mean Pare, Douglas, Jones, Edmonds, and others. I do not know that Muntz hud any communication with any person previous to the meeting. The other party in the church was the rector's party, and they advocated the election of Brown. During the discussion, questions were asked the rector, and when they were put to him he conferred with Gutteridge and others, and then he gave the answers; some replies were made to all the questions. Whilst Muntz was speaking, I heard offensive expressions applied to him from the persons in the north gallery; the persons in the rector's seat applauded and clapped their hands when these expressions were used. There was a great deal of grimace upon the part of Mr. Gutteridge; the people called him Punch ( laughter); he gesticulated like Punch. The Judge: Like those things they exhibit to children in the streets ? Witness: Yes; the people cried out, " now Punch," " now Judy." Judge: That is Punch's wife. ( Laughter.) Witness: This was continued during the whole of the meeting. I observed the conduct of Foye; there was a degree of levity about it; he laughed, but he did not do any particular act. During the meeting I saw handbills distributed. I] heard the address of Pare respecting the minute book; he asked the meeting if they would give him permission to demand an inspection of the book ; the authority was given by acclamation, aud that was accompanied by counter exclamations ; Pare never put it to the meeting to know if he should seize the book; I can speak most positively to that fact; Pare then moved to- wards the rector's pew; he did not go in a violent hasty manner; just the reverse; when Pare arrived at the door of the rector's pew, Freer placed his hands against Pare's breast, a violent noise immediately l « roke from the north gallery, and from other parts of the church ; I heard those in the north gallery cry out, " throw him over,"" pitch him over;" these expressions proceeded from other parts of the church; I considered the expressions in the north gallery were directed to Pare; I could not tell to whom the other party directed their expressions. At that time there was a general pressure forward by the party behind the rector, and- by those who were about Muntz. There were two dis- tinct parties in the organ gallery. The rush took place when Pare went to the rector's pew; there was great con- fusion in the organ gallery. I saw Muntz rise from his seat and cross in an oblique direction ; I observed he had a stick in his hand ; he held it in his left hand by the top, and the point downwards; he did not at any time wave it over his head; when first I saw him he was resting his hip upon his stick. I did not see Knott lay hold of the stick; I did not see Knott at that time. From the time Muntz left his pew until he'returned, I never saw him raise his stick above his head; if he had I must have seen him; I never saw him attempt to strike any one. The Judge: There is no evidence that he did attempt to strike any one. Witness: I saw him addressed by several persons, by Rawlins, the constable, and many others of the rector's party, by Foye, and I believe Gutteridge; I could not hear anything that was said. During the time these people were speaking to him, he was pretty nearly in the same position. He did not, certainly, go towards the rector's pew ; during this time the whole meeting was much excited; the pres- sure and noise continued three or four minutes. Several persons on both sides left their pews, and crowded Into the passage. The constables came into the organ gallery, and the disorder subsided very soon after. I saw Rawlins and three or four street- keepers; I saw Rawlins use his staff, and strike several persons with it; he appeared to me to be in an excited state. I did not observe any difference in the conduct of either party when the pressure took place; I did not see Pare enter the rectdr's pew; after the rector spoke to him he returned to his former situation. During the tumult and disorder Pare stood at the rector's pew, and when it was over he returned to his pew. Freer did not offer any violence to Pare. He put his hand before him, and that was all; Pare did not use any violence; with the exception of the pressure I saw nothing more than usual: I beg to qualify that. I saw one man extend his arm towards the minute book; he laid his hand upon it, and the book was drawn away by Baker. I saw Gutteridge engaged with a man in the pew be- hind the reclor. There was a struggle, and Gutteridge struck him two or three times. Willi the exception of the great pressure and the striking by Rawlins and Gut- teridge, I saw no more violence. I went away and re- turned in ten miuutes, and remained until the business was over. The persons whom Rawlins struck were only pressing forward. By the Attorney- General: When an application was made to the King's Bench, did you make an affidavit- Witness: Yes. Mr. Charles Jones examined: I went to the vestry meeting about twelve o'clock; I first went to the vestry room ; there was a beadle there. I then went to the organ gallery, and sat in the front left pew; in the early part I sat at the extreme right part of the pew next the passage, and Muntz at the extreme left. I remember the reclor coming into the church from the vestry room. When he came in there was a rising in the north gallery, and expres- sions of applause. They clapped their hands and made a rumbling noise; this was met by counter disapprobation. When Edmonds began to speak the noise commenced in the north gallery. I can't say I saw any persons giving signals in the north gallery, but they appeared to have signals from the order and regularity with which they acted. The whole of the defendants are rate- payers, and Munlz Pare, and Pierce, are guardians of the poor. Pare asked, the meeting if they would give him permission to demand a sight of the book. Pare then ieft his seat and pro- ceeded slowly to the rector's pew. He went quite peaceably, and entered the passage between the pews, and was then going to the rector's pew when he was opposed by Freer and others; I can't say what he did it for; in a second or two there was a rush and I lost sight ol him. I think I never saw Pare until he returned to his own seat, in about, perhaps, two or three minutes. Soon after this occurrence commenced Muntz left his seat, and went in a diagonal direction across the pews. He had his hat and stick in his left hand, the stick horizontally; he never waived his stick over his head. I did not see Knott do anything. I did not see Muntz brandish his stick, or attempt to strike any person. I saw handbills distributed. A copy of the handbill was read: — Mr. Jones resumed : My impression is, that the confusion did not last more than five miuutes, if so much. The pres- sure commenced on the obstruction of Pare on his going to see the book. The rush was made by both parties. I saw Rawlins first in the passage between the pews. I knew him to be a constable; be appeared excited. I saw six or eight street- keepers in the organ gallery. Mr. Muntz and I came to the meeting together. It was perfectly accidental, I met him as I was coming out of the news- room, and he said, " Are you not going to the vestry meeting;" I said, " Very well, I will go along with you." I never left the pew. By the Attorney- General: There were in Muntz's pew when the business commenced, Pare, Douglas, Hadley, and myself; afterwards T. Clark came in. Munlz left the pew, and Pare and Hadley left it. Pare could have been beard by the rector from where he sat. I should think Pare was about eighteen feet from him. I lost sight of Pare during the pressure, almost from the time it began until it ended. The passage between the two pews was very crowded. Muntz could not have got out by any other way except on the tops of the pews, unless he crushed very much. I never heard throughout the day any cry of" Throw him over." I saw no struggle between Gutteridge and Trow. I saw Pierce in the organ gallery during the day, but I can't say he was in the passage. I saw no pews broken. I can't say I saw any struggle between Muntz and Rawlins. I was not alarmed at all. A crowd intervening between me and the rectors's pew, I could not see what took place exactly. Pare could not read the minute- book from where he sat, and if he wished to see it, he must have gone to the rector's pew. Mr. John Betts examined : I am a refiner at Birming- ham ; I attended the meeting on Easter Tuesday. I was in the body of the church; I recollect the rector and his party coming out of the vestry. There was a great noise, but I did not pay particular attention to it. After the business commenced, I heard Pare ask the meeting if be had their concurrence to demand a sight of the hook. The meeting answered, " We do." Pare went quietly. He could not go with violence, because the throng was so great. I saw there was a rising within the pew to obstruct him. There seemed to be a general confusion amongst them. The con- fusion was from both parties. I think I saw Pare in his seat again, but I did not see him actually return to it. I have lived fifty years in Birmingham, and have attended many of these meetings. I am a guardian of the poor. A guardian must be rated at twenty pounds. I am rated at four times twenty pounds. I knew nothing whatever of Muntz's intention to be present at that meeting. I have attended several meetings of the kind in Birmingham, but I saw 110 difference( between this meeting and those I attended on previous occasions. By the Judge: Is Birmingham a very large town ? Witness: Very large, and a strong collision upon ques- tions of party feeling takes place. A show of bands used always to be taken at the vestry meeting, until the meeting of 1837. Cross- examined: I never saw any pews broken on any former occasion. There was a strong expression of feeling on former occasions. There was a general collecting of the people to look into the rector's pew at the time of the rush. I never knew the constables to have been called in on former occasions to quell disturbance. I never knew, on any former occasions, any attempt to seize the vestry book. They used to stamp their feet and clap their hands on former occasions, but without personal violence or danger to the person of any body. With the exception of the noise, nothing else took place on former occasions, nor would not on this occasion if the rector had been left to bis own un- biassed judgment. By Sergeant Wilde: I felt no fear, and saw no danger. Every time Muntz attempted to speak he was interrupted by persons in the north gallery. He sometimes addressed the audience, and sometimes the rector. After the scuffle the business went on in the usual way. I saw Muntz rise to go from his pew. He had his stick in his hand, but most certainly he never waived it. I took no notice particularly of his stick, because I am always in the habit of seeing it with him. Mr. John Bourne examined: I am a brass- founder, and a guardian of the poor of Birmingham. I attended the vestry meeting under consideration of the court. I went alone, aud took my place in the pew behind the rector in the organ gallery. When Muntz rose to address the meet- ing, there was a simultaneous shouting and hooting by the persons in the north gallery. They appeared as if organised for the purpose. I heard Pare repeatedly ask the rector if he would read the minutes Irom the vestry book, or let him see the book. The rector refused several times. Pare asked the meeting whether he should go and inspect the book, and a large portion of the meeting said " Yes." I saw Pare approach the rector's seat. He had not the least ap- pearance of being excited, or out of temper. I kept my eye upon Pare until he arrived at the rector's pew. Up to that time I had not observed anything in his conduct improper. There were several persons in the pew. Gutteridge, Freer, and others, rushed to put him away. They did not push him away with violence. I heard a rush behind me, and on turning round I saw a man plunging himself into my seat. His name is Palmer. I have no doubt he belonged to the party in the north gallery. I received a severe blow upon tny face from Palmer, and bad like to have had my aim broken. Palmer plunged against me, and knocked me for- ward. Another man was knocked down in the same pew. At this time Muntz was in his own seat, but in a short time after, when I recovered^ I saw Muntz standing upon the pews. He had a stick in his hand, but most certainly he did not flourish it. He was trying to balance himself with it, because he was in a dangerous position; so dangerous that a child could have knocked him down. Muntz's manner was then, as it is now", perfectly calm. I have attended several previous meetings, and, 1 am sorry to say, they have been very noisy and tumultuous. Cross- examined: I saw Pare go to the rector's pew. He had some trouble to get to it, owing to the people in the passage. There was a rush from behind, and the Back of my own pew gave way. I observed the ledge upon the top of'my pew give way. I was thrown off my guard, and I re- treated for a time. Mr. Joseph Shearman examined: I am a surgeon, re- siding at Worcester. In 1837 I resided in Birmingham. I went to the meeting in St. Martin's Church about twelve o'clock. I went alone. I had not arranged with any person to go there. I took my seat in the fourth pew behind the rector's pew. I was there before the rector came out of the vestry. I saw him come out of the vestry, attended by other persons. The vestry door is in sight of the north gallery. When he came out of the vestry there was violent cheering and hissing, and it was returned by violent hooting and cheering. I heard Edmonds address the meeting, and he was received tolerably well. Mr. Pare addressed the meeting, and he was received with cries of " Keshaw, be d d." There were letters which appeared in the Birmingham Journal, under the name of " Keshaw," and they were said to have been written by Pare. Mr. Muntz addreiaed the meeting, and he was assailed with very in- sulting language, such as " Union man," and language much more offensive. Handbills were distributed in the church. Mr. Muntz addressed the meeting in a very mild and gen- tlemanly manner. I heard Pare say in reference to the book, " Will you authorise me, as your repiesentative, to demand a sight of the bpok ?" Mr. Pare then walked very quietly and deliberately towards the rector's pew. Mr. Freer, Mr. Gutteridge, and Mr. Foye obstructed his en- trance violenty. I saw Mr. Gutteridge turn round and beckon the people down. He beckoned to those on the other side of the gallery, and upon that the people rushed down. I was in the fourth pew behind the rector. Mr. Muntz was in the front pew at the commencement of the affair. I saw Mr. Muntz get up upon the back of the pew. He went towards the pews behind the rector's pew. He had his stick in his hand, but never waived or brandished it over his head. I saw Rawlins come up. The rush was then over. The people had got down to the rector's pew. I saw Rawlins strike right and left. After that I saw Muntz and Rawlins in friendly conversation. Muntz was then upon the top of the pew. I did not hear what took place between Rawlins and Muntz, but they smiled to each other. I should say Muntz never entered the rector's pew. I never saw him. I know a man named Allday, whom I saw in a pew in the organ gallery. When Pare was ad- vancing from bis seat towards the rector's pew I beard him say, " pitch him over, pitch him over." I had never known Allday before. I never saw constables enter a vestry meet- ing before that day, and strike the people. I never saw a rush to the rector's pew at any former meeting. I did not see Gutteridge grimace. The Judge: Gutteridge grimaced the whole time lie was in the witness box. That I know. Cross examined: I was editor of the Birmingham Philan- thropist in 1837. I did not furnish the account of the pro- ceedings which appeared in that paper; I did not see it un- til it appeared in print. I recollect Muntz proposing another chairman in the place of the rector. There was a show of hands taken for the motion, and there was great cheering and acclamation. Winfield was to take the chair in place of the rector. I saw Winfield rise up, and I heard the rector say he would not give up the chair. It was about that time, the dispute began respecting the vestry clerk. I can't tell whether the polling had begun when the rector refused the inspection of the books. I heard loud cries of " take it by force;" these cries came from the south galleiy. It was after Pare was refused the book, and after he was resisted at the end of the pew, that the cries of " take it by force" were raised ; at that time there was a rush from the south gallery. I saw two persons who were, in my opinion, grasping at the book. There were a great many common looking people in the church. The liberal party did not wish to seize the book. I did not see Trow try to seize the book; he was most certainly trying to enter the rector's pew, and he did get into it. There was a pew before me gave way. I did not observe the partition between the south gallery and the or- gan gallery broken down. 1 The constable beat the people, and unfortunately many of them the rector's party. I did not see Muntz take hold of Rawlins's stick. All the persons whom the constable beat were those of the rector's party. By Mr. Sergeant Wilde: When the plan for taking the poll was proposed, it was objected to. If the poll was proceeding at all, it was at the time whilst it was being dis- cussed whether it was a proper mode or riot. At former vestry meetings, I believe Mr. George Edmonds put ques- tions to the meeting which the rector refused to put. Neither Pierce, nor Muntz, nor Pare, nor Trow, took any part in the cry of " take it by force," which came from the south gallery. I have been present at vestry meetings when the question of who had a right to be present and vote was discussed. The question was put to the vestry clerk, and he gave an answer. With respect to Trow, I saw Gutteridge take him by the leg and throw him over. Trow at that time had his arm in a sling, splintered up as if it had been broken. He was thrown back in a dangerous manner; he had only the use of one hand. I heard the cry of" throw him over" when Pare was going to the rector's pew, and when Muntz was upon the top of the pew. Most certainly Muntz did not do anything calculated to excite the people; his conduct was calm and quiet. Pare's conduct was also calm and quiet; exceedingly so. They were all the rector's party Mr. Rawlins was beating. Mr. Samuel Burrell, a manufacturer and a guardian of the poor of Birmingham, examined : I was at the vestry meet- ing in March 1837. The conduct of the meeting was similar to that on former occasions. I did not observe any persons in the north gallery make signals. Whenever any of the friends of Mr. Winfield attempted to . address the meeting, they were interrupted. I did not attend the meet- ing by any previous concert. Until I saw Muntz there, I did not know that he would be there. Pare asked the meeting to allow him to ask for a sight of the book. Judge: A sight of the book. He only asked to see a sight of the book? Witness: That is all, my lord, only a sight. The Judge : Had he any stick in his hand, or anything else? Witness: Not that I saw. I saw Muntz rise from his seat, and I heard him say, " I am afraid there will be mis- chief, and I must go and prevent it." I think Mr. Douglas was then sitting beside him. Mr. Muntz, in getting over, assisted himself by putting his hand upon my shoulder. He could not at that time have got out at the door of the pew. Mr. Muntz stood upon the ledge of the pew. He had his stick in his hand, but he never raised it in a threatening manner, nor did he waive it over his head. I saw some person I now know to be Mr. Knott, lay hold of Muntz's stick. Mr. Muntz told him not to lay hold of his stick. I did not hear any cry of " throw him over." After Muntz left his pew M'Donnell, Hadley, and others left the pew. Mr. M'Donnell left the gallery altogether. I did not see any body struck. I saw Rawlins come in. He appeared very much agitated. I did not see Muntz, Pierce, or Pare, attempt to seize the book. I could not see Trow. By the judge : Did you ever see Muntz, Pierce, or Pare at any time within reach of the vestry book? Witness: Never. I heard a butcher in the gallery cry out," pitch him over;" and the same man, in another tone of voice, ironically said, " No, he shall not be pitched over." Cross- examined: I saw Pare go towards the rector's pew. I never heard any cry of " take it by force." Rev. T. M. M'Donnell examined: I am a Catholic priest. The Judge : Roman Catholic he means; I am a Catholic. Witness: I am a Catholic; I belong to the Catholic Church, not the Roman Church. I was present at the vestry meeting in St. Martin's church on Easter Tuesday, 1837. I was in the pew with Muntz, Hadley, Douglas, and others ; I was there before the proceedings commenced. I recollect Pare asking to see tiie rector's book. He went in a calm and very peaceable manner towards the rector's pew. I lost sight of Pare, for I was sitting down, and a gentleman was standing to my right between him and me. 1 saw Muntz go diagonally from the pew. I know he . had a stick in his hand, although I do not recol- lect having seen it. I received it from Douglas, and X put it in Muntz's place in the pew. Muntz most certainly did not go and take that stick up again, and brandish it over his head. I did not see Muntz take his seat again; I left the pew soon after Muntz left it, and went out of the church. Muntz did not exhibit any symptoms of ill feeling or irritation. Mtintz said, speaking of the rector, " He is sit- ting there like an insensible being." The people showed some disapprobation, and Muntz withdrew the expres- sion. He explained what he meant. I heard expressions such as " No popery," and " You be d d." I thought they were applied to me. Cross- examined : I have been acquainted with Muntz for eight years. I have been in Birmingham fourteen years. I have taken an active part in the politics of that town. I was a member of the old Political Union. The Political Union began to decline alter the passing of the Reform bill. I am a rate- payer, and I went to take part in the proceed- ings at the church. Muntz moved that the rector should leave the chair. The motion was approved of, and ap- plauded. I approved of it, and most likely applauded it. Mr. Winfield came from the back of the gallery to the front of the gallery. As well as I recollect there was applause when he showed himself. I recollect the refusal of the minute book by ( he rector. When Pare received authority to inspect the book, he went to the rector's pew. I did not hear any cry of Throw him over." It is a popular cry. I think the gist of Muntz's remark upon the rector was to accuse him of gross partiality; according to the best of my recollection that was applauded. I presume it was. I lost sight of l. Iuntz and Pare. I don't think I heard any crash- ing of pews. Having seen Muntz standing upon the ledges of the pews, and seeing the movement towards him, I was afraid he would be thrown over, and probably killed. If such had taken place, and I happened to be present, I would be liable, according to the laws of the Catholic Church, to suspension from the exercise of my ministry. The Judge: Is that part of the law of your church? Ara you liable to suspension from the office of your sacred mi- nistry, if you happen to be present at a person being killed under such circumstances ? Witness: Yes, my lord; and here I may, perhaps, ob- serve that the Bishops in the House of Lords, whenever a question of life and death is brought before the house, invariably leave the house. The Judge : Is that the case? Mr. Sergeant Wilde : Yes, my lord, that is the custom. Witness: I had fears for Muntz's safety, but none for the rector's safety. I thought he was quite safe, being sur- rounded by his own party. I considered Muntz's life was in danger. I always understood Muntz was a member of the Church of England. I cannot say Muntz stated the rea- sons why he considered the rector had acted with partiality. Robert Kellie Douglas called. This witness being a member of the Established Church of Scotland, was sworn by holding up the right hand— the Scottish legal form. The learned judge himself administered the oath. On its being administered, the— Attorney- General said— I think your lordship omitted the words " As I shall answer to God." Mr. Justice Park : No, I introduced them at the com- mencement. I gave the oath in the very same terms that I heard it given by Lord Hailes, when I was a boy at Edinburgh. The examination then proceeded :— I am a resident at Birmingham. I live been in the habit of attending public meetings there, but never was at any vestry meet- ing before that of the 28th of March, 1837. I went there without previous arrangement withany person. I went by myself. 1 had no reason to think Muntz would would be there any more than any other gentleman in Birmingham. I sat in the pew with Muntz. Jones, Had- ley, and the Rev. Mr. M'Donnell were there. I remember a great shouting before the business commenced ; I was told at the time that the rector was coming. The first shouting was cheers. The rector proceeded with a number of gentle- men to one of the front pews in the organ gallery; Pare made a speech of some length about the polling of the for- mer year. The rector asked him what bearing that had upon the meeting before him. A very considerable discussion then arose as to taking a show of hands. During the discussion I observed frequent conversations between the rector and Gutteridge and others. I made a short speech. 1 regret- ted, I felt grieved'and humbled at, witnessing so much angry contention on both sides, about such a small matter in so sa- cred an edifice, and with the graves of so many Christiana lying around us. In seconding the motion brought forward by Pare, in which the conduct of the rector was declared to be unjujt, arbitrary, and illegal, I objected to the word's " arbitrary" and1 Unjust," as, in the first place, unnecesssary5 ( Continued in page 4.) 8 THE BIRMINGHAM JOURNAL, APRIL 7. LONDON GAZETTES. FRIDAY, MARCH 30. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. " WILLIAM DEVEY, spoon manufacturer, Birmingham. EDWARD RUSSELL BELL, common brewer, Hoxton Old Town. BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. JOSEPH SMITH HOLDSWORTH, corn merchant, Lower Ed. raonton, from April 13 to 28. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. WILLIAM DENNING, butcher, Ottery St. Mary, Devonshire. BANKRUPTS. £ Tfa Bankrupts to surrender at the Court of Commissioners, Basing. hull- street, when not otherwise expressed.] JOHN MAY, mercer, Newport, Isle of Wight, April 9 and May 11, at the Bugle Ian, Newport. Sols. Mr. Hearo, Newport; and Messrs. Fosters and Evans, Raymond's- buildiugs, Gray's. inn,, London. Pet. Cr. Thomas John Blackford and Charles Bassett Rowe, Newport, bankers. Seal. March 21. ANGUS MORRISON, grocer, Watford, Hertfordshire, April 10 and May 11. Sol. Mr. Dods, Northumberland- street, Strand. Pet. Cr. Robert Edes and Thomas Brown, Grafton. street and Rose- street, Soho- square, cheesemongers. Seal. March 26. JOHN HENDERSON, horse dealer, High Crosby, Cumberland, April 10 and May 11, at the Crown and Mitre Inn, Carlisle, Cum. berland. Sols. Messrs. Capes and Stuart, Bedford. row, London; arid Mr. Saul, Carlisle. Pet. Cr. George Head Head and Joseph Monkhouse Head, Carlisle, bankers. Seal. February 27. " WILLIAM ROUTLEDGE, oattle dealer, Oakshaw, Cumberland, April 10 and May 11, at the Crown and Mitre Inn, Carlisle, Cum. fcerland. Sols. Messrs. Capes and Stuart, Bedford. row, Loudon and Mr. Saul, Carlisle. Pet. Cr. William Graham, Lawstown Castletou, Roxburghshire, farmer. Seal. March 13. ADAM SCOTT, builder, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, April 14 and May 11, at the Vine Inn, Stourbridge. Sols. Messrs. Clowes and Wedlake, King's Bench. walk, Temple, London; and Mr. Coilis, Stourbridge. Pet. Cr. J. M. Hicks, Stourbridge, surveyor. Seal. March 27. WILLI A M WALKER, warehouseman, Kingston- upon. Hull, April IS and May 11, at the George Inn, Kingston. upon- Hull. Sols. Messrs. England and Shackles, Hull; and Messrs. RosserandSon, G7ay* 8. ino. place, Gray's. inn, London. Pet. Cr. John ABhton, Httll, butcher. Seal. March 24. • KICHARD CLARK, hotel keeper, Bognor, Sussex, April 6 and May 11. Sols. Mr. Turquaud, Copthall. buildings; and Mr. Lock. Surrey. street, Strand, Pet. Cr. Thomas Agland Lock, 18, Surrey, street, Strand, gent. Seal. March 28. BICHAltD FRANCIS WEBB, ship chandler, Whitechapel, Mid- dlesex, April lOand May II. Sols. Mr. Foster, Groom, Abchurch lane; and Messrs. Swan and Martin, Bedford. row. Pet. Cr. Bicliard William Webb, 14, Nor/ olk. street, Strand, gent. Seal. March 24. IONAS STEAD, woollen cloth manufacturer, Armley, Yorkshire, April 7 and May II, at the Court- house, Leeds. Sols. Messrs. Dunning and Kenyon, and Foden, Leeds ; and Messrs. Makinson and Sanders, Middle Temple, London. Vet. Cr. Joseph Isher. wood, Joseph Isher wood, j. un., and Samuel Williamson Isherwood, Wor- tley, Leeds, cloth manufacturers. Seal. March - 23. CHARLES HENRY ROWE, woollen draper, Cheltenham, Glou. cestershire, April 14 and May 11, at the Royal Hotel, Cheltenham. Sots. Mr. Fope, Gray's. inu- square, London; and Mr. Bishop Dursley. Pet. Cr. Samuel Harris, Dursley, clothier. Seal. March 13. THOMAS HOOD, currier and leather seller, Birmingham, April 7 and May 11, at Dee's Royal . Hotel, Birmingham. Sols. Mr. Chaplin, Gray's. inn. square, London; and Messrs. Ingleby and WTaggs, Birmingham. Pet. Cr. Samuel Palmer, Samuel Jones, Joseph Dain, Charle3 Reeves, William Wilkes, Thomas Mansell. Johu Chamberlain, Thomas Sibley, Charles Williams, Thomas Penn, John Wakefield, Robert Nevill, John Tollev, John Bagnall, William Dudley Ryder, and John Yates, Deritend, near Birming- ham, tanners. Seai. March 20. FRIEND LAWRENCE, general dealer, New. cut, Lambeth, April 5 and 11. Sol. Mr. Spyer, Broad. street- buildings. Pet. Cr. Lazarus Lazarus, Fireball- court, Hounsditch, glass dealer. Sea! March 22. BOBERT MACK MORNEMENT, grocer, Burnham Westgate Norfolk, April 28 and May 11, at the Crown Inn, Fakenliam Norfolk. Sols. Messrs. Wood and Blake, Falcon. street, Alders, gate- street, London; and Mr. Gridley, Burnham, Westgate Norfolk; Pet. Cr. Mark Downing Mornement, Neatishead Norfolk, gent. Seal. March 23. THOMAS BOBSON, chemist, Eastcheap, April 5 and May 11. Sol. Mr. Crosby, Churcli. street, Old Jewry. Pet. Cr. William Bell and William Brodrick. Bow Church- yard, gents. Seal. March 27. JOHN LORDEN and NATHANIEL HADLEY, builders, Heme, bay, Kent, April 17 aud May 11, at the Guildhall, Canterbury. Sol. Mr. Kaye, Symoad's- inn, Cliancery. lane, London. Pet. Cr. George Crowne, 9, Foley- place, Marylebone, builder. Seal. March 21. DIVIDENDS. P.. Reynham, stationer, Theobald's- road, April 22— P. Jay, linen draper, Watford, Hertfordshire, April 23— W. Bryceson, Great gueen- street, Liucoln's- inn- fields, April 20— G. B. Brown and Co., merchants, New Broad. street, April 25— J. and W. Walmsley, cotton apinners, Manchester, April 25, at the Commissioners'- rooms, Man- tester— J, Wootton, Blandford Forum, Dorsetshire, April 23, at the Greyhound Inn, Blandford Forum— W. Pitt, grocer, Kidder- nsiuster, Worcestershire, April 23, at the Black Horse Inn, Kidder- minster— F. Balkwill, corn factor, Plymouth, April' 23, at the Royal Hotei, Plymouth— R. Jones, grocer, Liverpool, April 18, at the Clarendon. rooms, Liverpool— William Bolton, linen draper, York, April 23, at the Commissiouers'. rooms, Manchester— R. Cobton and J. Keam, quarrymen, Oreston, Devonshire, April 21, at the Royal Hotel, Plymouth— G. Baker, sen., aud G. Baker, jun., provision jnerchans, Portsea, April 21, at the George Inn, Portsmouth— A. Birks, linen draper, Manchester, April 23, at the Commissioners', rooms, Manchester— R. W. Rushforth, merchant, Manchester, April £ 3, at the Commissioners'- rooms, Manchester— T. Daniell, copper smelter, Trelissick, Cornwall, May 4, at Pearce'a Hotel, Truro, Cornwall. CERTIFICATES, APRIL 20. T. W. Clarke, innkeeper, Horncastle, Lincolnshire— W. Perkins, dealer, Clifford Mill, Beckington, Somersetshire— B. Boothby, sen., and B. Boothby, juu., ironfounders, Nottingham— T. Picken, mercer, Madeley, Shropshire— G. J. S. Tomkins, scrivener, Leamington- priors, Warwickshire— S. Burke, Burke, coal dealer, Belfast— T. H. Bennett, timber merchant, Cheltenham— T. Moseley, coach pro- prietor, Macclesfield— G. Williams, Irish provision broker, Union- eourt, Broad- street, City— J. Deane, vender of druggists' sundries, Sydney- square, Commercial. road— J. Clarke, stock broker, Clare- mont. place. North Brixton. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. P. and S. Garcia, fruiterers, Poultry— J. Strecker and E. Haslett, confectioners, High Holborn— J. Woodhouse and T. Langham, lace manufacturers, Nottingham— J. Hammond and T. Stephens, gar- deners, Taunton, Somersetshire— W. and J. Smith, millers, Claiines, Worcestershire— J. Graham and T. Calvert, engravers, Kingston. npoo- Hull— C. Haigh and W. Wood, woolstaplers, Halifax— E Tapp and E. Rivers, licensed victuallers, Great White Lion. street, Seven Dials— L. Wilson and F. M. Welsh, schoolkeepers, Crauford, Middlesex— M. Howitt aud E. Everett, linen drapers, High Holborn — W. J. D. Arnold and T. H. Johnson, coal merchants, Milbank- Btreet, Westminster— C. A. Thomas aud VV. Alpe, grocers, Stratton St. Mary, Norfolk— R. B. Hudson aud W. Atkinson, linen drapers, Huddersfield— J. and W. Hamer, stone dealers, Walmsley, Lan- cashire— T. Martia and F. Green, woollen drapers, Tottenliam- eourt- road— F. M'Lean and E. Green, tea dealers, Liverpool— T. Sanguine aud J. Michell, fur manufacturers, Richmond's. buildinga, Soho— S. Hyams and S. Ephraim, jewellers, Liverpool— S. and S. H. Oughton, silk manufacturers, Manchester— J. Hall and Co., linen drapers, Daventry, Northamptonshire ( so far as regards J. Hall) — J. Broolt and Co., merchants, Huddersfield ( so far as regards J. H. Riley— I. Roebuck aud Co., stuff merchants, Leeds— R, Banks and B. Skidraore, engineers, Worseley, Staffordshire. ASSIGNMENTS. Josiah Broad, Exeter, linen draper. Isaac Day, Houndsditcli, victualler. Jamej Elsby, Seabridge, Staffordshire, victualler. Willifua Robert Newsou, Diss, Norfolk, tanner. Henry Savory, Church- street, Lisson- grove, victualler. TUESDAY, APRIL 3. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. SEORGE MINCE, grocer, London. road, Surrey; BANKRUPTS. ANDREW BROWN, laceman, Regent- street, Middlesex, April 9 and May 15. Sols. Messrs. Parken and Webster, New Boswell- court, Carey- street, Lincoln's. inn. fields. Vet. Cr. John Brown, Lmvristou- place, Edinburgh, now residing at Westminster, in the Bervice of the East India Compauy. Seal. April 2. JOHN WOODHOUSE, victualler, Stafford, April 18 and May 15, a£ the New Hotel, Wolverhampton. Sols. Mr. Alger, Bedford- row, - London; aud Mr. Rogers, Stourbridge. Vet. Cr. George Wassail, Brettrell- lane, Kingswinford, maltster. Seal. March 12. JOHN WINDER, tobacconist, Bedfordbury, April 12 and May 15. Sol. Mr. Stafford, Buckingham- street, Strand. Vet. Cr. William Stafford, Ruckingham. street, attorney. Seal. April 2. WILLIAM HENRY HORMSFIELD, draper, Preston, Lan. eashire, April 13 and May 15, at the Town. hall, Preston. Sol. Mr. Parker, St. Paul's Church. yard, London. Vet. Cr. William Everington and Wynu Ellis, St. Paul's Church. yard, warehouse, men. Seal. March 23. JOHN BARTON BALDWIN, merchant, Whitkirk, Yorksaire, April 24 and May 15, at the Court- house, Leeds. Sols. Messrs. Wiglesworth, Ridsdale, and Craddock, Gray's- inn, London ; and Messrs, Upton aud Claphain, Leeds. Pel. Cr. Charles Tee, Wors- brough, Darfield, Yorkshire, merchant. Seal. March 27. ROBERT BISHOP, cheesemonger, Greenwich, April 9 and May 15. Sols. Messrs. Sandom aud Co., Mincing- lane, Pel. Cr. Richard Hughq3, sen. and . jun., Deptford, cheesemongers. Seal. March 29. THOMAS EATOUGH, tallow chandler, late of Blackburn, Lan. cashire, April 30 and May 15, at the Town. hall, Preston. Sols. Messrs', Makinson aud Saunders, Elm. court, Middle Temple, Lon- don ; and Mr. Makinson, Blackburn. Vet. Cr. Thomas Gorman, Blackbtarn, butter merchant. Seal. March 27. JOHN PHILPOTT, ironmonger, Rochester, Kent, April 10 and May IS . Sol; Mr. Williams, Alfred. place, Bedford- square. Vet. Cr. Richard, William, and Johu Lees, Wolverhampton, factors. Seal. March 29. HOMAS JOHNSON, draper, Knaresborough, April 21 and May 15, at the Court- house, Leeds. Sols. Messrs. Johnson, Son, and Weatherall, Temple, London ; and Mr. Wood, Manchester. Vet. Cr. Thomas Edgley, Manchester, merchant, and Johu Carew Wales, same place, merchant. Seal. March 21. THOMAS ROYLE, muslin manufacturer, Manchester, April 16and May 15, at the Commissioners'- rooms, Manchester. Sols. Mr. Adlington, Bedford- row, London; aud Mr. Hampson, Man- chester. Pet. Cr. Robert Mellor, Chadderton, Lancashire, dye- wood grinder. Seal. March 22. DIVIDENDS. D. Fowler and R. Green, merchants, Lime. street, City, April 15 — Y. Cooper, wine merchant, Old Broad. street, April 25— F. Webb, robe maker. Fleet- street, April 30— J. Middleton, warehouseman, Bread- street, Cheapside, May 14— W. S. Warwick and T. W. Claggett, merchants, Billiter- square, April 26— P. E. Dover, up- holsterer, Great Russell. street, April 24— W. Anderson, baker, New- road, St. George's- in. the. East, April 24— W. Rotherham, dealer, Shoreditch, April 28— W. Wood, carpenter, Gravesend, April 26— T. S. Fludo, wine broker, Mincing lane, City, April 26— T. Driver, merchant, Peckham, April 26— J. P. Greaves, H. Sharp, add F. Fisher, merchants, King's Arms. yard, Coleman- street, City, April 26— G. Palmer, tailor. Above. Bar, Southampton, April 26— R. Palfrey, fringe manufacturer, Wardour- street, Oxford- street, April 25— J. V. and D. Lawson, woollen drapers, Brewer- street, April 25— G. Mickle, merchant, Newcastle- upon- Tyne, April 24, at the Bankrupt Commission. room, Newcastle- upon- Tyne— W. Bridger, grocer, Petworth, Sussex. May 8, at the Angel Iun, Pet- worth— A. G. Ross, wool merchant, Bradford, Yorkshire, April 25, at the Court- house, Bradford— R. D'Oyley, scrivener, Moreton. in. the- Marsh, Gloucestershire, April 26, at the White Hart Iun, Eves, ham— J. Harvey, innholder, Glastonbury, Somersetshire, April 26, at the Swan Inn, Wells, Somersetshire— J. Stead, saddler, Leeds, April 25, at the Court- house, Leeds— O. King, mouey scrivener, Potton, Bedfordshire, May 1, at the King's Arm3 Inn, Bedford— G. Irvine, timber merchant, New Shoreham, Sussex, June 12, at the Town. hall, Brighton— F. Baldey, bookseller and stationer, Brighton, June 14, at the Town- hall, Brighton— A. N. Lea, builder, Birming- ham, May 9, at the Hen and Chickens Hotel, Birmingham— J. Dows, miller, Ham Mills, Berkshire, April 25, at the George Inn, Reading — S. Hill, worsted spinner, Leicester, April 26, at the Castle of Leicester, Leicester— R. Roberts, ship chandler, Liverpool, April 25, at the Clarendon- rooms, Liverpool— W. Grundy, cotton spinner, Pilkington, Lancashire, May 3, at the Commercial Inn, Bolton- le- Moors— J. Gleadhil!, cotton spinner, Oldham, Lancashire, April 28, at the Commissioners'- rooms, Manchester. . CERTIFICATES, APRIL 24. B. Heighington, wine merchant, Darlington— J. Benjamin, watch manufacturer, Jewry- street, Aldgate— W. and A. O. Medley, bankers, Aylesbury— H. and R. Kinch, warehousemen, Manchester — W. Green, ironmonger, Sheffield— J. Cooper and J. M'Leod, mer. chants, Liverpool— F. Parker, upholsterer, Northampton— T. Jones, gunmaker, Birmingham— H. J. Ebsworth, woolbroker, Nunu's- court, Coleman- street— C. J. Delvalle, bill broker, Peckham. grove, Surrey— T. Tabberer, cheesemonger, Birmingham. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. Watson and J. Smith, tea dealers, Hownslow, Middlesex— J. Duly and J. Goldsmith, smiths, Brighton, Sussex— H. Stephens and E, J. White, orchella manufacturers, Weaver's- lane, Horselydown — W. Read and T. Moss, Kirton- in- Liudsey, Lincolnshire— W. Rob. son and T. Fletcher, druggists, Newcastle- upon- Tyne— W. H. Hughes and T. Slaney, plumbers, Hoduet, Shropshire— J. Smith and E. Cross, grocers, Minories— T. K. Fife and F. Bennett, sur. geons, Gateshead, Durham— J. Wallace and Co., grocers, Liverpool — J. T. Lemale and G. A. Canton, Chandos. street, Covent- garden— C. W. Broughton and J. Parker, tailors, Southampton- street, Covent- garden— W. Dakin and Co., tea dealers, Coventry— S. Nash and T. North, tea dealers, Union- street, Borough— H. Wood and B. Stephenson, chemists, Coieman- stre. t, City— J. Pryor aud Co., Hol born hill ( so far as regards J. Pryor)— C. M'Neill and Co., milliners, Liverpool— C. Picton and J. Pioton, carriers, Manchester— J. Brewster and R. Eggleston, grocers, Manchester— S. Austin and Co., printers, Hertford— J. Matthews and A. G. Sampson, iurniahing ironmongers, Dudley, Worcestershire— H. Fearnside aud G. Morton, carvers and gilders, Leeds, Yorkshire, ASSIGNMENT. James Duly and James Goldsmith, Brighton, smiths. WINES AND SPIRITS. I^ AMILIES may be supplied with every description - of Foreign Wines of the choicest qualities and mosi approved vintages, at very low piices ; and also with British and Foreign Spirits of the first description, both as regards delicacy of flavour and strength, on equally Moderate terms, at PETERS'S WINE AND SPIRIT WAREHOUSE, 77, BULL- STREET, CORNER OF TEMPLE- ROW, BIRMINGHAM. *** Bottles, jars, and packages must either be exchanged or paid for on delivery, allowance being made for them when returned. RINGWORM EFFECTUALLY CURED. A certain and most speedy Cure for this insidious and dis- tressing Disease may now be had. BEATSON'S RINGWORM LOTION will tho- roughly and safely eradicate every species of the malady and Scalled Head in the short space of fourteen days, how- ever malignant or long standing. This invaluable Lotion is now extensively used and recommended by Medical men throughout the kingdom, and employed with unvarying success in most of the principal Schools. It contains nothing of an injurious, burning, or offensive quality, and the cure is effected simply by applying it to the parts for a few minutes, morning and evening. Ample directions for the treatment of the Disease and the use of the Lotion, together with many highly respectable testimonials, are given with each bottle, price 2s. 9d. Pints lis. May be had of all the principal Druggists and Medicine Venders in the kingdom :— besure to ask for BEATSON'S Ringworm Lotion; the great success of it having tempted many unprincipled persons to vend a substitute under the name of " Ringworm Lotion." The genuine has the Pro- prietor's Name and Address on the seal over the cork, and outside the wrapper, as follows: S. L. BEATSON, Practical Cbymist, 18, Thornton- street, Hqisleydown, London. AGENTS— Birmingham, BANKS, High- street; A. JOHNSON, Union- street. UNFAILING SUCCESS, during a period of ONE HUNDRED YEARS, has fully established the ex- cellence of BARCLAY'S ORIGINAL OINTMENT in the Cure of that disagreeable disorder the ITCH, which it never fails to effect in One Hour's Application. This safe, speedy, and effectual Remedy has been in gene- ral use for upwards of one hundred years, without a single instance of its having failed to cure the most inveterate cases. It does not contain the smallest particle of Mercury or any other dangerous ingredient, and may be safely used by persons of the most delicate constitution. The Public are requested to be on their guard against noxious compositions sold at low prices, and to observe, that none can possibly be genuine, unless the Names of the Pro prietors, BARCLAY and SONS, are engraved on the Stamp affixed to each Box— Great danger may arise from the neglect of this caution. Sold wholesale and retail by BARCLAY and SONS, ( the only successors to JACKSON and Co.) No. 95, Farringdon- street, London, price Is. 9d. Duty included; and, by their appointment, by all Venders of Medicine. ROWLAND'S KALYDOR, prepared from tiful exotics : a thorough cleanser of the skin b INCREASE OF INCOME BY LIFE ANNUITY, r iMTE Table of Rates, upon which individuals may JL charge a portion of their Funded Property, and In- crease their Incomes, may be had on application at the Life Annuity Office, 5, Lancaster- place, Strand. A: LL YOU RECOLLECT! WHO HAVE GARDENS, FOR THE FACE AND SKIN. beau- thorough cleanser of the skin by mild yet powerful and imperceptible influence, eradicates all cutaneous eruptions, tan, pimples, spots, redness, & c., re- moving dark and sallow complexion, rendering the skin de- licately clear and soft, irradiating with transparent white- ness the neck, hands, and arms, and producing a healthy and juvenile bloom to the complexion. Gentlemen after shaving will find it immediately allay the smarting pain, and render the skin soft and pleasant. In cases of chapped hands and lips, and a harsh rough skin, as well as burns and scalds, it affords immediate relief, and makes the skin delicately fair and soft. Price 4s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. per bottle, duty included. Observe the name and address of the proprietors, " A. ROWLAND and SON, 20, Hatton- Garden, London," is en- graved on the government stamp, which is pasted on the cork; also printed in red, on the wrapper in which each bottle is enclosed. Ask for " Rowland's Kalydor," sold by them, and by re- spectable Perfumers and Medicine Venders. GAZETTE for your Weekly Paper— Published on Satur- days, in time for Post, Price 6d. Office, 343, Strand. WORKING CLASSES OF BIRMINGHAM. rpHE false Tory and Whig- Aristocracy are trying- JL to prevent the circulation of the LONDON DIS- PATCH. Will you rally round it? There is no journal more devoted to your interests, there is no Paper in which there is more talent, nor is there one which is so feared by the friends of the Poor- law! the enemies of the millions! Price only 4d. TO MILLINERS, & c. CHARLES MEEKING, 62, Holborn- hill, London, being occupied incompleting bis Spring Stock, respect- fully invites the attention of Milliners aud the Public generally, to an inspection of his Fancy and other Goods, which may be seen in endless variety, at prices to suit the economy of every purchaser. An opportunity also presents itself to families arriving from the country, of making a se- lection of LINENS, SHEETINGS, and TABLE- LINEN F^ ABRICS, upon the improved principle, at an advantage to themselves not to be met with at any other establishment. N. B. The first importation of French Fancy Spring Goods is now clearing at the Custom- house. HOWQUA'S AND MOWQUA'S CELEBRATED TEAS. TI^ HESE TEAS consist of one " description of Black, JL the Genuine Howqua's Mixture, and one of Green, Mowqua's Small Leaf Gunpowder, and are sold in Chinese Catty and Half Catty Packages. THE GENUINE HOWQUA'S MIXTURE is an admixture of a variety of the choicest Black Teas, the same as drank by the celebrated Chinese Tea Merchant, whose name it bears, and is distinguished from every other sort by a fine Natural Aromatic Fragrance, combined with great strength and briskness, and is far more nutritious and whole some than any hitherto offered to the public. MOWQUA'S SMALL LEAF GUNPOWDER. This delicious Green Tea, is grown only on one Estate, and possesses a rare and delicate flavour, being without exception the finest Green Tea grown in China. Genuine Howqua's Mixture 7s. 6d. per Chinese Catty, containing one pound and a third of a pound, being at the rate of 5s. 8d. per lb., half Catties, 4s. Mowqua's Small Leaf Gunpowder, 10s. 8d. per Chinese Catty of the same weight, being at the rate of 8s. 2d. per pound; half Catties, 5s. 6d. These Teas are the best, the cheapest, and most useful of any imported into this country. The importers, Brocksopp, How, and Co., of London, have appointed the following agents for the sale of the above Teas:— SOLE AGENT FOR BIRMINGHAM, RICHARD DOIDGE, Confectioner, 88, BROAD- STREET. T. and R. Maudsley, tea dealers, 1, Market- street, Lan- caster; S. M. Webster, Medical Hall", Bridge- street. Warrington; T. Maudsley and Co., tea dealers, Market- street, Ulverston; John Drury, tea dealer, Pride Hill Shrewsbury; William Harding, tea dealer, Ludlow; R. C. Hay, druggist, Medical Hall, Leeds; Harding Brothers, tea dealers, 64 and 65, Broad- street, Worcester; William Mann, tea dealer, Market- place, Huntingdon ; John Ches- terton, Market- street, Wellingborough; George Garbutt, bookseller, High- street, Sunderland. N. B. Only one agent will be appointed in each town for the sale of these Teas. Apply post paid. RELIEF IN A FEW HOURS. A Cure in a few days. SIMCO'S CHEMICAL ESSENCE of LINSEED, an infallible remedy for consumptive and asthmatic coughs, colds, hoarseness, incipient coughs, and influenza. Sold rn bottles at Is. 1 2s. 9d., and 4s. 6d. each. One 2s. 9d. bottle is equal to three bottles at Is. ljd. The following letter• was sent for publication by a respectable chemist and druggist:— Mr. Simco.— Sir,— Having been for about three weeks past, suffer, ing with a cold, attended with a dreadful cough, and finding it still increasing, myself aud friends became alarmed for the consequences I was persuaded last Thursday morning to make trial of your Chemi. cal Essence of Linseed, and to my great surprise, found relief in less than ten minutes after the first dose, and having continued taking the doses, according to the directions, I feel now almost recovered. Finding such extraordinary relief from it, I have recommended it to a friend of mine, who was suffering dreadfully from a catarrhal affec. tion ; he purchased a bottle, and when I called upon him this after, noon he informed me that he was considerably better, and said he believed it would also completely cure him. Such being the benefits arising by a use of your inestimable Essence of Linseed, I will thank you to send me a supply for sale, by the carrier to- day, and I have no doubt but I shall have a brisk demand. I am, sir, yours respect, fully, MARK CAUCUTT. Chemist and druggist, Stonev Stratford, Saturday, March 5, 1836. Sold wholesale by Barclay and Sons; Sutton and Co.; and Bodingtonand Co., 89, . Charlotte- street, Fitzroy- square, London; and, as usual by Simco,. the original proprietor, chemist, Northampton. Sold als by Wood, bookseller, Shillitoe, chemist, High- street, and Matthison and Co., booksellers, Edgbaston- street, Birmingham. THE ONLY CURE FOR CORNS AND BUNIONS. OAMSBOTTOM'S CORN and BUNION SOL- JLm' VENT. By the use of this valuable remedyimme- diate relief from pain is obtained, and by its successive application for ashortperiod, the mostobstinate Corns are entirely removed without recourse to the dangerous opera- tions of cutting or filing. The proprietorpledgeshimself that it does not contain caustic or anyotherarticle that will inflame the skin; being white it will not stain the stocking; and the advantage it has over plaister is mani- fest, and fully appreciated, as the very high recommenda- tion bestowed upon it by everyindividual that hasused i testifies. Price Is. ljd. and 2s. The various counterfeits that are attemptedto be im- posed upon the public in lieu of thisinvaluableremedy, render it imperatively necessary for purchasers to ask for S. Ramsbottom's Corn and Bunion Solvent, and to see that it has the signature of" S. Ramsbottom" written upon the label that is pasted on the outside of the wrapper of every genuine bottle, in addition to the name of the article, and words sold by Hannayand Co. 63, Oxford- street, being the name and address of the proprietor's wholesale agents. The following letter from Mr. John Winfield, of Bir- mingham, is one of many hundreds of the same tenor: — Gentlemen— Having read an advertisement in a Birmingham paper, I was induced to purchase from your agent, Mr. Maher, Ann. street, a bottle of Ramsbottom's Corn and Bunion Solvent;— after a week'sapplication I found it had the desired effect. I have since re- commended it to many of myfriends. You are at liberty to make any use you please of this communication.— Your obedient servant, Birmingham, August6,1836. JOHN WINFIELD. Soldbyappointmentby M. Maher, 5, Congreve- street, and W. Wood, Bookseller, High- street, Birmingham ; Parke, Wolverhampton; Rogers, Stafford; Mort, Newcastle; Mer- ridew, Coventry; Dicey, Northampton. ANOTHER proof of the efficacy of BLAIRS' GOUT AND RHEUMATIC P'lLLS. Copy of a letter from Banbury, to Mr. Prout, 229, Strand, London. SIR,— For about twenty years I have been subject to the gout, which, in many instances, confined me even for a month at a time to my bed, causing the most acute bodily suffering. Fortunately, about three years ago, a friend recommended Blair's Gout and Rheumatic Pills, when by taking only a few doses I was relieved from pain, and quickly restored to health and strength, and I am happy to in- form you, that although I have had symptoms of the disease several times since that period, yet by taking a few doses of this valuable medicine, the attack has passed away without any material suffering. Indeed, I may say, that I have not been confined a day since with my old complaint, and I have witnessed the same salutary effects of this medicine on several persons with whom I am acquainted.— I am, sir, your very obedient servant, JOHN GARDNER. Banbury, September 29, 1837, These pills may be taken without the least care or attention, by either sex, young or old, and have the peculiar property of entirely removing the disease, without debilitating the frame, which is universally left in astronger and abetter state than before the malady commenced. And there is another most important effect belonging to this medicine— that it prevents the disease flying to the brain, stomach, or other vital part. Sold by T. Prout, 229, Strand, London ; and by his ap- pointment at Birmingham; by Shillitoe, Wood, Collins and Co., Edwards, Flewitt, Sumner and Co., Smith, Suffield, Gazette and Advertiser offices;— Dudley; Morris, Turner and Hollier;— Wolverhampton ; Mander and Co., Simpson; — Atherstone; Davis;— Walsall; Valentine and Co.;— Kid- derminster; Perinell;— Lichfield; Morgan; — Bewdley; " Morris;— Westbromwich ; Shillitoe ;— Shiffnall ; Harding ; — Bromsgrove; Maiind;— Warwick; Bayley, Harper, Hodg- kinson, Roberts; — Bridgnorth; Nicholas;— Coventry ; Wileys and Brown, Merridew, Rollason, Loveitt;— and all respectable medicine vendors throughout the kingdom, price 2s. 9d. per box. Ask for Blair's Gout and Rheumatic Pills, and observe the name and address of " Thomas Prout, 229, Strand, London," impressed on the Government Stamp affixed to each box of the genuine medicine. SNOOK'S APERIENT FAMILY PILLS; a most excellent medicine for bile, indigestion, giddiness of the head, piles, and dropsical complaints. Their composition is truly excellent; they do not contain any antimonial or mercurial preparation whatever, and do not require the least confinement or alteration of diet ( mo- derate exercise promotes their good effects); they seldom operate until ten or twelve hours after taken, and then very gently; they destroy worms, purify the humours, and evacu- ate all foul corruptions, whereby so many diseases are pro- duced ; by removing obstructions, they cause the food to pass to its respective parts, becoming a good restorative aud preservative of health to both sexes, and to those of a costive habit, a truly valuable treasure. Also SNOOK'S PECTORAL or COUGH PILLS, for coughs, colds, asthmas and shortness of breath. It is well known that coughs and colds ( if not soon removed) are, in many cases, attended with considerable danger; for the removal of which the Pectoral or Cough Pills are with con- fidence recommended as an excellent medicine, and in most cases a certain specific. A single box will be a sufficient trial to prove their good effects. SNOOK'S DENTIFRICE for the TEETH and GUMS. The Pills are now prepared by Messrs. BARCLAY and SONS ( who have purchased the recipe from Mr. SNOOK) whose names are engraved on the government stamp affixed to each box; without which they cannot be genuine. The Pills are sold in boxes, at Is. l% d. and 2s. 9d. each, The Dentifrice in boxes, at Is. l^ d. INGLISH'S SCOT'S PILLS. THE TRUE SCOT'S PILLS, invented by Dr. Anderson, of Edinburgh, Physician to King Charles the First, are prepared faithfully from the Original Recipe by B. H. Inglish alone, the Doctor's only representative, at No. 165, Strand, London, where that Medicine only has been sold for nearly 200 years. The virtues of this useful medicine are too well known to require enumeration here. CAUTION.— The excellency of the genuine medicine hav- ing so long since as the year 1692 excited numerous coun- terfeits thereof, their Majesties King William aud Queen Mary were graciously pleased to command the Secretary of Slate to issue the following order to the printer of the Lon- don Gazette: — " Whereas we are fully satisfied that Mrs. Isabella Ing- lish hath the only true receipt and yght method of compo- sition of the Pills commonly knd^ vn by the name of Dr. ANDERSON'S or SCOT'S PILLS, and that several persons do ( though falsely) pretend to have the receipt, and make up and vend their , counterfeit to the- abuse of their Majesties' subjects: these are, thereforel to- require you to publish her said Pills, and no other of that name in the Gazette Given under my hand this 1st day of May, 1.692. ( Signed) " NOTTINGHAM." The Proprietor particularly directs the attention of per- sons using the medicine to the foregoing statement. He has in his possession the contemporary London Gazettes attesting it, which supersedes the necessity of further com- ment, and requests them to ask for INGLISH'S SCOT'S PILLS, and Carefully to observe that the directions they are wrapped in are signed " B. H. Inglish," and that his name and address are on the Government Stamp. Sold in boxes, at 1. l£ d. each, by all respectable medicine vendors. Dr. DE SANCT1S. S RHEUMATIC AND GOUT PILLS. Preparedby Bartholomew de Sanctis, M. D., Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, London. THE unfailing efficacy of Dr. De Sanctis's Pills for the cure of Goutand Rheumatism, has been tried n an extensive practice, and their uniform success fully warrants Dr. De Sanctis in offering them for general use, as a specific, and the only one for the cure of GOUT, RHEUMATISM, RHEUMATIC GOUT, LUMBAGO, PAINS IN THE FACE, & c. Dr. De Sanctis is determined not to confine the use of these invaluable pills any longer to the sphere of his ac- quaintance, but has caused it to- be laid before the public in the form of a Patent Medicine, but he trusts that his long tried, and he hopes, well merited medical reputation, will secure him from any charge of empiricism, and not allow this mostinvaluableremedy( in the discovery of which he has devoted the greater part of his life and a large for- tune) to be classed among quack medicines. Suffice it to say, that these pills do not contain Colchi. cum or any other deleterious drug, they are perfectly inno- cent, and may be administered to the most delicate indi viduals. The dose is one pill every eight hours until cured, the first dose will begin to mitigate the most violent attack within four of its administration; and a patient writhing under the most malignant attack of Gout or Rheumatism, may rely on its removal within forty- eight hours. Dr. De Sanctis lays before the public the following letters from some of his patients, which speak a higher eu- logium on the efficacy of the medecine than any represen- tation he could make himself. Brighton. Sir,— The wonderful efficacy of your wonder working medicine as almost Incredible; fifteen years ago I was attacked with acute Rheumatism, from having slept in a damp bed while travelling in Flanders, the torture arising from which has been of the most ago- nizing description, for although at intervals I have been free from ipain ( had itbeeniucessantl musthave put an end to my existence) I have been more or less subject to it ever since, and when the at- tacks came on I felt as though I was being torn asunder. In fifteen hoursfrom the firstdose ofyour Pills ( but mind I took two ofthein) I was materially relieved, and at the expiration of a week I had not the slightest trace of my enemy left; as you decline to let me have the prescription in consequence of your intention of introducing it as a Patent Medicine, you are free to publish this communication if you think proper, for the Pills deserve to be generally known. I am, sir, your obedientservant W. WEST. To Dr. De Sanctis. Miss Willdns has been entirely cured of a Rheumatic affection in the hip, which Miss W. haslong been a snffercrfrom, by the use of Dr. De Sanctis's Pills, after several other remedies she tried had failed. Sir,— I think tliat without a single exception I have suffered more from Gout than any other individual ever endured, the pain has been so intense ( without the slightest diminution) for three and four weeks at a time, that I have frequently been obliged to have a nurse by me day and night, striking my foot with a stick, to mode, rate the pain by inflicting another, until I have sometimes had my foot so black that it lias not recovered its colonr for months; at the commencement of the last attack I procured some of your Pills, and to my very great satisfaction they immediately relieved me and pre- vented its further inroad, and I have now been free from it for eighteen months. I am, yours very truly, To Dr. De Sanctis. FRANCIS HEATH. Mr. Smith's compliments to Dr. De Sanctis, and begs to communi- cate to him that he found the most speedy relief from the use of his Pills, aud was entirely cured in three days. Dublin. Sir,— Your Rheumatic and Gout Pills are certainly a most effica- cious Medicine; I have been a severe suffererfrom" Cold Rheuma- tism, which the Faculty have told me was always difficult of cure, it certainly has been difficult with me, for, for fifteen years I have fluctuated from bad toworseand worse to better, I have placed my- self in the hands of twenty- five Medical Men who pursued as many different modes fo treatment without any permanent effect, a fortu- nate circumstanceintroduced some of your Pills to me, a few months since, which entirely cured me, and thank God have not had a re. lapse since, I therefore think it but justice to you, to offer you my testimony of their efficacy, and 1 recommend all Gouty aud Rheu. matic subjects never to be without them— Your's To Dr. Do Sanctis. JACOB JOHNSON. Cheltenham. DearSir,— When your name wasmentioned to me by a friend, I certainly was sceptical of your being able to afford me any more relief than such as I had before obtained; but yourmost invaluable Pills have certainly cured me, and had I not obtained them, I as certainly should have been before this a corpse. I have been for five and forty years a martyr to the horrid complaint of Gout, which in sufferings must be equal to the torments of hell, and during this long period I have - tried every Remedy that money could procure or the most eminent Medical talent could suggest. I have taken Colchicum in every form, and in very large doses, both with and without Opium, but unfortunately found the more Medicine 1 took, the more fre- quently the attacks returne'd, increasingiu violence every time, and each attack becoming of longer duration, frequently of late from six weeks to two months, the most powerful remedies having at last failed to exert any influence on the complaint, the delay that occurred in consequence of my having to write to you ere I could ob- tain the Pills, allowed the complaint to increase more than it had ever done before, for both my legs, which of late years have been attacked simultaneously, and swelled to the size of my head, on the last occasion swelled up my thighs, and but for the timely arrival of your Pills no doubt would have got into my stomach and then as our immortal poet says, " In a coffin I'd pop'd off" instead of being- here to return you my most grateful, sincere, and heartfelt thanks; the effect produced by your most inestimable Pills was wonderful; in a short time after taking the first dose I fancied my- self easier, but made up my mind to refer it only to a false confi- dence ; but my astonishment was excessive when at the end of six hours I found the swelling begin to diminish, and in five days 1 found- myself completely cured, and without any of those symptoms of lassitude and debility beingleft behind, which hare always lasted for many days after every previous attack for the last ten years. I enclose you a draft for fifty pounds, and feel it the most useful fee I ever paid for Medical assistance ; I trust that if you ever visit this neighbourhood you will not fail to spend a few days with me, and neither means or disposition will be absent from every en- deavour to minister to. your enjoyment. Let me hope that many years will elapse ere the Grim Tyrant shall seize you with his icy hand, when if your Patients render that justice thatis due to your invaluable discovery, your remains must be laid among the most eminent of British Worthies.— I am, dear sir, your most sincere well- wisher, and resuscitated patient, WM. LAMBERT: To Dr. De Sanctis. Mr. Wentworth presents his compliments to Dr. De Sanctis, and writes to say that he considers his Pills a harmless but most effica- cious remedy, and shall have great pleasure in recommendingtliem to the notice of his friends; the particular complaint Mr. Went- worth took them for was Rheumatic Gout in the right hand, which he is very subject to, but which he finds Dr. De Sanctis's Pills im- mediately remove. Dr. De Sanctis's Pills are sold by appointment, in boxes at 2s. 9d. each, at HANNAY and Co.' s General Patent Medicine Warehouse, 63, Oxford- street, the corner of Wells- street, London; by whom dealers in the country are supplied oil liberal terms; where may also be had HANNAY AND CO.' s INVALUABLE HORSE BLISTER. This most important improvement in the method of blis- tering cattle is prepared by Messrs. Hannay and Co., for and under the immediate inspection of the principal Veteri- nary Surgeon of one of His Majesty's cavalry regiments, who has used it during a period of many years with the most favourable results. Messrs. Hannay and Co beg to recom- mend it to the use of their sporting friends and the owners of horses generally, as far superior to any other blister in present use. It has the peculiar properties of not destroy- ing the hair, and never blemishes the part to which it is applied, however frequently it may be used to the youngest foal; and no horse, however high his courage, will ever gnaw it; and the horse on which it has been applied may be immediately turned out to grass without a cradle. It has the invaluable property ( not possessed by. any other article), of removing the blemish of a broken knee by re- storing the hair. It has received the most unqualified approbation of some of the most extensive owners of cattle, and only requires to be tried to convince the observer of its invaluable properties. Sold in pots at Is. 6d., containing one dressing; pots, 2s. 9d. two dressings; 5s. four dressings. * The great celebrity of this blister has caused un- principled dealers to counterfeit it. Pufchasers must there- fore be particular in seeing that it bears the name and address of " HANNAY and Co., 63, Oxford- street," on the label on each pot. The above articles are sold by one or more respectable medicine venders in every town in the kingdom, and any shop that has not got either of them will procure it from London if ordered without any additional charge. Sold by special appointment by M. Maher, 5, Congreve- street, Birmingham; Meridew, Coventry; Parke, Wolverhamp- ton; Welchman, Northampton; Price and Co., Journal- office, Leicester; Rogers, Stafford; Mort, Newcastle; Stratford, Worcester. ASHLEY COOPER'S BOTANICAL PURIFY- ING PILLS are established by thirty years'experi- ence, are prescribed by most of the eminent Physicians and Surgeons in London,' and are always administered at several public hospitals, as the only certain remedy for Gonorrhoea, Gleets, Strictures, and all other forms of Ve- nereal diseases, in either sex, curing in a few days, by one small pill for a dose, with ease, secrecy, and safety. Their operation is imperceptible, they do not require theslightest confinement, or any alteration of diet, beverage or exercise. They do not disagree with the stomach, nor cause and offensive smellto the breath, as is the case with all other medicines in use for these complaints, and after a cure ef- fected by the use of these pills, the party w'lllnotexperience any return of the complaint, as generally occurs after taking Balsam of Copaiba, and other drugs of the like nature, which only possessing a local action, merelysuppressed the complaint for a time, without eradicating it from the con- stitution, and the patient on undergoing a little more fa- tigue than ordinary, finds all the symptoms return, and that they are suffering under the complaint as much as at first, and are at last constrained to have recourse to these pills, as the only certain cure. They are likewise a most efficient remedy for Pimpled Faces, Scurf, Scorbutic Affections, and all Eruptions of the Skin. Captainsof vesselssbould make a point of always taking them to sea, their unrivalled effi- cacy in curing Scurvy being known throughout the world. The following letter selected from numerous other pro- essional recommendations forwarded to the proprietor when, he first offered these pills to the public, may be considered interesting. From that eminent surgeon, the late Joshua Brookes, Esq., F. R. S., Professor of Anatomy, & c. & c. Theatre of Anatomy, Blenheim- street. Dear Cooper,— I have tried your pills in numerous instances, aud my candid opinion is that they are a mostimproved system of treat- ment for those peculiar complaints for which you recommend them, curing with rapidity, and with a certainty that I had never before witnessed; but what I consider their most invaluable property is, that they entirely eradicate the complaint, and never leave those dis- tressing secondary symptoms ( that harass the patient for life) which usually arise after the use of those uncertain remedies, Mercury aud Copaiba. I think you cannot fail to have a very large sale for them. Believe me, yours, very truly, JOSHUA BROOKES. Ashley Cooper's Botanical Purifying Pills are sold in boxes at, 2s. 9d. and 4s. 6d. each, wholesale and retail, at HANNAY and Co.' s General Patent Medicine Warehouse, 63, Oxford- street, the corner of Wells- street, London, where the public can be supplied with every Patent Medi- cine of repute, ( with an allowance on taking six at one time) warranted genuine and fresh from the various makers. Orders by post, containing a remittance, punctually attended to, and the change, if any, can be returned with the order. Ashley Cooper's Botanical Pills are sold by one or more respectable venders in every town in the kingdom, and any shop that has not got them will obtain them from London without any extra charge. Country shops can obtain them through any of the London booksellers. Sold by appointment by M. Maher, 5, Congreve- streeti and Wood, Bookseller, High- street, Birmingham; Parker, Wolverhampton; Rogers, Stafford; Mort, Newcastle; any Merridew, Coventry. MULREADDY'S COUGH ELIXIR. ONE dose is sufficient to convince the most scrupu- lous of the invaluable and unfailing efficacy of Mul- readdy's Cough Elixir, for the cure of coughs, colds, hoarseness, shortness of breath, asthma, difficulty of breathing, huskiness, and unpleasant tickling in the throat, night cough, with pain on the chest, & c. The paramount superiority of this medicine above every other now in use, for the cure of the above complaints, only requires to be known to prove the passport to its being, ere long, universally made use of for the cure of every description of Pulmonary Affection. To those who are unacquainted with the invaluable pro- perties of Mulreaddy's Cough Elixir, the following letters will exhibit its efficacy: — Manchester, Jan. 2nd, 1835. Dear Sir,— The cough medicine you sent me is certainly a most surprising remedy; six days ago I was unable to breathe, unless with great difficulty, attended with much coughing, which always kept my soft palate relaxed, and in a state of irritation, aud the more I coughed the worseit was, and it, in its own turn, produced a constant excitement of coughing . I am now about, to the wonder of my friends and neighbours, entirely free from cough. One small phial of your inestimable medicine, teu years back; would have saved me not less than £ 3,000 in medical fees, but it would have done more— it would have saved my having had to swallow, from time to time, upwards of a hogshead of their nauseous, and, as they all proved, useless drugs. The agreeable flavour of the medicine ia a great recommendation: I think you ought to put it up a « d sell it to the public, and if any one should doubt its efficacy, refer them tome. I shall have the pleasure of being with you in a few days, when I shall press on your consideration the propriety of makiug it up for sale; it would prove an enormous fortune to your grand, children. If you make up your mind to do so, as I am what the world styles an idle man, you may enlist me in your service in any way that you think would be useful. But I should advise you to place the management in the hands of one of the great medicine houses in London. Hannay's, in Oxford. street, are being advertised in all the papers here, as wholesale agents for Ramsbottom's Com Solvent, which, by the bye, my girl3 all say is really a cure, and many other medicines. I should say this would be a very good house, Oxford street being one of the most public situations in Lon- don. All join me in kind remembrance to yourself and Mrs. M. Believt me, yours, very truly, T. Mulreaddy, Esq. ROBERT GRANT. Golden Lion Hotel, Liverpool. Sir— To my astonishment, the other day, I had a visit from my old and esteemed friend, Mr. Hughes, whom I had not seen for many years, and still more so was I when, finding that I had a severe cough, he drew forth from his pocket a phial, a portion of the con- tents of which he insisted upon my swallowing instauter, and lef me the remainder, which I also took, and in the course of twenty- four hours I found myself quite freefrom even any tendency towards coughing; he now tells me that you are his oracle of health; I, therefore, beg leave to present my report at head- quarters, with many thanks, and trust that I may be able to prevail on you to let me have half, or a whole pint of the medicine to stow in my sea- chest, as I sail again for America iu about ten days, and if 1 can, in return, afford you any service on the other side of the Atlantic, I am at your command. T. W. BUCHANAN. Master of the Brig Nancy, of Orleans. T. Mulreaddy, Esq. Birkenhead, Jan., 1835. DearSir,— The bottle of Medicine you left for me the other day has greatly relieved the wheezing I have been so long subject to ; and I do not now find the cold produce the sensation it used previous to taking your medicine; it used formerly to nip me on going out, and I seemed as though I had a string run through my body, and the breast and backbones were drawn together. If you will be so good as to give me another bottle, I am sure it will work a perfectctore. I am, sir, your most obedient servant, T. Mulreaddy, Esq. NICHOLAS BROWN. DearSir,— The effect of your medicine, in curing our children ot the Hooping Cough, has been like magic, for which I, and Mrs. Wilson in particular, return our grateful acknowledgments, and the little W's shall not fail, ere long, to thank you in person. Rely on it, n our family you will be styled doctor in future. Believe me, yours very sincerely, J. WILSON, Liverpool, Dec., 1834. My dear Sir,— You most assuredly deserve the thanks of society for presenting it with such an invaluable cure for Coughs. For years past, during the winter mouths, and aiways on foggy dayi, have I heretofore been compelled to confine myself a close and soli- tary prisoner in my library, to prevent the possibility of being tempted to join in conversation, the excitement of which always produced such violent paroxysms of coughing, that I have been in constant dread of sudden dissolution, by bursting of a blood- vessel. At the commencement of the present season, by your kind liberality, I com- menced taking the medicine you sent, and have taken twelve bottles. After I had taken three, I could respire as vigourously as in the early part of my life, and I now believe that 1 was then perfectly cured— a cure not to have been expected at my advanced age, 80 years— but I persevered in taking it until I had consumed the whole twelve bottles. Your situation m life, I know, places you beyond the necessity of preparing an article of the kind for sale, but it must and shall be done, and if you neglect to do it, my sincere wish is that you may be lugged out ofyour retirement, and compelled to provide it in quantities equal to the boundless waters; and you may rely upou it, that I, a locomotive proof of its wonderful power, will spare neither time nor trouble to promulgate its efficacy, until you will find your cottage attacked by myriads of my former fellow sufferers, for a share of your bounty, and I myself now apply for the first, trusting that your goodness will not suffer you to refuse m « a pretty considerable quantity, and I promise to distribute it most usefully. Whenever you have made up for sale, send me one thou, sand bottles. Ever your sincere well- wisher, T. Mulreaddy, Esq. W. HUGHES. Chester, 12mo., 1834. Esteemed Friend,— Thou hast my sincere thanks for thy Samaritan present. Thy medicine has had the promised effect, aud com- pletely cured my trying cough. If thou wilt let me have a quantity in a large bottle, I will, in return, enter thy name to any charitable institution thou wilt fix on. Thine, T. Mulreaddy, Eeq. J » C0D KOBEETS. Mr. Mulreaddy begs to observe, that to publish copies of he whole of the letters he has received of the above tenor, would require several volumes. The selection here pre- sented he considers quite sufficient, but begs to say, that upon trial of his Cough Elixir, it will give itself the best recommendation. It will be sold by his appointment, whole- sale and retail, by his agents, Messrs. HANNAY and- Co., 63, Oxford- street, London; and retail by every other respecta- blevenderofmedicines in bottles at Is. l% d. each. Ig^ Purchasers should observe that it is wrapped up in white paper, on which, in a blue label with white etters, are printed the words,— Mulreaddy's Cough Elixir, pre- pared by Thomas Mulreaddy, Liverpool, and sold by his ap- pointment at Hannay and Co.' s, Patent Medicine Ware- house, 63, Oxford- street, London. Price Is. i% d. and 4s. 6d. Sold wholesale and retail by HANNAY and Co., 63, Oxford stteet, London, wholesale Patent Medicine Ven- ders and Perfumers to the Royal Family, where the public can be supplied with every patent and public nifedipine of repute; and also with the perfumes of all the respectable London perfumers, with an allowance on taking six or more of any other article at the same time. Soldbyappointmentby Maher, 5, Congreve- street, asd Wood, bookseller, High- street, Birmingham ; Parke, Wolverhampton; Rogers, Stafford; Mort, Newcastle; and Merridew, Coventry. Printed and published by FRANCIS BASSET SHENSTONI FLINDELI., of Lee Mount, in the parish of Edgbasto'n, at 38, New- street, Birmingham, whfere letters for the Editor maybe addressed, and where Advertisements and Orders will be received. ( All descriptions of Jobbing carefully and expeditiously executed.) Agents in Lon- don: Messrs. NEWTON and Co., 5, Warwick- square; and Mr. BARKER, 33, Fleet- street.— Saturday, April 7,1838.