object was, that the inquiry should be asked of his Majesty in terms of becoming respect. He particularly objected to the word "deplorable" as applicable to the state of the country.

Mr. Quin not only gave his hearty assent to the first resolution now put, but to every one of the series which had been read by the worthy mover; and if he had any objection to them, it was that he thought them couched in terms not sufficiently strong for the occasion. As to the address agreed to be presented to his Majesty by the common council on the 5th. inst. so far as he could learn its contents, there was not a single word in it unbecoming the respect due to the Sovereign. His Majesty had appointed to the sheriffs a distant day for its reception; but, before that day arrived, an interlude took place, in which that address was superseded, and another passed in its place. In what a ridiculous predicament did this piece of inconsistency place both the sheriffs, who must now go again to wait on his Majesty, apologise for not presenting the address, and request the pointment of a new day for presenting another!

ap

Mr. Waithman, with his usual ability, supported the motion of Mr. Favell. He professed that he had little or no reliance on any disposition of the present majority in parliament towards inquiry, or the exercise of any controul over ministers, unless stimulated to it by the desire of his Majesty, supported by the petitions of his people. It was not for him to say the political opinions of the last speaker but one were wrong; he only knew they were always opposed to his own. But he could not account for the strange in tellects of any man, who, with so many glaring facts before his eyes, could say he did not think the situation of this country deplorable, and that uny reliance was to be placed in the dispo

sition of the house of commons to con troul the conduct or scrutinize the measures of ministers, or to follow up inquiry into the misconduct of public men-with any serious vir to the punishment of their delinquencies. What was the résult in the case of Lord Melville, after having been dismissed from his Majesty's councils? Why, that he was shortly after recalled to power and confidence, and was now the man who pulled the wires be hind the curtain; and his son and relatives were loaded with places and emoluments. Mr. Waithman continued to press the necessity of passing the resolutions, and the address to be founded thereon, and voted for the motion.

The Resolutions were then put successively, and carried, with the opposition of one, two, or three hands to some of them.

Mr. Favell again came forward, and moved an humble address to his Majesty, embodying the substance of the resolutions.

It was carried nem. con. and ordered to be signed in the usual form, and presented to his Majesty by the lord mayor and sheriffs.

Mr. Waithman came forward, and declared that the address now rad was precisely the same with that voted in the common council on the 5th. inst. altered only by the introductory words of "We, the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Livery of London, in Common Hall, &c."

Mr. S. Dixon, on the address being read, attempted to speak, but was hooted down.

Mr. Sheriff Wood then came forward in support of the address. The moment he presented himself the hall rung with shouts of applause. Не said, "Gentlemen, I come to assure you that I will do my duty; the duty, gentlemen, to which I more particularly allude is, that of seeing your wishes with respect to the petition to his Majesty carried into full effect. Gentlemen, I shall so

licit for an audience to present that petition to his Majesty. I shall, with all correctness to obey your will, and all anxiety to behave with the most dutiful respect to our King, beg an audience; but if I am refused I will DEMAND one; and then those bad advisers of the King will be compelled to yield to me as a right, what they denied me as a Gentlemen, the humblest may with upright intentions endeavour to do their duty, and the greatest can do no more than discharge their's. I may be resisted in my efforts to obey your will, but while I fill the office I now hold, I shall always bear in mind who they were who invested me with that of fice, and for what purpose I was so invested. Gentlemen, Mr. Beckford was, we know, denied access to his Majesty by the household lords that flocked about the throne, and tried to keep from the monarch's ear the sentiments of his faithful people; but you all remember how ineffectual such efforts proved, when opposed by the undismayed integrity of one honest man! Gentlemen, I shall trespass no longer upon your attention than by again assuring you that upon this occasion, and every other, I shall do my duty. I am your officer, and think myself as such bound to obey your com. mands. Gentlemen, I conclude with assuring you that I shall to the utmost of my power support your rights and privileges-I never will oppose them, I never will do that which can possibly lessen them, and if I could, it would be the proudest wish of my heart to add to them. This speech was followed by great applause.

Mr. Sheriff Atkins next appeared. A considerable time elapsed before the popular clamour subsided, while Mr. Waithman and other gentlemen endeavoured to obtain for him the privilege of being card. The She riff then said, that he also would do

his duty; that whatever his opinion of the address or the occasion of it might be, he would discharge his duty by presenting that address, and if it was necessary, insisting upon the right of presenting it.

Mr. Favell then moved the thanks of the livery to the Lord Mayor, for the readines with which he complied with their requisition, and the firmness and impartiality with which he acted in the chair and in support of the address in the common council.-Passed Unanimously.

The Lord Mayor thanked the li very for the honour of their approbation, and said he should always be ready to comply with their requisitions.

The thanks of the assembly were then voted to Mr. Waithman, and to Aldermen Sir W. Plomer, Coombe, Smith, Goodbehere, and Wood ; also to Messrs. Favell and Jones, the mover and seconder.

COMMON COUNCIL ADDRESS.

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty, -The humble, Loyal, and Dutiful Address and Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Coun cil assembled.

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,

We your Majesty's most faithful, loyal, and dutiful subjects, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons, of the city of London, in common council assem bled, most humbly approach your Majesty's sacred person, in the perfect assurance that your Majesty will graciously condescend to receive the suggestions of your faithful and loyal citizens, on subjects which seriously and deeply af fect their interests, in common with the your Majesty's people.

rest of

We have witnessed with deep regret the disastrous failure of the late expedi tion, as the magnitude of its equipment had raised the just hopes and expectations of the country to some permanent benefit.

And we cannot avoid expressing to with which we are affected by the unyour Maiesty, the sorrow and indignation happy dissensions that have prevailed among your Majesty's ministers, and

our fears that such dissensions may prove eminently prejudicial to the best interests of the nation.

Your Majesty's faithful citizens, actuated by loyal attachment to your sacred person and illustrious house, and solicitous for the honour of your Majesty's arms, and the dignity and solidity of your Majesty's councils, are deeply impressed with the necessity of an early and strict inquiry into the causes of the failure of the late expedition, and therefore pray your Majesty wiH direct inquiry to be forthwith instituted in order to ascertain the causes which have occasioned it. By order of the court,

HENRY WOODTHORPE, To which address and petition his Majesty was graciously pleased to return the following answer :

"I thank you for your expressions of duty and attachment to me and to my family.

"The recent expedition to the Scheldt was directed to several objects of great importance to the interests of my allies, and to the security of my dominions. "I regret that of these objects a part only has been accomplished.

I have not judged it to be necessary to direct any military inquiry into the conduct of my commanders, by sea or land, in this conjoint service.

"It will be for my parliament, in their wisdom, to ask for such information, or to take such measures upon this subject as they shall judge most conducive to the public good."

They were all received very graciously, and had the honour to kiss his Majesty's

hand.

In the Court of Common Pleas, on the 5th, came on to be heard before Sir James Mansfield, chief justice, and a special jury, the cause- -Clifford, Esq. v. Brandon-Mr. Runnington, in opening the pleadings, said, in this case Henry Clifford, Esq. Barrister at Law, was the plaintiff, and James Brandon the defendant. The action was for assault and false imprisonment,' as the plaintiff was quitting Covent Garden Theatre. To this the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and entered seven pleas in justification. To which the plaintiff had replied, that the defendant had committed the trespass without the cause he had alleged.

Mr. Serjeant Best then rose on behalf of the plaintiff, and observed, that the plaintiff was a gentleman of the bar, a

man of an ancient and noble family; but far more distinguished for the urbanity of his manners, the extent of his learning, and the splendour of his talents. The defendant held some situation under Covent Garden Theatre; and therefore the best way of considering this cause would be to treat it as between the plaintiff and the managers of that thea

tre.

The present complaint was that of an outrageous assault upon the person of the plaintiff, and which, to a man of his profession, was to the last degree unworthy and insulting, the defendant ordered him to be dragged before a magistrate, which magistrate, in the due execution of his office, having heard all that could be alleged against the plaintiff, and much more than could be alleged to-day, the defendant himself then bearing witness against the plaintiff, which he could not do to day, discharged the plaintiff. And now the answer to this charge against the defendant was, that there was a riot in Covent Garden Theatre, and that the plaintiff was one of the rioters, and was therefore apprehended by the defendant, and brought before a magis trate, to receive justice for his share in that riot. It was not profit the plaintiff looked for, and therefore he had laid his damages at the sum of only 100l. a sum which was no object to a gentleman, who, the learned serjeant rejoiced to say, was as independent in circumstances as he was in mind. Not that even that sum would ever find its way. into the pocket of the plaintiff; the learned serjeant pledged himself it should be employed for the purpose of assisting those who laboured under an oppression similar to that now complained of.

The learned serjeant then went into the particulars of the dispute at the Theatre, and observed that he did not justify riot; but Englishmen must be taken with their virtues and their faults; it was to the riots of Englishmen that we owed some of the most valued privileges of our land; and when Englishmen ceased to riot in a just cause, they would cease to preserve their liberty from oppression at home, and their rights from usurpation abroad. That noise which constitutes a riot, must carry with it something of terror and alarm; it must be the actual exertion of, or the inten tion to exert force. The noise which had lately filled Covent Garden Theatre did not in the least alarm the learned serjeant, who was, as he said before, a

nervous man. If it could be shewn that a single chandelier had been broken, and that the damage of sixpence had been done to the theatre, the learned serjeant would allow it to be called a riot; but for his part he never saw a more harmless set of people in his life than these same rioters. The learned serjeant should prove, till the jury were tired of hearing it, that the plaintiff took no part in the riot, and only wore O, P. in his hat; and the learned serjeant submitted that, if there was a riot, this single circumstance could not make a man one of the rioters. If it could, the gentlemen of the jury must take care how they went to contested elections, At the last Brentford election there were serious riots; so that, if this doctrine were held, and any one of the jury happened to wear the same ribband as the rioters, he was to be construed a rioter too. To wear the O. P. ribhand, was not to join the O. P. riot: but to answer the appeal to the public of the proprietors of the theatre; "I don't approve of the advanced prices." Was that illegal? If so, why did the proprietors ask the public whether they approved of their conduct or not? If the jury should be of opinion that the plaintiff was a rioter, still he would be entitled to their verdict; for the law says that a rioter could be taken up only durante delicto, and even then not without a magistrate's warrant. The defendant wus no constable; and the learned serjeant believed that Taunton, who apprehended him, was none: the defendant, however, was the man that gave the charge, and he, at least, was no constable. If a man saw a riot, it was his duty to go to a magistrate, and, armed with his authority, to interfere. But the moment the rioters separated, there was an end of the riot; and the learned serjeant would shew the jury, that-at the time the plaintiff was apprehended, he had left the theatre, and was walking home with the gentleman with whom he entered the theatre. At that moment it was certain that nobody could seize him as a rioter, without the warrant of a magistrate; and if the plaintiff, instead of being a peaceable and good humoured man, had been violent, and had resisted the assault, the assaulter and the proprietors of the theatre would have had to answer for whatever blood. might have been spilt. The learned serjeant should prove this his case; and

unless it was answered by evidence, he would be entitled to the verdict of the jury. But be trusted the other side would feel that "the better part of valour is discretion," and that they would not attempt to set up their patent: they would give him his verdict, and not attempt to say they were lawfully playing, which the learned serjeant undertook to say they were not, The defendant had called a special jury to decide this cause. From what the learned serjeant had seen of common juries, he thought them quite competent to the task; but, as it was, he was glad of the circumstance, as a special jury was composed of men in the same rank of life with the plaintiff himself, and who would make him such reparation for any attack upon his honour, as they themselves should expect under similar circumstances.

Seven witnesses, of the names of Hopkin, Elwin, Bone, Fisher, Jolly, Harris, and Philpot, were then called, and generally confirmed the statement of the quietness of Mr. Clifford's de meanour, although they admitted there was much noise in the house; also spoke to the brutal and reprobate behaviour of Mr. Brandon.

Mr. Serjeant Shepherd addressed the jury, as counsel for the defendant.The question now for them to try was, not whether the proprietors of Covent Garden were tyrants or not, but whether those persons who had embarked their property in the theatre to a vast amount should be ruined by caprice. As to the extortion, that was no question at all; if the public had a right to reduce the prices from seven shillings to six, they might with as much justice reduce them to sixpence. Constitute the right once, and it did not signify what was the minimum: that would be just as the whim of the moment dictated. Mr. Brandon's case was this, that Mr. Clifford was either rioting himself, or encouraging other people that were rioting. His case was proved by the witnesses of the plaintiff, and he would leave it confi dently to the jury under his lordship's direction to say, whether the riots had not been proved; and whether Mr. Clifford, by wearing the ensign of the rioters, had not made himself a partici pator in their acts.

Sir J. Mansfield in summing up the evidence, gave it as his opinion that the audience at a theatre had no right to in terfere as to the regulation of prices, un

to make such noise and confusion at a theatre as to prevent the performers from proceeding; although they had a right to hiss or applaud at the moment; but, if any body of people were to go to the theatre, with the deliberate intention of hissing any particular actor, or even of damning a piece, there could be no doubt but that such a deliberate and préconcerted scheme would amount to a conspiracy, and that the persons concerned in it may be severely punished. This being the law of the case, it was for the jury first to consider whether there had been any riots at the theatre on the night alluded to, and whether Mr. Clifford was not to be considered as an instigator of those riots? As to the plaintiff's rank and situation in the world, it made his example peculiarly mischievous. Those in an inferior situation and of less knowledge of the law, thought his example was a protection to them, and, therefore, his wearing the O. P. in his hat produced a very different effect from what would have been the consequence of similar conduct in a person of very inferior situation.

The next point was as to the legality of his apprehension. He must allow that the rule of law was, that no private person could arrest another for a bare breach of the peace, at a time subsequent to the commission of it, without a warrant from a magistrate. By law a private person had only a right to arrest a person rioting or breaking the peace at the time of his committing such of fence. If the jury should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he would request them to state to him the grounds upon which they so found, whether it was from their opinion of the arrest being illegal in point of time, or whether they did not believe the plaintiff to have assisted and encouraged the riots.

In about half an hour, the jury returned with a verdict for the Plaintiff Damages 51.

The moment the verdict was announced, a tremendous burst of applause communicated itself to the multitude without, who to the number of several thousands almost filled the hall. Some time elapsed before a word could be heard.

Sir. J. Mansfield then asked the jury, upon which of the two points referred whether a riot had been committed, and whether the plaintiff had been a participator in it; or, on the fact of the riot having been ended at the time the plain

tiff had been taken into custody?—they had found for the plaintiff.

The foreman of the jury stated, that they were all of opinion generally, that the plaintiff had been illegally arrested. Another of the jury then informed his lordship, that the principle on which the greater part of the jury had given their verdict, was, that it was harsh, that for so slight a matter as wearing O. P. in his hat, the plaintiff should have been taken into custody.

Sir J. Mansfield said he trembled for the verdict the jury had delivered. He was sorry, he said, that they had not stated the precise ground of their ver dict, because inany persons might suppose the disturbance which had prevailed was sanctioned by law. It would be shocking to say such was the meaning of the law, as such a construction would tend to every thing subversive of the constitution.

[It may be asked, Is it constitutional for a judge to put such questions to a jury, after their verdict has been delivered upon their oaths?

The success of the above cause exci

ted an unusual attendance of O. P.'s at Covent Garden Theatre the same evening, where shouts and groans were given for their friends and opponents; the private boxes were strikingly reprobated, and no Bow-street officers or hired prize-fighters dared to enter the pit.]

The disputes at the theatre after sixty six nights of disorder are at length settled. Mr. Kemble sent a note to Mr. Clifford, and an interview took place, which led to Mr. Kemble's introduction to the O. P's assembled at a public dinner at the Crown and Anchor.-After an address from Mr. Clifford, stating the particulars of his interview with Mr. Kemble, a committee was appointed, and several articles were drawn up and agreed to-They are in substance as follow:-The pit to be reduced to 3s. 6d.— the former rate of admission.-The boxes to be continued at 7s.--At the end of the present season, that part of the front boxes which is now occupied by annual boxes, to be restored to the use of the public as it was in the old theatre, at the time of Mr. Kemble's becoming a proprietor. All legal proceedings to be immediately stopped, and Mr. Brandon the box keeper, to be dismissed.

On the 18th. came on in the court of King's Bench, the trial of Messrs. Daniel and Erancis Wright and Mrs. Clarke,