THE KING against CHARLES PINNEY. TRIAL AT BAR, ON OCTOBER 25 TO NOVEMBER 1, 1832, OF CHARLES PINNEY, BEFORE LORD TENTERDEN, C.J., LITTLEDALE, PARrke, and TAUNTON, J.J., AND A SPECIAL JURY, FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY AS MAYOR, ON THE OCCASION OF THE RIOTS AT BRISTOL ON 29TH, 30TH, AND 31ST OCTOBER 1831. (Reported in 5 C. & P. 254 and 3 B. & Ad. 947.) Sir Charles Wetherell, Recorder of Bristol, appointed Saturday, the 29th October 1831, for holding the gaol delivery in that city. At the request of the magistrates, who feared a disturbance, soldiers were sent to Bristol, and about 300 special constables were sworn in. A riot took place when the Recorder entered the city on the 29th October 1831, and he was compelled to leave it. The Riot Act was read more than once, and the soldiers were called in, but they did not fire. By midnight quiet was restored. The Mayor remained at the Mansion House all night. Early on Sunday morning the riot was renewed with more violence; the Mansion House was attacked; and the Mayor left it, and went to the Guildhall. About mid-day of Sunday a mob attacked Bridewell and set free the prisoners. It afterwards released the prisoners in the city gaol, destroyed the governor's house, a toll house, a prison at Lawford's Gate, outside the city, the Bishop's Palace, the Custom House, and many houses on two sides of Queen's Square. None of these buildings were defended. The Mayor called a meeting at the Guildhall for the protection of the city, but no measures were taken. He did not call out the Chelsea pensioners, of whom there were many in the city, nor did he cause precepts to be issued summoning the posse comitatus. But he gave orders that public notices should be sent on Sunday morning to all the places of worship requesting the inhabitants to form themselves into bodies and to come to the Guildhall. On the following morning (the 31st) reinforcements of troops arrived. The commanding officer requested that one of the magistrates should accompany him on horseback. They all refused. But the commander received from the Mayor a letter authorising him to disperse the mob; which was done. Information against the Mayor for neglect of duty; and trial at bar before Lord Tenterden, C.J., Littledale, Parke, and Taunton, J.J. By Littledale, J., in directing the jury (Parke and Taunton, J.J., agreeing). 1. Duty of Magistrates in Case of Riots. That a magistrate or other person whose duty it is to suppress a riot is bound to do all that reasonably may be expected in the circumstances from a man of honesty and of ordinary prudence, firmness, and activity; That honesty of intention is not of itself a defence; That a magistrate is not required to ride along and charge with the military, or to head the special constables, or to give orders to the military to fire; That he is not bound to hire men to aid in keeping the peace, but only to collect those who come on reasonable warning. 2. Use of Firearms in suppressing Riots. That magistrates may supply the King's subjects with firearms in order to suppress a riot, though such a course is not in general prudent. 3. Duty of Subjects in Case of Riots. That all the King's subjects upon receiving reasonable warning are bound to aid the justices in suppressing a riot, and to attend upon the posse comitatus upon receiving reasonable notice, though precepts have not been made out and served. 4. Duty of Military in regard to Riots. That a military officer may, in quelling a riot, act without a magistrate, though such a course is not in general prudent. 5. Duty of Magistrate, under the Statutes relating to Special Constables. By Parke and Taunton, J.J. (Littledale, J., doubting). That as the information contained no charge based on these statutes the jury ought not to take them into account; That if the information contained such a charge the defendant could not be found guilty under these statutes unless there was evidence that information on oath had been laid in accordance with them. The following case was laid before the Law Officers for their opinion as to the conduct of the magistrates of Bristol : "Copies of the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry into the conduct of Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton, (a) on the occasion of the Riots at Bristol; of a statement from the Mayor of Bristol(b); of the proceedings of a CourtMartial on Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton; and of a report from the solicitors to a Committee of Inquiry appointed by a public meeting of Merchants, Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of Bristol, held on 21st November 1831, are left herewith. (c) "Viscount Melbourne has been pleased to transmit these papers to the Solicitor of the Treasury, with directions to lay them before the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and to request their opinion." "Whether upon the facts stated the magistrates have been guilty of any misconduct which will subject them to a criminal information; and, if so, they are requested to state in detail the facts upon which the criminal proceedings ought to be grounded." The following was the opinion of the Law Officers: Upon the facts stated, we are of opinion that the magistrates have been guilty of misconduct which subjects them to a criminal information.(d) We think that they were grossly negligent of their duty, and much of the mischief that occurred was produced by their supineness and inactivity. We proceed to observe on some of the most important details in the history of these unhappy transactions upon which our opinion is founded. Considering the previous apprehension of danger which led them to apply for military aid, we think that the magistrates ought in the first instance to have organized a much larger force of special constables, and to have exerted for that purpose all the authority with which the law invests them. The absence of this precaution, however, may have been merely a miscalculation of the violence likely to be committed, and the force that would become necessary to repress it. But after the Recorder had been assailed by a mob from his arrival at Tatterdown Hill till he opened the court-in the court where he was presiding as judge-from that period till he was personally attacked when alighting at the Mansion House-the tumultuous assemblage ought not to have been permitted to remain in front of that building, tearing up the palisades, breaking the windows, fighting the constables, insulting the magistracy. The Mayor himself must have been of this opinion, when he read the Proclamation prescribed by the Riot Act. He could hardly perform that necessary duty from a continuance of the same outrages: and the mob remained in a state of riot. We are of opinion that all the civil power which could then be collected ought to have been called into action, and that resort should have been had to military aid in its support. There is a great reason to believe that by this demonstration, even if no charge had been made, the mob would have been dispersed. When the military came, great difficulties were undoubtedly imposed upon the magistrates by the commanding officer. Nothing could be more unfortunate at such a crisis than the delusion under which that gentleman laboured respecting the temper and disposition of the populace. On the mere view of what was passing, Colonel Brereton would have been clearly justifiable in clearing the streets by any needful force even without the presence, and of course, therefore, without the command or permission of any magistrate. We think it was unreasonable in him to insist on the direct authority of the mayor to fire, when the mayor did order him to clear the streets, even though that end could not be accomplished without using fire-arms or the edge of the sword. But though that officer might have done more for the restoration of order, it by no means follows that the magistrates did enough. He required more specific orders, and we think he ought to have received them. If the actual state of things required fire-arms to be used, the magistrates ought to have ordered them to be used, referring nothing to his discretion. But if, on the other hand, the state of things did not then warrant a charge by soldiers, some magistrate or magistrates ought to have gone out with them, to give the word when, in their discretion, they thought it necessary. course they took left him in the situation of any one of the King's subjects, happening to witness a riot, which he has a right to quell by force, if he will assume the responsibility. The Much allowance, however, may be fairly claimed for the situation of the magistrates at this period, and they may naturally have been paralysed by a sudden disappointment in obtaining the military assistance on which they relied. Their first great fault, we think, was committed when they separated that night. Twelve hours had passed in most alarming riots: the Mansion House had been long besieged, menaced, broken open, plundered, attempted to be fired. The mob had been dislodged by soldiers, but not wholly driven away from the street in front of it. Another party attacked the Council House (full a quarter of a mile distant) at midnight, and kept up a running fight with some of the 14th who in self-defence had shot a ringleader. If the magistrates of a city so infested and endangered did not either remain together, or at least relieve one another during the night, they certainly ought to have taken measures for | Mansion House was sacked, and fired, and meeting early on the following morning. Their proclaiming such an intention, and summoning their fellow citizens, might probably have prevented those fresh disturbances which brought them together. When they did meet, their duty was obvious. They ought to have sworn in the greatest possible number of special constables, and required the assistance of the troops in case of need. If they could not promptly agree upon some combined plan of operation, each magistrate ought to have exerted his own authority for putting an end to the outrages. There was no necessity for their acting in a body, or obtaining the sanction of the inhabitants who attended. Each magistrate had a plain duty to perform, and the backwardness of the military commander, and the jealousy that betrayed itself among the soldiers, required the greater efforts on their part to subdue the rioters. It was their duty to place themselves at the head of whatever force they could have raised for the prevention of any mischief that was threatened. When they were told that the Bridewell was assailed-close to the place where they were sitting, and defensible with the greatest ease-they were bound to defend it. When those who had destroyed the Bridewell were proceeding to the gaol, if they could not be stopped in their way, some magistrate ought to have been there with constables ready to repel them. This might have been done, and the gaol preserved, by a very small force. It is, indeed, true that two aldermen and about fifty gentlemen betook themselves to the gaol, but they came too late, and were driven back. Even when the mob were in possession, the magistrates ought to have remained near enough to take advantage of circumstances. When the soldiers came soon after, it appears that they exclaimed, "What! no magistrate?" sheathed their swords, and returned. The depositions appear to prove clearly that the force of the mob was almost at every period contemptible, and that they were very susceptible of alarm. On the other hand, the citizens were forward and anxious to be employed in defence of the city. Many leading men offered excellent advice as well as personal co-operation. But all at length withdrew, discouraged and wearied out by the unaccountable apathy of the magistrates. They were repeatedly told that every man must act upon his own responsibility, and defend his own property. A county magistrate who came to see if he could offer any assistance, states that he was treated as an intruder; and the same behaviour was observed towards the ministers of several religious congregations. After 5 o'clock on Sunday evening, at which hour we understand the gaol was burnt, the city appears to have been absolutely deserted by its whole magistracy. No effort was made by any one of the body to restore peace; nor could any one of them be found. When the Bishop's Palace was attacked, several gentlemen held a personal conflict with the mob: no magistrate took any part in the resistance. When the nearly two entire sides of Queen Square were consigned to the flames and plunder, attended with a frightful loss of life, neither the mayor nor any other magistrate was to be met with. At four on the Monday morning the mayor was discovered, but the instructions he then gave were accompanied with a charge that his place of concealment should not be made known-that place, too, is at a very considerable distance from all the scenes of outrage. Even when Captain Codrington's corps of yeomanry rode in, that officer looked in vain for a magistrate to direct their operations, though his presence had been required by the mayor. We do not collect from the statements that any one of that body was present at the final dispersion of the mob. We, therefore, think that after the most indulgent consideration of the embarrassing circumstances in which the magistrates were placed, they must be pronounced, on the facts that have been submitted to us, guilty of great and criminal neglect of duty. Nor can we think the weight of this serious charge materially lessened by their having in some instances followed the advice of other persons. time of such imminent and extreme danger, their duty was not to consult, but to command, to form their own opinion of the best course to be taken, and resolutely act upon that opinion. Generally speaking, however, the counsel they refused was judicious, and the exertion they discouraged must have been successful. For in a their neglect of duty strikingly culpable: There are four points at which we deem 1. When they separated on Saturday night, without appointing an early meeting on Monday morning. 2. When they met, but collec3. When the Bridewell was ted no civil force. destroying, almost within their sight and hearthe fifth and last charge appears to us still ing. 4. When the gaol was attacked. heavier than all the former-when they wilfully withdrew from the protection of the peace, and abandoned the city to a weak but frantic crew of rioters and thieves. But Every one of the magistrates who was residing at Bristol when the tumult began is more or less involved in this censure; for, though united efforts would have been most likely to succeed, it was the duty of each as he found such combination hopeless, to do his utmost as an individual magistrate. The evidence laid before us will, however, affect some much more severely than others, and some may have redeemed themselves from prosecution by acting with firmness and spirit at particular moments. These points must depend upon a minute examination of the proofs by which they are severally affected. (Signed) T. DENMAN. WM. HORNE. Lincoln's Inn, (a) Papers of Solicitor of Treasury, No. 1256. In Easter Term, 1832, the Attorney | jeant Wilde, (a) Serjeant Coleridge, (b) ShepGeneral(a) filed ten separate informations herd, Wightman.(c) against the mayor and nine aldermen of Bristol.(b) The venue was laid in the city of Bristol and county of the same name. The defendants appeared and pleaded not guilty. On 6th June, 1832, upon hearing the Attorney General for the King and Sir James Scarlett for the defendants, and by consent, it was ordered that the trials (c) in these several prosecutions be had by jurors of the county of Berks, (d) and that proper suggestions for that purpose be entered in the rolls in these several prosecutions. On June 8, 1832, it was ordered that the trials at Bar of the several prosecutions be had on Thursday, the 25th of October, 1832. (a) Sir Thomas Denman. (b) Papers of Solicitor of Treasury, 1254, and Indictments, Easter Term, 1832, Nos. 19 to 28. (c)" It is said it (trial at bar) must be moved for in the Term previous to that in which it is to be tried, and that it cannot be moved for in an issuable Term, but this does not apply where the Crown is a party. So the trial of Charles Pinney, esquire, the Mayor of Bristol, was moved for in Trinity Term, 1832, for trial as of the same Term, though it was not tried until October following. So the trial of Gibbs Crawford Antrobus, the sheriff of Chester, was moved for in Hilary Term, 1835, and tried as of the same Term in Vacation after; but the trial of Thistlewood, and others was moved for in Easter Term, 1817, for trial in Trinity following." Corner's Crown Practice, p. 258. See as to the present practice as to trials at bar, Crown Office Rules, 1886, R. 160-163. (d) As to the venue of a trial at Bar, R. v. Amery, 1 T.R. 363, Attorney General v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. 171, p. 193; Dixon v. Farrer, 17 Q.B.D. 667; 18 Q.B.D. 43. (e) Sir William Horne. Counsel for the defendant: Sir James Scarlett, (d) Campbell, (e) Follett. (f) The special jury panel was called over, and the following gentlemen of the county of Berks were sworn : John Hopkins, Esq. The information was opened by Wightman. [The issue was as follows: } : Pleas before our Lord the King at Westminster of Easter Term in the second year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord William the Fourth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the Faith. Amongst the pleas of the King. City of Bristol and BE IT REMEMBERED that county of the same Sir Thomas Denman city-to wit. Knight Attorney General of our present Sovereign Lord the King who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecuteth in his proper person cometh here into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster on Monday the sixteenth day of April in this same term and for our said Lord the King brings into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself then here a certain Information against Charles Pinney late of the city of Bristol and county of the same city Esquire which said Information followeth in these words that is to say City of Bristol and county of the same city to wit. Be it remembered that Sir Thomas Denman Knight Attorney General of our Sovereign Lord the King who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecuteth in his proper person cometh here into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster on Monday the sixteenth day of April in this same term and for our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed that heretofore to wit on the twenty ninth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousard eight hundred and thirty-one and before and afterwards and at all and each of the several times hereinafter-mentioned, Charles Pinney late of the city of Bristol and county of the same city Esquire was Mayor of the said city and one of the justices of our said Lord the King, assigned to keep the peace in and for the said City of Bristol and county of the same city and also to hear and determine divers felonies trespasses and other misdemeanours committed within the said city and county. And the said Attorney General gives the Court here to understand and be informed that heretofore to wit on the said twenty-ninth day of October in the year aforesaid in the said city and county there had been divers tumults riots routs and unlawful assemblies of great numbers of evil-disposed persons within the said city and county and divers and violent breaches of the peace of our Lord the King and divers violent attacks and outrages had been committed in the said city and county upon the persons and property of divers of his said Majesty's subjects there whereof the said Charles Pinney so being such Mayor and Justice as aforesaid then and there had notice. And the said Attorney General further says that on the next day after the said twenty-ninth day of October to wit on the thirtieth day of October in the year aforesaid to wit in the city and county aforesaid divers wicked and evil-disposed persons to the number of five thousand and more whose names are at present unknown to the said Attorney General with force and arms unlawfully riotously routously and tumultuously assembled themselves together in different parts of the said city and county armed with iron bars iron crows pickaxes hammers pieces of wood and bludgeons with intent to disturb the public peace and to make riots routs tumults and affrays in the city and county and to commit breaches of the peace and outrages upon the persons and property of his Majesty's peaceable subjects there of all which premises the said Charles Pinney so being such Mayor and Justice as aforesaid then and there also had notice. And the said Attorney General further says that divers to wit three thousand of the said persons so being unlawfully riotously routously and tumultuously assembled together armed as aforesaid and divers other persons to the said Attorney General also unknown afterwards to wit on the day and year last aforesaid at the city and county aforesaid with force and arms wickedly and unlawfully attacked and with the said hammers pickaxes iron crows iron bars and pieces of wood forced and broke open a certain common and public gaol or prison there called the Bridewell and then and there made a great riot noise tumult and affray there for a long space of time to wit for eight hours and during that time unlawfully wilfully maliciously and with force burned demolished and destroyed the said gaol or prison and rescued divers to wit one hundred prisoners who were then and there lawfully confined in the said gaol or prison and suffered them to go at large whereof the said Charles Pinney so being such Mayor and Justice aforesaid then and there to wit on the day and year last aforesaid in the city and county aforesaid also had notice. And the said Attorney General in fact further saith that afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at the city and county aforesaid a great number to wit three thousand of the said persons so being riotously routously and tumultuously assembled as aforesaid armed as afore said and divers other persons also to the said Attorney General unknown with force and arms wickedly and unlawfully attacked and with the said hammers pickaxes iron crows iron bars and pieces of wood forced and broke open a certain other public and common gaol or prison in the city and county aforesaid called the Gaol and then and there made another great riot noise tumult and affray there for a long space of time to wit for six hours and during that time unlawfully wilfully maliciously and with force partly burned demolished and destroyed the same and rescued and set at large divers to wit one hundred prisoners who were then and there lawfully confined in the said last-mentioned gaol to wit at the city and county aforesaid whereof the said Charles Pinney so being such Mayor and Justice as aforesaid then and there also had notice. And the said Attorney General in fact further saith that afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at the city and county aforesaid a great number to wit three thousand of the said persons so being riotously routously and tumultuously assembled as aforesaid armed as aforesaid and divers other persons also to the said Attorney General unknown with force and arms wickedly and unlawfully attacked and with the said hammers pickaxes iron crows iron bars and pieces of wood forced and broke open a certain messuage and dwelling-house in the city and county aforesaid of and belonging to the Lord Bishop of Bristol and then and there made another great tumult riot disturbance and affray for a long space of time to wit for the space of eight hours and then and there during that time unlawfully wilfully maliciously and with force burned and demolished the said messuage and dwelling-house and wholly destroyed the furniture and other goods and chattels therein to wit at the city and county aforesaid whereof the said Charles Pinney then and there being such Mayor and Justice as aforesaid then and there also had notice. And the said Attorney General in fact further saith that afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at the city and county aforesaid a great number to wit three thousand of the said persons so being riotously routously and tumultuously assembled as aforesaid armed as aforesaid and divers other persons also to the said Attorney General unknown wilfully and maliciously and with great force and violence attacked forced and broke open divers to wit one hundred messuages and one hundred dwelling-houses of and belonging respectively to divers of his Majesty's subjects situate in a certain place in the said city and county to wit in a certain place there called Queen Square and then and there made a great riot noise tumult disturbance and affray there for a long space of time to wit for twelve hours and during that time then and there unlawfully wilfully maliciously and with force burnt demolished and destroyed the said messuages and dwelling-houses and the furniture and other goods and chattels therein and stole took and carried away divers goods and chattels of and belonging to divers of his said Majesty's subjects then and there being and greatly terrified and alarmed the inhabitants of the said city and |
