THE Counrs OF Law.--Yesterday being the first day of Michael-

mas Term, the Courts of Westminster Hall were opened with the usual formalities. The Lord Chancellor did not take his seat in Court, in consequence of severe indisposition. His Lordship, we understand, is confined to his room by a violent cold, and it is not expected he will resume his official duties for some days. Lord Tenterden was also ab- sent from indisposition.

There was a report yesterday, that Lord Tenterden had expired in • the course of the afternoon. This turns out to be a mistake ; but it is understood that his Lordship is seriously, if not dangerously ill. The Chancellor did not take his place in Court yesterday, on account of continued indisposition.

SMALL v. ATTWOOD.—Lord Lyndhurst gave judgment on this im- portant case on Thursday. The action, it is well known, proceeded on a charge of wilful misrepresentation on the part of the defendant, John Attwood, in respect to certain mines sold by him to the British Iron Company, the plaintiffs ; and it concluded for the setting aside of the bargain entered into with him on the 4th of November 1825, for the purchase of these, mines, and also for restitution of that portion of the purchase-money which had been advanced by the Company. Lord Lyndhurst entered at great length into the history and merits of the case, previous to announcing his decision ; which he did in the following terms- " The whole conduct of the Directors with respect to Attwood and to the property has been fair ; and there does not appear to me to have been such an act of confirmation, either from 1'. Taylor or from the Directors, as to deprive them of redress if they were at any time entitled to it. I am bound to say, that a misrepresentation of material facts was knowingly made by Attwood in the basis of the agreement; that the agree- ment cannot stand, but must be vacated; that the money paid by the Company must be returned; and that the parties who have been let into possession must account fur the profits. I will myself prepare the decree. Attwood must pay the plaintiffs their costs ; Philip Taylor is to have his costs; and James and Edwards must pay their costs."

Mr. Knight inquired whether the costs to be paid to Philip Taylor should not be repaid by Mr. Attwood ; and mentioned a case in which Lord Eldon had drawn the decree with his own hand. Lord Lynd- hurst said he would consider the point ; and requested Mr. Knight to furnish him with a copy of that decree. The original price of the mines was fixed at 600,000/. It was after- wards reduced to .550,0001.; of which sum 200,000/. was paid by the Company, on obtaining possession in November 1825.

THE BRISTOL MAGISTRATES.—The trial of Mr. Charles Pinney, the late Mayor of Bristol, was brought to a close on Thursday, the seventh day of the inquiry. The charge, set forth in the criminal information, was "gross neglect and dereliction of duty during the riots that occurred in the city of Bristol on Saturday October the 29th last year, and the two succeed- ing days." The Attorney-General, in his opening speech, stated, that "The defendant was Mayor of Bristol at the time of those dangerous and de- structive riots which took place in October last, in that city; and we here charge him, that while holding that situation, and during the forty-eight hou1! from the commencement of those riots, when they were the most alarming all most dangerous, and when crimes of the deepest dye were being committed undert the eyes of all,—we, I say, charge him with having neglected the duty of office, with having abandoned that duty, and with having withdrawn hiniseIrt from being even discovered by those who had a right to look up to him as the! legal protector, and to claim from him the exercise of the authority which office empowered him to use at a time when their property and lives were ex posed to the most imminent peril."

The destruction of property during these forty-eight hours was sot med up by Sir Thomas Denman with equal brevity-

" Three gaols—two within the city, and one in its immediate vicinity- broken open by a lawless mob; the prisoners let loose for the purpose of plunae:re which was carried on for a great length of time. Not only those three gaols we. destroyed by fire, but the Mansionhouse, which was the official residence ef.tD! Chief Magistrate, and the Bishop's Palace, were reduced to a heap of ruins; and many of the best houses, hardly short of forty in number, in the princiPa- part of the city, were also plundered and destroyed." , The besetting error of the Bristol Magistrates thoughOut the entire of the riots, Sir Thomas described with his usual precision- " While these dangerous riots were going on, Mr. Pinney appears to have considered that if he at once called in the aid of the military for the purpose of putting down the disturbance then raging, and required them to go forth, and act upon their own responsibility, he altogether divested himself of the obliga- tion of his oath. I think you will find that unfortunate desire to withdraw from the duty of his office, and to transfer it to the military officers, as if they had been the military governors of the city—running through the who'e conduct of this gentleman, and so influencing that conduct as to laad to those melancholy consequences which we have now to deplore. But it is well known that this transfer of authority, from the civil to the military power, is cottrary to the spirit of the decisioas which have been made on this subject. It w as laid down by Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, in the House of Lord,, when the case of the riots in 1780 was discussed there, that a soldier stands in no different situation from any other of the King's subjects. It is not because he is under military orders that he shall possess different rights or powers from civilians, and therefore nothing like martial law exists in this eGuntry. The soldiers come in aid of the civil power. The civil power is first to act ; and it is merely as the King's subjects, and not as an hostile force, that soldiers can ever be required to act, even in cases of the most dangerous and alarming riots."

Sir Thomas exemplified this view of the Magistrates' conduct in the orders given to Colonel Brereton on Saturday night and Sunday equally; the gist of all of which was the same—that the military should act as their own discretion prompted them in suppressing the riots, and that these orders given, the civil authorities were divested of all future care mil responsibility on the subject. The Magistrates, he ad- mitted, read the Riot Act, but they made no exposure of their persons —no tender to accompany the military—on Sunday morning, no meet- ing was called—no attempt to compel the inhabitants to assist in the suppression of the riots made; even the summons that was issued at half-past ten o'clock, left the attendance of the parties summoned op- tional. When the citizens had assembled, the Magistrates had no plan of action. The taking of the Bridewell was announced, but no attempt was made to save the other gaols. Indeed, when the gaoler of the prin- cipal gaol asked if he was to defend his charge, he was told that "per- haps the release of the prisoners would pacify the mob." At a second meeting, in the afternoon of Sunday, the citizens proposed arming themselves ; but the Magistrates interfered to prevent them. It was then proposed to call forth the posse conlitatus ; but that calling forth was postponed to six o'clock next morning. Sir Thomas noticed also the concealment of the Mayor on Sunday evening ; and the endeavours, fruitless for a long time, of the military authorities, not merely Colonel Brereton, but Major Beckwith, to find him or any other Magistrate ; and, when found, their positive refusal, on one pretence or another, to accompany the latter officer. Such was the sum of the Attorney- General's speech; in which, with great good taste, he wholly avoided the slightest allusion to the political feelings that actuated any of the parties, and which had rendered Sir Charles Wetherell so odious to many of the citizens of Bristol.

The case for the Crown was proved by Mr. Newcombe, a printer, late of Bristol. The examination of Mr. Newcombe—of John Cossins, constable of the Castle Ward, Bristol—and of Mr. Sheppard, a corn-factor—occupied the entire of Thursday, the first day. The Court adjourned at five o'clock.

On Friday, as on Thursday, the Court met at half-past ten; and proceeded to the further examination of the Crown witnesses. Mr. Selfe, a member of the Society of Friends, was examined; together with James Townsend, a former servant of Mr. Sheriff Lax ; Mr. Roberts, the Baptist clergyman ; and eight others. A portion of the evidence given by Mr. Sclfe and by Townsend is worth quoting. A strong desire was manifested throughout the cross-examination, to cast doubts on the testimony of the witnesses, by questions that insinuated party motives. It seems to have been singularly unsuccessful with Mx. Selfe-

" Hael you, from the knowledge you have of the people of Bristol, seen any disposi- tion among the householders to assist the Magistrates? '—" I can say there was such a disposition after the robberies in Queen Square. I don't say there was not before ; but it became manilbst after the robberies began. not to assist the Magistrates, for they were not there to be assisted, but to oppose the rioters."

"Don't be too fast, nor judge too much of the Magistrates; you don't know where they were ?"—" I do not, but I did not see them there."

" Be not so quick."—" I am only speaking of the facts ; you need not, therefore, give as any caution about that."

"Don't remind me that you saw no Magistrates ; nor suffer any feeling to mislead you."—" I am not biassed by political motives at all." "I am glad to hear it : then I ask you, as an honest man, before private property was attacked, was may disposition manifested by the people to oppose the rioters ? "—" Yes ; I saw Mr. Herapath, whom I now see in the Court, and a number of other persons, out- side the gaol, doing their utmost in persuading the people to cease from violence." By speeches, but not by force ?"—" Yes, by speeches, but there was no force." "Mr. Herapath, I believe, is at the head of the Political Union ?"—" Yes."

"Do you know many members of the Union? "—"I am not acquainted with one."

"Not with Mr. Bennett, the Secretary? "—" No ; I do not speak to him if I see him."

"Now, on your solemn affirmation, did you not, before private property was attacked, hear expressions of satisfaction from the crowd ? "—"I did. While the Mansionhouse Was burning, and portions of it falling, I heard cheers in various parts of the crowd ; that was about ten o'clock ; the crowd assembled there was very dense, and occupied a considerable portion of the square : there were several thousands, but I don't mean that the majority of them shouted ; there was no shouting after private property was attacked ; I did not hear any shouting when the Customhouse and Excise-office were fired—only when the 1■Iansionhouse was burning. I observed that of Miss Yigers, the next door to the Mansionhouse ; they were dashing the windows out, at which I was

surprised, and asked what it was for? and heard the mob cry out, 'It is Cmporation Property.' "

" There is a strong party opposed to the Corporation, is there not?"—" Really, I do not know what is meant by party." " I ask again, is there not a party in Bristol opposed to the Corporation?"—" I don't know any connected party against them : I suppose they are disliked by a large portion of the inhabitants of Bristol." "is there not a strong party feeling existing among them?"—" I don't know the de- gree of their dislike." "In which party do you range yourself?"—" I don't range myself with any : I can entertain my own opinions without joining any party." Townsend,, on.whose evidence an attempt was afterwards made to caSt some doubt, gave a ludicrous description -of the escape of the Mayor from the Mansionhouse. Having stated that he procured ac- cess with some difficulty to the building, the witness proceeded- " I then got into a situation where I could see Mr. Pinney ; he was in one of the noms on the grotmd-floor."

" Which of the rooms ?"—" The larder, I believe."

they used to hang meat in it, and it was also the men's

trata-closet. Yes, it was the men's water-closet, but at the same time they used to Asag iseat there."

•• Did you see any one there ?"—" I saw the Mayor and three or four female ser- vants."

" What were they doing ?"—" The Mayor and the female servants were ma/Mag great efforts—I mean that they were making great elibrts to escape. The Mayor cried out to me, • Young man, try if you can possibly assist use to get out of this place.' I pulled him up, and the female servants assisted him behind."

On Saturday, fifteen more wituesses for the prosecution,—including Dr. Carpenter, the Unitarian chrgyman, and Mr. F. Edgeworth, a Catholic priest,—were examined.

Four more witnesses ( Captain Codrington and Major Mackworth were of the number) were examined on Monday. This closed the Crown case.

Sir James Searlett then rose for the defence. Sir James complained of the indignity offered to the Magistrates by the private inquiry at Bristol; out of which, he alleged, the trial had arisen. He deprecated the loose nature of the charge. He dwelt on some of the doctrines laid down by the Attorney- General : the Attorney-General had spoken of the duty of Magistrates to compel the assistance of the community in the suppression of a riot— It was true, that in case of a riot or breach of the peace, magistrates were en- titled to call on a man to take arms in aid of their efforts to suppress the tumult ; but it was not true that if a man refused to come to their assistance, he was liable to any immediate or efficacious punishment which it was in the power of the Magistrates to inflict. If the law had invested a Magistrate with the force of a giant, or given him the hundred arms of Briareus to compel immediate obe- dience to his commands, it would be well ; but all that the law did, was to make a man who refused to act at the requisition of a magistrate, liable to an indictment, and on conviction, and a consideration of the amount of the offence, to punishment. That was a slow process of compelling obedience.

He criticised an expression which he attributed to Sir Thomas Den- man— " Good intentions, honesty, and zeal, might excuse a Magistrate in that case," said his learned friend, " in case he committed excess on the side of severity, and shed blood unnecessarily ;" but the Attorney- General was silent in reference to the other side of the supposition. If the Magistrate had good in- tentions—if he avoided shedding blood—if be erred on the side of lenity instead of severity,—should not he also be excused from any severe consequences, civil or criminal?

Sir James dwelt at great length on this point ; -the whole of which seems to have hinged on a false and imperfect short- hand note of what Sir Thomas Denman said. He blamed the Crown for not citing the best-informed witnesses,—particularly Mr. Burgess, the solicitor of the Corporation, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, the Town-clerk, and Mr. Brice. Sir James went into a minute criticism of the evidence ; mix- ing up with it a running commentary on the political changes then con- templated, out of which he wished it to be inferred the riots had origi- nated. He quoted an article in the Edinburgh Review for October 1830 —"a work of extraordinary merit, and under high patronage"—in which the experience of' the resistance to military authority at Paris, was held out as a warning to those who should attempt a similar use of it in England ; he spoke of the cries of the "King and Reform" and "Down with the Bishops," as the shibboleths of the mob's betters. Alluding to the conduct of a soldier, who was said to have screened one of' the plunderers, Sir James facetiously remarked, that the soldier had graduated at Paris. He reminded the Jury, that the Bristol Ma- gistrates had not raised the cry against Corporation property and Cor- poration monopoly. He alluded also to the resolutions against pay- ment of taxes ; to the expression of Lord Grey about the Bishops setting their houses in order; and concluded by calling on the Jury for an honourable acquittal as due to his client, in law and equity alike. The speech of Sir James Scarlett finished the proceedings of Monday. On Tuesday, Mr. Daniel, a surgeon—Mr. Fripp, brother of Alderman Fripp—and twelve others, were examined. One of these, a Mr. Clack- stone, a half-pay officer, seemed greirtly disappointed that he was not allowed to amuse the Court with a history of the meeting of the Poli- tical Union after the Reform Bill was thrown out by the Lords.

The Attorney-General, in replying, gave some pretty smart taps to his predecessor. He remarked on the revival of Sir Charles Wetherell's " Corporation robbery" argurnent by Sir James, and the simplicity of Sir James's remark that the cry against corporations had not been raised by the Corporation of Bristol,—as if any sane man ever dreamt of charging it upon them. He noticed the allusions to the tax-resist- ance resolutions, which were talked of during the Ministerial inter- regnum— " The existence of Government, and the maintenance of any thing like order in this country, was supposed to depand upon the stability of public credit, and that again upon the payment of the taxes ; -and those who recommended that no taxes should be paid, were, in the address of my learned friend, mixed up with those incendiaries by whom the Customhouse in Bristol was destroyed'. The introduction of this topic did, I confess, sin prise me. I was not prepared for language or sentiments such as my learned friend indulged in upon that part of the subject, even from his zealous devotion to the real or supposed interests of his clients. I confess I was in hopes that the good feeling and good taste of my learned friend would have preserved him from the unfortunate expressions which he let fall respecting a noble friend of mine, who was once a noble friend of his—Lord Milton. I had at least wished that my learned friend would not have uttered a single word against the noble Lord."

Sir James Scarlett—" I did not say a single syllable about Lord Milton. What I alluded to was, resolutions adopted at a Middlesex meeting."

The Attorney-General—" Yes, but my learned friend brought his charges in such a way as implied much to the disadvantage of the noble Lord ; than whom a more amiable, excellent, and honourable man does not exist. To me it was a matter of infinite surprise, that my learned friend, who had so long represented the borough of Mahon and of Peterbough, in which places the noble Lord is so highly esteemed, because he is so well known, and in which he therefore pos- sessed such extensive influence—it does, laity, surprise me beyond measure that my learned friend should have selected such a nobleman as Lord Milton for such a purpose, and on such an occasion."

He also remarked with some severity on the allusions to the words of Lord Grey-

" He tells you, as if forsooth you did not yourselves know the fact, that the Magistrates of Bristol had not called upon the Bishops to set their houses in order.. Who, for a moment, could have supposed that they bad done so? It would, in truth. have been impossible for any one really acquainted with the language of Scripture to use the words in that sense ; I mean the sense in which he used them, which was a sense wholly at variance with time application of them intended by the First Minister of the Crown when he addressed them to the Right Reverend Bench. And yet it is upon topics of this nature that my learned friend rests the main stress of his speech. If I had seen such a speech in the newspapers, I should have said—, Who is this that is now coming

forward with old, forgotten, and unpleasant recollections? The obvious reply

would have been—' It must be some one who has not experienced in the House of Commons that success which he imagined to have been his desert; one who never again expects to enter that House, and accordingly is driven to this mode

of giving expression to sentiments that ought to have been reserved for that as- sembly of which he no longer expects again to form a part. Or I might have supposed that the oration was one delivered at some club, in a remote country town where the speaker might have been treating his hearers to a fragment of a debate in that assembly where his eloquence was never to be heard again ; or, perhaps, I should suppose it the speech of one who once held office, but no longer being in the service of the Crown, was desirous of showing the Govern- ment what a loss they sustained in not retaining his support. But when I looked at the top of the speech, and saw there the name of my learned friend, I

should instantly say that he had been grievously wronged in having such a speech attributed to him; I should say it WiLS a base invention of the malig-

nant and calumnious Press :' it was quite impossible that he could have made such a speech—it was out of his nature to entertain, still less to utter such sen- timents : so discreet, so subtle an advocate, could never have been thus carried away from the customary course of his practice."

In vindicating himself from the expressions attributed to him by Sir James Searlett, the Attorney-General stated precisely the doctrine of inagisterial interference which he had laid down in his opening speech—

They were bound, upon their own personal inspection, to see that military interference was necessary, and to have ascertained that in person : they were not to give their authority in writing to other liersons to do that which the law

required at their own hands—they were not to issue a transferable ticket for the use of the Military, to be sent here or there to Alderman Fripp, in Queen .Square_, or somebody else at Clifton : the Magistrates should have witnessed with their own eyes the necessity for military interference, before they called upon the soldiers to fire, and not have deputed others to perform that duty which the law required at their hands.

We can find room for but one more extract. The Attorney-General defended against Sir James Scarlett the form of the prosecution and wording of the charge-

" Perhaps, instead of conducting this case as it has been conducted, lie would have wished me to move for a criminal information; awl when, in the affidavits

of the defendant, I had obtained a knowledge of his case, I might file an infor-

mation against him ex officio. Would that have been in accordance with his notions of a tender-hearted Attorney-General, regardful of the rights and liber-

ties of the subject ? My learned friend also complained of the vague nature of

the present information, and described it as 'an omniutn gatherum.' I can help him to a better phrase. He may remember a debate in 1830, in which the Recorder of Bristol, speaking of informations which had been filed against Mr. Alexander—one for a libel on Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord Chancellor ; the se- cond for a libel on the Duke of Wellington ; and the third—here you may trace the rich vein of humour of the learned Recorder—was described by him as an omnibus information, a hotch-potch information.'"

Sir Thomas Denman's speech concluded the labours of the Court for Wednesday.

On Thursday, Mr. Justice Littledale summed up at considerable length. The doctrines laid down in the charge do not bear very heavily

on men in office. His Lordship observed, that though criminal conduct in a Magistrate might be visited with a criminal information, in point of fact, not one had been filed since that of 1780 against the Lord Mayor of London ; the charge against whom was, that he refused to read the Riot Act,—a specific act : Mr. Pinney was only charged with general misconduct. His Lordship thus laid down the law of magisterial inter- ference— " Any person, whether Magistrate or not, to whom is intrusted the duty of suppressing a riot, is put into a difficult situation to know how to act; for, on

the one hand, if he exceeds the power which the law has given him, and occa-

sions by his acts the destruction of life or property, he is liable to an indictment for murder or manslaughter, or to he compelled to make amends for the property destroyed ; and, on the other hand, lie is liable, as in this information, to be charged with a criminal neglect of duty if he does not act up to the powerthe law has given him. It is hard to hit the exact line between over excess and doing less than he ought."

In applying the law, his Lordship observed, that Mr. Pinney had in Mr. Sergeant Ludlow a legal adviser whom he seemed to have con- sulted throughout the riots ; and Major Mackworth bore testimony to his acting with sufficient spirit. His Lordship, however, observed, that it mattered not what advice he got, unless it were correct advice. It was not the duty of a magistrate to put himself at the head of the con- stables in suppressing a riot:: he was not bound to organize them. • "That word organize is a new term, that has not hitherto been known in the law, and that I do not think can be found in any indictment or information till the preseut =meat. It cannot, therefore, be a common law duty for the Mayor to organize the constables."

On the refusal of the Mayor to ride, his Lordship said-

" I am of opinion that he was not required to do so. A Justice of the Peace is not bound to ride up to charge-with the military. A commissioned officer may act without the authority of the Magistrate, if he is willing to take upon himself the responsibility for what he is doing; but he is seldom willing to do so, except on the most pressing occasion. But that authority of the Magistrate need not be given by the Magistrate riding with the officer; the authority as given by the order to him to act, to do what he can to disperse the people. In point of law, a magistrate is not bound to be actually present, and moreparti- cularly on those occasions where the presence of the Mayor may be required in order to give directions as to what shall be done in another spot. Besides this, it is in evidence here that the Mayor could not ride : now if he is bound to ride with the cavalry, and makes a charge with them, he mast ride as they do, or otherwise he will probably be unhorsed, and more harm than good would be done by his presence ; and if the mob are inclined to resist the military, he may be singled out and destroyed. I am of opinion that it is not the duty of the Mayor to expose himself to personal danger. The commander of an army, if his troops are likely to be defeated, heads them in the charge • and so in storm- ing of places he does the same ; but generals do not commonly hold themselves bound to expose themselves except in cases of necessity. Besides, if they did, that would not he a reason why a Magistrate should do so."

The Jury had betrayed strong symptoms of impatience during Sir Thomas Denman's address : they were also somewhat impatient during the Judge's charge. There were magistrates on the Jury, it appears ; and Mr. Justice Littledale dwelt on this fact, as epabling them the better to estimate a Magistrate's duties. After an sabsence of about twenty minutes, they returned into Court with the following verdict-

" We unanimously find Charles Pinney, late Mayor of the city of Bristol, Not Guilty. We are also unanimously of opinion, that, circumstanced as he was, menaced and opposed by an infuriated and reckless mob, unsupported by a sufficient force, civil or military—deserted in those quarters in which be might reasonably have expected assistance—the late Mayor of Bristol acted to the best of his judgment with zeal and personal courage."

What were the " quarters" in which Mr. Pinney was deserted, the Jury did not explain. When the Judges were about to withdraw, the following rather unwonted conversation took place.

Sir James Scarlett said, that before the Jury should retire, he was very de- sirous of saying in their presence, and in the presence of their Lordships, that in conducting this important case, he could solemnly declare that he had not in- troduced, nor intended to introduce, any topic or observation that was not lin- mediately connected with the case. He said that he had not, in any manner the most distant, any feeling of a personal nature ; and when the Attorney.. General thought proper in his address yesterday evening to insinuate as he did Mr. Justice J. -Parke here interfered to prevent Sir James from proceeding. Sir James Searlett—" My Lords, I say that whoever gave the information to the Attorney-General, upon which he insinuated that, in conducting this ease, I have been actuated by personal considerations, gaire him information which is utterly false and malicious. I am ready at all times to defend my conduct; awl I have no doubt, if put on trial, I shall receive an acquittal as honourable as the late Mayor-of Bristol has received from an intelligent Jury." The Attorney-General immediately rose, and was about addressing their Lordships ; when

Mr. Justice J. Parke again interfered, and begged that they should hear no more of it : it was very irregular.

The Attorney-General—" My Lords as you have heard one side, I trust you will in farness hear the other. I trust I shall be permitted to say a few words. The proceeding of Sir James Scarlett is very unusual and irregular ; and Icon- less I was quite unprepared for so unprecedented an attack. I have avoided, in the conducting of this case, throughout, all unnecessary observations; and I de- clare, on my honour as a gentleman—and I appeal to the judgment of the Jury —that, in conducting this cause, I have introduced no topic but such as I con- sidered to be necessary. for the proper elucidation of the case. And as to what Sir James says about information .having been conveyed to me, I solemnly de- clare that no such information as he alludes to was given to me in any way or manner. Indeed, I have studied to avoid remarks of a personal nature.'

Mr. Justice Littledale said, that it would have been better if the names of in- dividuals unconnected with these proceedings had not been introduced. Mr. Justice J. Parke—" I wish to stop this at once. It would have beea much better if what has been stated on both sides bad been omitted."

The informations against Aldermen Hilhouse, Daniels, and others, will not, we suppose, be proceeded in. The Attorney-General, on the verdict in Mr. Pinney's case being returned, told the Jurors in attend- ance, that they might go home when they pleased.