Just a late addition to this conversation. In 1837 Muntz was accused of riot and assault during a vestry meeting at St. Martin's Church. The confrontation revolved around the choosing of a church warden - whether a dissenter whom Muntz and others supported, or an Anglican as the rector Thomas Moseley and local Tories were in favour of. Also, there was the issue of church rates which had not been collected since 1831 but which Moseley was attempting to reintroduce. Reformers had demanded the records of a previous meeting which supported the right of attendees to vote, the authorities had refused, nd an attiempt was made to take them by force. Muntz was said to have climbed along the pews wielding his walking cane like a shelleigliegh, and when accosted by the chief of police, Muntz was said to have tried to wrestle his staff of office from his hand. He, and three other accused, including the Co-operator William Pare, attended court the following year. I'm researching this for an article. Muntz was undoubtedly guilty as charged but with caveats. He DID clim along the pews - but so what? Lots of other people did the same. It was hardly a capital offence. He was 'wielding' his cane in one hand but in his other he held his hat. There was no report of him striking anyone, so it was probably just to keep his balance. (His cane, like his beard, was an affectation he always had). He did wrestle with the chief of police - but the chief of police started it, was in plain clothes and once proof of his identity was provided Muntz sat down. The affair was grossly overstated, and (in my opinion) was likely to be pre-planned by the pro-rate party, who were denying entrance to non-poor rate payers (against their own legal advice) to prevent them losing the vote. Muntz was found guilty of a lesser charge and the church rate dropped a few years alter.
