Star. — London, England, 1820-05-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF K1N478 BENCH. THE XING V. 111/411Y HUNT • AND OTHERS. (In continuation from the STe of yesterday.) After the affidavits had been disposed of, Mr..HUNT proceeded.—The Court had heard from his affidavit the manner in which he had been invited to attend the Public Meeting at Manchester: that Meeting was called for the purpose of obtaining that Reform for which a million of persons had befOre petitioned : and he had complied with the invitation, in the full confidence that the conduct of the assem bly would be as peaceable and as orderly as that of the other Meetings at which be had attended. Wbat had been the course adopted by the Crown? Why, the affidavits . upon which the dispersion and the de struction of that Meeting had been grounded were drawn up, not only before there had been the slightest act on the part of the people which could be con strued into sedit?On, or even -into disrespect of the Constituted Authorities, but actually before the per sons who composed thnt,Meeting had arrived at Man chester. At the time of the trial, he had read to the Jury an extract from a speech made by an individual in high authority—a • speech which clearly and dis tinctly shewed, that, at the time when the Meeting of the 16th of August took place, the first lawyers in , the realm did not think that such a Meeting wakil legal. Surely the Attorney-General, surely the So licitor-Genera., who received such ample salaries from the pockets of the people, (and salaries not ill-de served, it they did their duty conscientiously), surely those Gentlemen were bound to know the law of the land ? If those Gentlemen had declared that such a Meeting was not illegal, and bad been mistaken, was it reasonable to punish the defendants for not know ing that which had not been known by the first law.' yers in the country? That such Meetings had been deemed inconvenient, he was aware; but the speech' of Lord Sidmouth upon the Seditious Meetings Bill, was sufficient to skew that they were not then illegal. That Noble Lord had directly called for the adoption of some measure to put down such Meetings, upon the ground that there was no existing law by which they could be prevented. Let the Court address its attention to the conduct of the Manchester Magis trates. Of all the popular Meetings which had ever been called—of all those.assemblies which Mr. Burke had emphatically termed "the safety valves" of the State—of all those .Meetings which had met undis turbed, and from which no evil consequence had re sulted—no:le had been called -with so much ..aution, with so much attention to regularity and to legal notice, as this Meeting of the 16th of August. The Magistrates had every reason to believe that the con civet of that Meeting would be peaceable ; they knew Clat there was no existing law by which that Meeting cuuld be prevented ; they knew that Acts of Parlia ment were preparing for that purpose; but they were too bold to wait for the assistance of those powers, aqii resolved at once to seal those " safety-valves" with the blood of the Reformers. What had the Re formers done to deserve this treatment ? They had said, " We are working like slaves, and we are starving when we have done. We labour 13 hours' a day; and, though we live on oatmeal and water, we cannot get enough of that to support our wives and chil dren. We have been told to wait patiently ; but we are five years in peace, and our burdens are unabated. We are tired of these miseries, and we will meet toge-1 ther ; we think that there is one great cause of all ottr grievances ; we think that a free Representation in the House of Commons would alleviate our burdens ; we will lay our case before our Prince, and before Parliament ; we will call upon them to take off some of those enormous sums which are paid to the Officers of Government, sometimes for doing nothing, some. tames for doing worse than nothing. We will do all, this, but %se will do it peaceably."—This was the lan f rage of the Reformers: how had it bee n a nswere d? They were told, " Youi Meeting ii for an illegal pur pose." They called another, of a different nature. The Requisition for that Meeting was signed by 700 persons : their names and places ef abode fully given. NVere time persons strangers ? They had lived and worked, some of them twenty and twenty-five years in the same town, and seven years in the same dwel ling. This was some evidence as to the character of such men, for they - were poor men ; and if they coin mitted any offence, they were speedily detected and punished, and sent packing. They were not Gentle-' men ; not like Mr. Hulton, of Hulton ; not men of property, who might be " steeped to the lips." in infamy and crime, and yet live unmolested and undisturbed in their mansions, who were above the reach of being driven from their homes or from society. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—No man in England, Mi. Hunt, is above the reach of law. Mr. Hunt.—Such were the persons who had called upon him (Mr. Hunt) to attend their Meeting. With what view had he attended Meetings of that de scription ? In order to inculcate upon the poor and wretched the doctrines of Reform, to save them from the commission of those riots and outrages which were daily committed before those doctnaes were generally promulgated. He (Mr. Hunt) had been accused of exciting riot. Their Lordships would re member the Luddites; they would recollect the time when the misery of the people broke- out into yen etance against their masters and against their neigh bours; when the butcher, the baker, the maltster, the manufacturer, were the objects of attack ; when the people madly attempted to do that by force which, during the last Eve years, they had been seeking to do by reason. Where were these riots now ? But the Reformers met on the 16th of August. No doubt there was a feeling in the public mind : su:h a feeling might well be troublesome to Government—it might o near to threaten some of those precious s cenes o f bribery and corruption, and drunkenness, which dis tinguished our Elections. What said the Government? 64 ThiS will not do. We must make a law to put this down." "No, said the Magistroes of Manchester (no doubt in correspondence with some of the worthy Gen tlemen near Mr. Hunt)—no ; law is not necessary. You could not act decidedly at Smithfield ; but we will put down the thing, aad make an end at once." Punishment ! 'was punishment talked of for the de fendants in this case? He (Mr. Hunt) knew the sore of men he had to contend with; and it was his misfor tune, that bylaw, those persons were allowed to speak after him ; but he would tell those Learned Counsel, that when they came to press, and press they_woul far.kittgracr.t against him, they should confine them. selves to that part of the indictniknt upon tibich be had been found guilty, or be t would take the li berty to Interrupt them. Punfshmeat !—lf to be . a sincere advocate in the cause of Reform was it crime, then he was guilty, and guilty be trusted he should remain. Punishment ! In exercising the right of a citizen, he had seen his fellow-subjects struck dead before his face • he had seen women cut down, mangled, and tramped upon ; he had him self been seized by the Military, pinioned down, dragged along ; he had narrowly escaped having his brains beaten out, and should not have escaped but from his own presence of mind ; at the moment when his arms were Pinioned to his sides, a Major- General in the Army had. struck him from behind a blow which had nearly felled him to the ground ; that first blow had not been sufficientfor the purpose, and his hat had been snatched off, that the blow might be repeated with more effect. If the second. blow had fallen upon his brad, he should not now have been troubling the Court. He freely confessed that he owed his life upon that occasion to Nadia.— •Nadin was the man who had again put , his hat upon his head, exclaiming, that it was " a d—d shame to treat any man in such a manner!" Ile had been then dragged into the house where the Magistrates were, and had been carried before Mr. Hulton, of Hulton. He had been committed to prison on a charge never substantiated—a charge of High Trea son he had been dragged fifty miles to Lancaster, even while his bail were in the act of justifying; he had been subjected to expense, to danger, to incon venience, and to insult ; and now they talked of pu nishment! He really thought that, at a fair compu tation, he had suffered, at least, punishment enough. What a difference between the transactions of the 16th of August at Manchester, and the late transactions at Cadiz! At Cadiz, a Commission was sitting even now, to do that justice which would never be done in England. He knew it would be said, why did be not prosecute these Magistrates ? Why did he not prosecute this Major-General ?—, Where should he find the means? The expenses of the present prosecution had drained him of a sum equal to two years of his income. It bad been said that Courts of Law were open to the rich as well as to the poor. So was the Crown and Anchor tavern, and in the same way—for the rich man was sure to be well attended to, and the poor man was sure to be kicked out. He (Mr. Hunt) could not descend to sue in forma paoperis. There were individuals—be would not mention names—but there were indivi duals whom be should like to prosecute at York for perjury. But such a measure would cost him 1,500/. besides, he must go there to an additional expense; he must employ Counsel; he must employ Mr. Scar •lctt, and he had no doubt that Mr. Scarlett would do his duty. Ile could not afford to do himself jus tice. There was one more ground upon which be felt inclined to make a few observations, although he believed it would rather be applicable to a proceed. ing by writ of error, than the present stage of his case. This was the conduct of the Jury. His trial, which lasted eleven days, had afforded a magnificent specimen of British jurisprudence; and in no respect, did he mean to impeach the conduct of the Judge; greater moderation he had never witnessed. Mr. Justice Balmer—l have, on a former occa sion, Mr. Hunt, requested you would not speak of me. It is scarcely delicate to speak of a person who is present-4 hope I did my duty. Mr. Hunt must be allowed at present to take his own course. He believed that the Learned Judge hia most impartially done his duty, both by the Crown and by the defendants. What be alluded to with respect to the Jury was this, nine of !hem were themselves Magistrates. He had not been tried by his peers. It was ppssible that the Magistrates who had formed his Jury had found him guilty in order to protect their brother Magistrates from prosecu tion. Certainly, be could not now bring his action against the Manchester MagistFates, even if he had the pecuniary means. 1 he Cuuar was of opinion that Mr. Hunt was now going . into matter which could not properly be urged in mitigation of punishment. - Mr. Hunt was not pleading in mitigation of punish- =rent. He anticipated no punishment ; but all the punishment which that Court could inflict upon the persons of the defendants would never wipe from their minds the recollectidn of the perjuries which bad been committed at York, or of the blood which had been spilled by the Magistrates of Manchester ! He knew that the Court had a great duty to perform ; but he was certain they would not be influenced by any feeling as to persons. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE trusted not. Mr. Hunt remembered the exactions which in the reign of Charles I. had been levied upon those who had spoken in the cause of truth. Posterity remem bered the men by whom those extortions had been committed. To what had those extortions and those punishments led ? To the death of the Monarch, to the banishment of his race, and to the placing of the present Family upon th e Throne of England. The infliction of such punishment was an ominous com mencement for the present reign. He declared that the defendants had only been prosecuted in order to cover the atrocities which had been committed at Manchester.—Mr. Hunt then went, at considerable length, into a detail of same circumstances which oc curred at the trial. He complained that Mr. Scarlett had been opposed to him merely because they bad formerly met, and be (Mr. Hunt) had then beaten Mr. Scarlett upon his own tactics. He then com plained of Mr. Scarlett's conduct in saying that he would unmask him (the defendant), and expose his hypocritical defence, merely because he had, perhaps, in the great exertion of body and mind to which he had been subjected, shed a tear. He then went into proof to stew that he had no friendship or connec den with Mr. Carlile. Mr. Hunt then continued.—He was happy to see that the defendant Knight was not present, because he argued from thence that the individual was to re ceive no further punishment. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the case of Knight was not before the Court. Mr. Hunt was glad to hear it. Once more, he re quested the Court to observe, that he was not shrink ing from any punishment hich they might choose to inflict. Whatever that punishment might be, be should bear it with fortitude. He asked for no fa vour; but he once again firmly submitted, that if against the trifling offence hp bad committed the Court were to set the punishment he had *Wadi Cu- , dared, they mould find that a eery lute balante in the way of damages was coming to him. He thanked their Lordships for the attention they had shewn to his observations; and trusted that the Counsel for the Crown would not attempt to justify the conduct of the military at Manchester, by calling for any further infliction upon the defendants. Johnston recited his defence from a paper. It was ill written, worse read, and contained no matter of interest. Healy alio read his defence, which, if ndt very im portant, was at least very entertaining. It was with difficulty that those-in Court preserved their gravity. Bamford understood that the principal ground of charge against him had been the inscription " Unity and Strength" upon one of the flags employed at the Meeting. By the word " Unity" had been meant, that unity was fit and becoming among thetnselves ; and the " Strength" was the moral strength arising from good order and government. Their Lordships would - find, upon the evidence in the cause, that his great effort had been to preserve peace and regularity. He had exhorted the multitude to be quiet in their demeanour, and rather to put up with an insult than 'to return it ; but he could assure the Court, that he ' would never again inculcate the patience which he had inculcated upon that day —never, at least, until complete justice had been done for the horrible crimes which had then been committed in his view. The regular marching to the Meeting was exactly what he had wi:-hed for. The Reformers had been so often vilified and called rabble, that he was anxious to shew the country that they could go to a Meeeting, not like hogs to a trough, but like men, who had serious busi ness to discuss. He was unpopular, he doubted not, for he had spoken freely. He had been decidedly against the measure adopted at Middleton, of making the shopkeepers Special Constables. Ile, for instance, was a poor man, and his neighbour was a shopkeeper. Well, his neighbour became a Special Constable, and took up a truncheon. He could not stir out ter wards but his neighbour's truncheon was exhibited before him: All such petty distinctions were calcu lated to produce ill blood and quarrels among the People. Bamford then alluded to certain unlawful proposals which had been made to him, and which be had rejected, the.nature of which he did not dis tinoly explain. It was not, he said, until after he had rejected these proposals, that he had been ap prehended upon the present charge. Let it not be supposed that he was appealing to the humanity of the Court—he spoke only to their honour and to their justice. GOD forbid that he should so far debase himself as to ask the pity of any man, however ex alted his station. He had always followed the doc trines of Reform, and would follow them as far as he fairly could ; but hat-red to measures did not ne cessarily imply hatred to men. He was no advocate for blood. Ile knew that he had made himself ob noxious to the Provincial Authorities, whom he had rather glory in as enemies than court as friends.— Once more, he called upon their Lordships, not for mercy, but for justice ! The A-rroaNey-GENsaaL thought , that if any per son unacquainted with the previous proceedings in the present case had entered the Court, and heard the address of the various defendants, he would have imagined that they had performed some meritorious service, for which exertion they were demanding their reward. How astonished would such a person be to hear that these men had been convicted of a crime just short of the highest crime recognized by the laws of their country, and that they were standing to receive the sentence due to their offences. The first defendant has most properly desired the Court to ap ply their minds entirely tothat evidence which regard ed the charge upon which he had been found guilty ; for he (the Attorney-General) would say, that there was not one particle of evidence in the case, long as it was, which did not apply to that charge. That de fendant had complained of the Jury before whom he had been tried. Had that defendant forgotten, or would the Court forget, that he- had been tried in the county of his own election? The affidavits which had been put in by the defendants were an aggrava tion of the crime of which they stood convicted.— Four hundred persons, according to the affidavit of Whitworth, had been killed or wounded upon the 16th of August. How happened it that none of these wounded persons had made affidavits now, or had been produced as witnesses upon file trial ? Mr. Hunt said, that many witnesses of that de- SCI ipiion were present. - Mr. Justice BATLEY.—Very early in the trial evi dence df that description was offered. The ATTORNEY-GENERA L—Then why had not such persons now made a/Way its ? Where were the relations of these murdered people? and how hap- " pened it that they did not supply Mr. Hunt with the means of bringing the offenders to justice? The fact was, that proceedings had been instituted against the supposed-vffenders, and a Grand Jury of. the country had refused to entertain them. To look -at the circumstances of the case—ln July a Meeting was held at Smithfield, at which resolutions border ing very closely upon High Treason, were put by Mr. Hunt; and that gentleman is then invited to preside at a Meeting at Manchester, not, as he had said, at a Meeting for Reform, but at a Meeting for the Election of a Legislatorial Attorney. Mr. Hunt asserted that there was rib evidence that he knew the object of the Meeting previous to hi s arrival in Manchester. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Let it be SO taken.— At least, when Mr. Hunt did arrive, he knew the ob ject •tf the Meeting to be illegal ; but what was his conduct ? He ridiculed the caution of postponing the Meeting, and declared that it was a lawful Meet ing. That conduct amounted to a confession, that he would have presided at such a Meeting if it had not been postponed ? Notice was then given of ano ther Meeting, at which Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr. Carlile were invited to attend. But what passed in the meal' time ? The Court had in evidence the dril jag at White Moss, the maltreatment of Murray, and the subsequent hissing opposite to Murray's house, which proves', at least, that the persons who formed part of Mr. Hunt's Meeting knew what had passed at White Moss with respect to that indivi ' dual, if not that some of them had bee* present at ,the time. Mr. Justice BAYLRY observed, that it was evident that the persons who attended that Meeting had bee n drilled spmewhere. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then alluded to the flags, and to the iipciiptions. which he ciglexecl tv be most important evidence. The dope:ndarts 11:;.1 adverted to acts of Parliament recently 'passed (hr tl , - prevention of Seditious Meetings. They wett'wofully mistaken if they thought that, as regarded 'such 'Meet ings as that of the 16th of August, those Acts hall made any difference in the laW. The present i ict had been preferred against Mi. 1-luia lon g be fore those Acts-came into existence ; that indictment was not founded upon an particular Sitat ute ; it n•rita founded upon the common law. An aflidavit bad been produced him twelVe'persons who had sine] the 'Requisition for the Meeting of the 16th of Au=to t. Mr. Hunt bad sworn in his aEdavit, that be did P. 4 -1 mean to propose at that Meeting any Resolutions like those passed at tha Smithfield Meeling ; but neither he, nor any of these regnisitionisti, had ventured to state what Resolutions were intended to be passed.--: He .(the Attorney-General) did not believe that the' persons who composed that Meeting had not beets` aware what Resolutions were to he proposeti. was the verdict of the Jury for the Court to look to: and if the Jury bad been in ignorance of the Reso lutions which were actually to have been proposod, and if the Court was still in ignorance upon that point, the ignorance was, produced by the conduct ef the defendants, in not producing evidence upon tl.e Subject. The only topics which appeared to him (the Attorney-General) fairly urged in mitigation, ' were the supposed hardships which the defcildan:s had endured during their confinement. One of those alleged instances of hardfhip had been the commit tal for High Treason ; hut he (the Atto:nev-General) declared, as a lawyer, that the offence of the defend ants bordered so nearly upon High Treason, that a Magistrate might well pause before he decided whe ther a commitment in such a case should be for High Treason or not. Whatever difference of shade there might have been hr the case of - the various elaond ants, it had been entirely done away by their co, duct upon the present occasion. Ile (the Attorney-- General) felt satisfied, that the sentence of the Coni , would be such as to prevent other persons from t; commission of the misdemeanours for w filch the de fendants were now on the point of receiving judgment. Mr.Sce.ni.Err vindicated himself from the person alities of Mr. Hunt, and disclaimed any resentment or personal ill-will against that defendant. Mr. Serjeant CROSS followed en the same side. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in protwuncing the judgment of the Court, went at great length into the detail of the case. From the great number of persons, the Learned Judge observed, who attended the Meeting of the 16th August, that Meeting could scarcely be considered a deliberative assembly. The probability was, that, in a Meeting of such n;aguitude, duals would ratl-er be taught their grievances by the person who presided, than'state the grievances which they actually endured, and that the remedies resolved upon would be provided in the same manner. rs Lordship then adverted to the question as to the lie solutions. If the Resoluthms to be passed at t!:!. Manchester Meeting were the Smithfield Ilesolutkw, no one could entertain any doubt of the effect which such proposals were calculated to produce upon such an assembly. If it was intended to pass different lie solutions, it bad been . competent to the defendants to strew, by evidence or by affidavits, what those nese lutions were. The Learned Judge concluded his address by observing, that the Court had not been inattentive to the affidavits of the defendants, and proceeded to pass sentence. The sentence of the Court was, that Mr. Hunt should be imprisoned in Ilchester Jail for the term of Two Years and Six Months. At the expiration ef that time to find sureties for his good behaviour du ring a farther term of five years, himself in and two other persons in £5OO each.--Jelinsc::, Healy, and Bamford, to be imprisoned in Lincoln jail for the period of One Year, and, at the expirations of that time, each to enter into sureties for his gc,l behaviour during five years, himself in £2OO, and two other persons in £lOO each. Mr. Hunt wished to know whether his confinement was to be solitary confinement ? Mr. Justice BAYLEY replied, that the Court made nd such order. Ile had no dotibt that every proper attention would be paid to the convenience of the defendants; and, if cause for complaint should arise, that complaint would be attended to. THE KING V. WOLSELEY AND HARRISON. Judgment was also pronounced upon these defen dants. Sir Charles Wolseley was sentenced to Eigh teen Months' imprisonment in Abingdon jail ; at the expiration of that time to enter into sureties for his good behaviour, himself in £l,OOO, and two other persons in £5OO each.' Mr. Harrison to be impri soned for a term of Eighteen Months (computing from the expiration of his present imprisonrrieno in the Castle of Chester; and, at the expiration of his imprisonment, to enter into securkies for his good behaviour during five years, himself in ie2CO, and two other persons in £lOO each. The servant of Captain Davis, who, as cmixe f igers may recollect, enabled his master to escape from Giltspur-street Compter, was yesterday tried at the London Sessions, and sentenced to six months im prisonment. - The Jury were extremely reluctant to find a verdict against him, but without violating their oaths, they could not acquit him. As he passed front Guildhall to the place of confinement, he was thee: e 1 by the populace. Saturday se'nnight, a weaver in Dunse, of the name of Hilson, was climbing trees at Marchmont, fcr crows nests, when the branch on which he was stand ing gave way, and losing his hold, he fell to t! , e ground, and was killed on the spot. He has left a widow and two children to lament his loss. BETTING AT TATTERSALL'S YESTERDAY. 1111111 r. 17 to 1 apt the Doke 20 to 1 agst Arbutua 20 to 1 apt Lockslei 20 to 1 apt Cat 30 to 1 apt Hoopoe. OA[ll. 110 to 1 - agst Marianne 12 to 1 apt Plain. 9 to 4 agst Pindaree S to 1 agst the Selim filly 5 to 1 agst Sailor 14 to 1 agst Antigallican 10 to 1 apt Abjer 7 to 4 agst Emmeline t to I agst Prudence 6 to 1 apt the Bride At Calcutta, on the 19th November last, Captain H. A. F. Hervey, of the 7th Regiment of Bombay Native Infantry, c.) Miss Barnfleld, formerly of Pentonville. .... _ DIED. Ye*erday morning, it the Admiralty, Spenser, the enly sca of Mr. and Mrs. Croker. Crtult 7-- eit r an i.v d . pu T _b , Usb c - i ;e le - d .i jo by Lt vi. 3 rtfik•'.l` I !' , 1 I~