The National Register. — London, England, 1820-04-02 00:00:00

h 106 YORK ASSIZES. TRIAL OF MR. HUNT, AND OTHERS. NINTH DAY. The major part of this day was occupied in the conti nuation of evidence, for the defendants, which did sun nut differ from that we have already given—we therefore omit it all except that of Robert Grundy, who 3LIIIOUII. Ceti himself "an unwilling witness and a special constable," and who appealed to the Judge whether he could be forced to give evidence before he had his cx pences. His evidence was as follows : Robert Grandy was next called; but before he pro ceeded, he belted to know from the Learned Judge if he could demand his expenses. He was an unwilling ‘vitness ; Ice had been here for nine days and had receirt4 nothing. The Judge said he had no power in a criminal cue to &rect the payment of expenses. Mr. Hitt said he would contribute his share. We have a great number of witnesses, said he, and those who can support themselves are the last paid. Witness said he acquiesced, and was examined.--1 ant a woollen manufacturer. 1 reside in Salford. 1 at iended the meeting of the llith of August. 1 saw bOlile of the processions going; to the mi.:tong. I went to the 1i Ad at half-past 11. I was a special constable on that t.ccasion. 1 remained till about half-past one or two Mr. Hunt here said, be so kind as to state what you SAW, as I have no deposition. The witness proceeded -1 came to the field at half-past eleven, and remained till Non (Mr. Hunt) came. I remained till the cavalry came. 1 saw the persons march up in procession. I was not to the line of the special constables all the time. 1 sometimes was. I was about 15 or '2O yards from the hustings. I cannot speak precisely as to distance. I went to Mr. Buxton's house when the cavalry made their appearance, and had partially dispersed the meeting. The processioas came regularly with coloars and music. They made no particular impressions on my mind at the moment. They had no offensive weapons, neither clubs nor staves shouldered like muskets. Some of them had walking sticks, such a people usually carry to places of public resort. 1 saw nu insult or violence offered to any persons whatever. I was surrounded by a thick multitude. The persons round me were aware that we were special constables. Some of theconstables showed their swves. 1 perceived no insult offered to them. Examined by the Court—No opposition was made to the cavalry on their advance. 1 saw nothing done to intimidate the cavalry. They were neither hooted at, hissed at, nor groaned at. They were received with three cheers. 1 saw neither sticks, nor stones, nor brickbats thrown at them, or thrown up in the air as they passed. I did not keep my eye on the cavalry all the time they were advancing. 1 endeavoured to get to the extremity of the meeting, to the right of the meeting. Examined by Mr. litint.—From what 1 saw of the meeting, 1 was not all apprehensive of the safety of the town, ur of any own person. I was not at all alarmed .till I saw the cavalry, for this reason—that 1 had heard the magistrates were not to interfere, directly or indi rectly, with the meeting. 1 felt no alarm at the result, if they did not interfere. 1 saw the yeomanry come up. I then endeavoured to get away, as did those about Inc. Mr. Hunt asked, if the winless was alarmed at the military ? The witness was not allowed to answer the question, as the conduct of the meeting was alone under inquiry. Cross-examined by Mr.Scarlett.—The special consta bles are generally persons of respectability. I have been one fur two years. 1 obeli heard of drillings, before the meeting; but I felt no alarm. The bodies marched in regular order to the meeting. They came in sections. by sections 1 mean a number of persons abreast. I saw several bodies enter alter I came to the field. Trey marched something like a tile of soldiers. 1 perceived no leaders or conductors of the procession. I perceived no person who had any marks of distinction like bits at laurel. I think they marched like people that had been drilled. I was not sufficiently near them to say whether they were drilled. They marched in more regular order than people usually observe in walking through the streets. 1 certainly thought they would not have walked in this way without some instruction. The Impression mu my mind was, that they had received some instruc tions. As to drilling I know nothing. The numbers asaembied 1 cannot tell, but I never saw such a meet ing. They marched peaceably along. W' hen they arrived on the ground they got round the hustings as near as they could. I was within 15 or 20 yards of the hus tings. I will give you my reason for being satisfied, and not alarmed, as to the result ; it was because I had heard that !he magistrates intended to let the meeting pass on quietly. The evidence for the defendants having closed, Mr. Scarlett addressed the Jury at great length, and Mr. Justice Bayley, alter a short pause, proceeded to charge the jury. 'I hey had now, he said, at length arrived at the end of this most important case, and it became necessary for him to offer them !twit observa tions, in summing up, as the circumstances appeared to him to demand. lie would, as accurately as be could, lay down to them the law vi filch was applicable to the case ; and he would make such remarks on the evidence, as, in the discharge of his duty, he might deem proper, in order to point out for their considera tion the grounds on which they were to proceed in forming their judgment. lie would be as brief as pa, Bible in adverting to both sides of the question. And, in the first, he earnestly entreated of them to dismiss entirely from their minds every feeling connected with political or party question, and not to take hitoconside ration what the consequences of their verdict mignt be, but merely to consider what verdict, according to the evidence, they were bound to give. With respect to Gbscreituous be should make to them on this sub- 1;lv 0, ,• * ' THE NATIONAL REGISTER. jest, was their duty to weigh them maturely, .but not to adopt them unless they met with their perfect con currence. Ile would, in this case, lay entirely out of the question the conduct of the military and the magis trates. The great point for consideration was the con duct of the crowd on this occasion ; and as the acts of the magistrates, of the military, and of the constables, might create a prejudice in their minds, he had cann ot* sly abstained from suffering them to be investigated orentertained in the course of the trial. The propriety of the conduct of the individuals to whout he alluded, ..ould not then be discussed ; and the jury must not suffer their minds, in any respect, to be mat:used by the consideration how far their verdict would operate either in favour of or in prejudice to the magistrates, constables, ar military employed on the occasion in question. It was with a view to prevent a prejudice of that kind that he had, in the course of the trial (not, he hoped. inconsistently with the situation he had), desired the defendant not to put a question which, in point of law, he was entitled to do. He saw the way its which that question was propounded and embodied in the case, and he perceived that it could not serve the defendant. He therefore thought it was Isis duty to prevent the question bei ig persevered in. For this reason, and this reason only, he desired the defendant not to press the question. 'lie was quite sure that, in this case, as in all others, the Jury would give to the defendants every fair credit, which, on a proper consi deration of the evidence, they might appear entitled to receive. If the case justly admitted of doubt, they would give to the defendants the benefit of that doubt, and pronounce, with respect to them, a verdict of ac quittal. He hoped and trusted, and was indeed satis fied, that if the evidence imperiously called on them to conic to a different conclusion, they would come boldly and fearlessly, to that conclusion. His idea was, that the inquiry should be conducted in such a way, as, if possible, to give even the defendants themselves satisfac tion as to the mode in which it was carried on; so that, if a verdict of guilty were recorded against them, they might have an opportunity of saying that their trial was an impartial one. After these very few preliminary observations, be should proceed to point out to the Jury the nature of the present indictment. It contained a charge of conspiracy ; it contained a charge of unlawful assembly; it contained a charge of riot. But, on the subject of the charge of riot, he would not propound to them any observations, because he conceived that the consideration of the other charges alone remained for theta. Tile circumstances of the conspiracy, as they were stated in the indictment, were these :—lne indict ment set forth, "'Tat the defendants conspired to meet, and to cause and procure other persons to meet, fur the purpose of disturbinis the public peace, and the common tranquillity of the King and realm." This was one count; and it would be for the jury to say, whether any conspiracy was made out, so as to authorize theta to find a verdict of guilty. The count further charged, that the defendants met together for the purpose of raising and exciting discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of our Lord the King, and also to incite them to contempt and hatred of the Government and consti tution as by law established. Therefore there were here three heads of charge—lst, that of a seditious meeting, to disturb the public peace; a 2cl purpose was to raise and excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of the King; and the 3d purpose was to incite the subjects of the King to contempt and hatred of the Government and constitution of the realm as by law established. The unlawful assembling was stated to he with two different views; and if the existence of either one or the other of those views were made out in evi dence, it would be sufficient to warrant a convictioo. The first view charged was, that the defendants, by themselves, and also with various other persons, unlaw fully, maliciously, and seditiously did assemble, for the purpose of raising and exciting discontent and disaffec tion in the minds of the liege subjects of the King; and, Yd, with a view to excite contempt and hatred of the Government and constitution, as by law established. Therefore, the meeting, which in the first instance was charged as a conspiracy to disturb the public peace was, in the next place, described to he 311 assembling for the specific purposes which he had stated. Another coma set forth, " That the defendants met and assembled, together with divers others, to a t cry great number, in a threatening and menacing manner, with sticks and other offensive weapons, and with divers seditious ensigns and Hags on whien there were itifilitimatoty inserilaionsand devices, to the great terror of the peaceable subjects of our Lord the. King." One of the purposes, therefore, to effect which they were charged with unlawfully assem bling, was to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of his Majesty's subjects ; and ',2 , 11y, they were charged with meeting in a ineoacing manlier, and in military array, in order to effect that illegal object. On the subject of unlawful assemblies, he would quote what Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, perhaps the best writer on the question, stated as necessarily constitutinzan unlawful assembly. lie said. " any meeting whatever, of a great number of people, with such circumstances of terror as cannot hut endanger the public peace, and raise fears amid jealousies among the King's subjects, seems properly to be called an unlawful assembly : where, for instance, those great numbers having, some grievance to complain of, met together, armed, for the purpose of discussing the best way of rioding themselves of that grievance , be cause, tinder these circumstances, no one can say what may be the event of such a meeting." Mr. Sergeant Hawkins's opinion, then, was, " that a great number of people, meeting under such circumstances as cannot but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jea lousies among the King's subjects, was an unlawful assembly." And he adduced, as an exemplification of Isis opinion, " persons meeting together armed, in a warlike n t anner." "'hat, however, was not essentially necessary to constitute all UllidWfUl as..enibly. Taking all the circumstances together, it a meeting " endan gered the public peace, and tended " to raise fears and pialtsusies among hisAlajesty's subjects," it was an uulaw- - ~, ful assembly, although the people did not appear armed. Therefore, one of the questions the jury would have to decide was, whether the meeting mow under consider ation consisted of such numbers of people, and was cal led together under such circuity:tonere, as tenthd not but endanger the politic peaceP It might be, that in a very large assembly,there were many persons entirely innocent of any improper object. They might meet fur what was strictly a lawful purpose; are yet there might, in that meeting, be many other persons illegally assent islet!, who might wish to make the innocent parties ths instruments itt their hands for effecting their unlawful purposes.— Now, he had no difficulty in stating, that in all cases of unlawful assembly, they were to look to the purpose for which the people met, the manner in which they came, and the means which they were using to effect their proposed object. All these were circumstances which the jury were hound to take into consideration. Ile had I/0 hesitation in stating to them, that it was not because a meeting was composed of 60,000 persons, or because it was a body containing, women atul children, that therefore it was an unlawful assembly. That mini her of persons night meet umier such circumstances as were ten cilcuiated to raise terrors, fears or jealousies, iu the whets of the people in the iseighboorinex!. But in an assembly so constituted, and met for a perfectly legal purpose, if any introduced themselves illegally in order to give to that meeting; au undue direction, which would produce in the minds of his Majesty's subjects, although 59,000 persons out of a meeting of 60,000 were com pletely innocent, yet there might be 12 or 20 illegally met there, and those twelve or 20 would be liable to be tried on the ground of having illegally assembled. It followed, that although a meeting might be perfectly legal as to the great hulk of the people attending it, yet if any persons, by a plan among themselves, introduced objects new to that mixt*, by placards or any other means, which objects were likely to give to that meeting a direction not before contemplated, so as to produce alarm, or to endanger the public peace, and strike terror into his Majesty's subjects, those persons were liable to be indicted fur illegally assembling together. The case, as it was stated by Mr. Szrgeatit llawkies, seemed to contemplate the event of immediate danger resulting from the meeting. lie, however, was not prepared in his own mind to say, that the appearance of immediate danger was necessary to constitute this offence. If in the results the jury were satisfied that, from such an assemblage, accompanied by the circumstances he would by-and-bye point out to them, terror must have been inflicted on the minds of his Majesty's subjects, leading to an apprehension of immediate danger, they would git e a verdict against those who occasioned that appre hension. Ou the other hand, if, from the peaceable demeanour of the people at the time, and the association of women and children on the grow!, the meeting was not sufficient to produce a keling of immediate danger, though it might of future danger, he would recommend it to the Jury to find a special verdict. If they found a special verdict he would call upon them to state whether they thought the circumstances attending the meeting were such as were calculated to produce immediate danger. If they thought nut, they would then find, " that the persons had met under such circumstances as were not likely to inspire the fear and terror of immediate mischief, but which were calculated to create a fear and terror of distant danger." With respect to the subject of conspiracy, it was necessary to observe that the defen dants were not liable to be found guilty, although they were seeking the same end,if the J ury were nut olopiniou that they were acting in pursuance of one design, with the privity of all. It might be, in a case of this kind, twelve or twenty persons might go to a ineethq,, each of them intending to sow sedition; yet, if each person intemied to sow that sedition, from the mere motive and impulse of his own mind, and not in common with the other pa rues, they coital not be found guilty of conspi racy. To prove conspiracy, there was no necessity to skew the absolute meeung together of the parties ac cused. If the circumstances were such as to induce the j u ry t o b e lieve that they could not have occurred without the previous concert and combination of the parties accused, it was sullicicnt. if the circumstances were of such a nature as to Marty that there must have been a previous plan, that wooed warrant couviction fur conspi racy. lf, in this case, the jury should be of opinion that these persons could not have come together in the way described—generally speaknag, with a regular step, and approaching a particular place, at the exact time they did —if they bcheved they could not come in that way, its the common order of circumstances, without a previous meeting between the parties, that was sufficient evi deuce of a precoucerted plan. Bin if the Jury were of opinion that they might hose met together by accident without previous arrallAClllelll, then the charge of con spiracy must be dismissed fr their minds. A party expressing an Illtentl4/11 to go to this or any other meeting might induce other ;worms who heard of it through him, to attend also, without any previous design. They could only implicate, in the offence of conspiracy, those persons who time evidence showed either actually were, or from eircummaeces must have been parties to the for ['sawn' of the original plan. Those who join«l in a a plan, though at a late period of the transaction, could not be distinguished front those welt whom it originated, because they in fact agreed to all that had previously been done, and thus became conspirators. In considering the matter of conspiracy, they must look to the case of each defendant, and see with which of the other defen dants he conspired. It might be that, as to the conspi racy charged in this case, they would be of opinion that one and one alone, of the present defendants, was con nected with the plan, which was the subject of the con spiracy. If they were satified that one of those defen dants, together with divers other persons not named, had formed the plan, it would subjt ct that defendant and hint alone, to be found guilty of the charge. The fact of aseanbling did not stand UllOll the same ground ; became if in such a meeting as that twelve persons assembled for unlawful purposes,(that was to give animproper direc tion to the proceedings of those who were legally and