The National Register. — London, England, 1820-05-21 00:00:00

Lin' REPORT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY, Matt An unustril bmtle WAS this morning displayed in estminster H4ll, in consequence of thy great anxiety manifested by all ranks of penille to procure a place in ('nun. The interesting proceedings which were this day appointed to take place, naturally account for this anxiety. Besides the judgment to be passed on Mr. Hunt and his companions, it was generally understood that Sir C. IVolseley was in attendance, expecting that his sentence would also be pronounced. Seven noble men were in Court, amongst whom we noticed Lord A psley and Lord Binning. Mr. Justice 11..5t entered the Court a little before ten o'clock, and after going throiLth some business of no public importance, was soon after followed by the ether Judges. The Attorney-General then prayed the judgment of the Court on Henry Hunt, and others. Mr. hunt immediately made his ip t warance in Court, attended by all the other defendants, with the excep tion of Johnson, who W-I1 then engaged in preparing an affidavit. On this account tile proceedings were de layed for a short time. Mr. Hunt, accompanied by . Johnson at length returned to the Court. All the de fendants being now in Court, The Chief Justice inquired if all the affidavits were ready. Hunt —b it necessary, my Lord, to put in all the affidavits at present? They are very long. Lord Chief Justice—Yes; they had better be laid before the officer. Muter some peculiar circumstances, an opportunity is sometimes afforded of filing an affi d suit in reply. The affidavits were then put in. lit reply to a question from the Chief Justice, The Attorney-General said, that he would not put in any affidavits until he had braid those of the defend ants. The officer then proceeded to read the affidavits, be ginning with Mr. Hura's. It stated, that lie received an invitation to preside over a meeting to be held at Manchester on the 10th of August last, which invita tion he, the deponent accepted. That on arriving at Bullock Smithy, he was informed that the meeting was abandoned, in consequence of the interference of the magistrates. That he was then informed that a meet ing was appointed to take place 011 the 16th, and that he. much against his own inclination, was prevailed upon to remain in Manchester until that period. That during that time, having heard that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension, he went into the Court house, and addressing , Mr. Wright, inquired if this in formation was true. - That he was told that no warrant had been Issued.; and after informing them that he should always be ready to meet them peaceably, he de parted. 'that on the morning of the 16th he set out from the house of his friend, Mr. Johnson, and ar rived at the-place of meeting about one o'clock. That -the meeting then proceeded, and was proceding quietly, when they were attacked by an armed body of cavalry, who ,cut down men, women, and children, without resistance. That he deponent, arrested this slaughter, by inquiring of one of the officers near the hustings the -reason of these proceedings, and being informed that lie held a warrant for his apprehension, he the deponent, immediately jumped down ; and requiring a police-officer to execute the warrant, he immediately surrendereu into the custody of Mr. Nadin. It then declared that the deponent believed that the yeomanry had intended to destroy him ; that, after he was pri soner. he had received two most severe blows front an individual hold* the tank of Major-General in the army; and that his life had been sated by the interpo sition of Nadin. That he was then thrown into pri son, where he remained eleven days and nights ; and, that being brought up for examination, lie was remand ed, as he was then told, on a charge of high treason. That upon a final examination, he, and several others, were committed upon a charge of conspiring to hold a seditious meeting, and immediately sent off to Lancas ter Castle, a distance of fifty miles. That he, the de ponent, disclaimed any idea of committing a breach of the peace, and that he only saw the mottos of two of the Rags, neither of 4% hich were exceptionable. That notwithstanding the opinion of the Lord Chief Jus tice, the meeting held some time previously in Smith field, was held for a totally different purpose from that 4ssembled at Manchester, as was sufficiently evident 1%0181 the purpose expressed hi the public advertisements announcing the meeting in Smithfield. That the depo nent, in consequence of this trial, had been much in jured in his private forearm, as - 'that his straits had been considerably embarrassed. This was the purport of the affidavit, which was of great length. Many other affidavits were read, sworn to, principally by persons attending the meeting, the wbole of whom concurred in stating the legal object for which the meeting was convened, the peaceable demeanour of the multitude, and the unpro‘oked aggression of the yeo manry cava!ry Another affidavit was subsequently read, which im peached the credibility of Chadwick, one of the wit nesses examined at the trial on behalf of the prosecu tion. T he Attorney General observed, that perhaps he was wrong in not having interfered sooner, but that lie misted that such an affidavit ought not to ha-•e been read. Mr. Justice Best.—lt not only states him to be un worthy of belief, but goes on to accuse him of treason. Mr. Hunt —lt accuses him, toy Lord, of being the hero of the story which he himself had pod at the trial After consulting the other Judos, the Lord Cnief .Insuce addressed Mr Hunt, " that e you any thing further to nr,ter" Mr. Hunt.—" fl y bird, had the wine of the witness Chadwick been on the hick of the indictment, we ought to, and shined have been prepared with witnesses. But h.; was a witimsb totally unexpected, of whoa we bad THE NATIONAL REGISTER. no notice, and therefore we were unprepared to confute. If your Lordships think the affidavit inadmissible, I Well not press it fur one moment. Chief Justice.—We are anxious to receive whatever ought to be received, and to open the doors of justice es wide as possible; but we must not establish a precedent which may he dainzerous in other cases. The disputed affidavit was again handed up, and some difference of opinion seemed to occupy the Bench. The Lord Chief Justice at length asked Mr. Hunt what part of Chadwick's evidence he wished by this affidavit to mpeach? Nlr. Htint.--My Lord, Chadwick stated that he at tendect me front Stockport to Nlancitester, and that I invited the people to cheer. Now the affidavits are sworn to by persons who accompanied me all the way, And they • deny the circumstance. Justice Bayley.—That does not appear (rem the affi davit. ?Ir. Hunt.—lt says, my Lord, that if it had occurred they must have heard it. After some further discussion, during which part of Chadwick's evidence was read, The Lord Citief Justice said, that as the parties now before , the Court appeared to receive judgment, their affidavits ought to confine themselves to facts, which might go in mitigation of punishment. The reason of the deponent was not stated, nor had they any opportu nity of ascertaining them, and it did appear to hint a most dangerous course so admit affidavits tending to im peach the character of a witness, when defendants were brought up for judgment.—The affidavit was ultimately !ejected. After the affidavits have been read, the defendants severally addressed the Court in mitigation of punish ment. Mr. Hunt spoke at considerable length, and • with great ability. He took a general review not only of what passed at the Manchester meeting, bat what pre ceded it. He related many horrid particulars of the conduct of the Nlatichester Yeomanry, and he concluded by saying, " Let the Court address its attention to the conduct of the Manchester magistrates. 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 meet ings which had met undisturbed, and from which no evil consequences had resulted—none had beeu called with so much caution, with so 'much attention to regu larity and to legal notice, as this meeting of the 16th of August. The magistrates had every reason to believe that the conduct of that meeting would be peaceable; they knew that there was no existing law by which that meeting could be prevented ; they knew that acts of parliament were preparing for that purpose; but they were too bold to wait for the assistance of those powers, and resolved at once to seal those 'safety valves' with the blood of the reformers. What had the reformers done to deserve this treatment? They had said, 'We are working like slaves, and we are starving when we have done. %Ve labour thirteen hours a day ; and, though we live on oatmeal and water, we cannot get enough of that to support our wives and children. iA'e 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 together: We think that there is one great cause of all our 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, sometimes for doing worse than nothinf. We will do till this, but we will do it peaceably.' This was the language of the reformers: how had it been answer ed? They , were told, ' Your meeting is for an illegal purpose. They called another of a different nature. The requisition for that meeting was signed by seven hundred persons ; their names and places of abode fully given. Were those persons strangers J They had lived and worked, some of them 20 and 25 years in the same town, and seven years in the same dwelling. This was sonic evidence as to the character of such men, for they were poor men ; and if they committed any offence, they were speedily detected and punished, and sent packing. 'f hey were not gentlemen , not like Mr. Hol ton of Holton ; not men of property who might be steeped to the lips its infamy and crime, and yet lice unmolested and undisturbed in their mansions, who were above the reach of being driven front their homes or from society. The Attorney General and Mr. Scarlett, on the part of the prosecution, then answered the leading matter introduced by the defendants, and called for the severity of the Court. Mr. Justice Bayley, after making strong observations on the mischievous intentions of the defendants, deli vered the verdict of the Court, which was, that Henry Hunt he imprisoued two years and six months in licher ter Gaol, and enter into sureties for time years, himself in 1,0001. and two others in S o ul. each. The other defen -dants were sentenced to be imprisoned one year in Lin coln Gaol, and to find sureties Mr five years, themselves in MI. and two others in WI. each. At the conclusion of the judgment sir. Hunt asked if he was to be placed in solitary confinement. The Chief Justice said, t he Court had made no order for solitary confinement. The defendants would be in the usual custody, and if the parties should have any just pretence for complaint, the Court would hear it. Time parties were then taken smut of Court in custody of the officers. As they passed along the Hall to a coach, the crowd, which was numerous, gave Mr. Hunt thrve cheers. lie wore a smile, but the sentence produced upon him a strong, expression of sui prise. THE KING V. SIR C. WOLSLLEY AND JOEEPII HAKRISON. The dereialarits were next bron6ht into Court to re ceive judgment. Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the sentence of the Court, by which Sir C. Wolseley w 35 sentenced to be imprisoned 18 months in Atiiie6r!ou Gaol, and at the exiitation of that term, find sureties for five years, him sell in 1,0001. and two others in 5001. each. Joseph Harrison was sentenced to be imprisoned in Gh stet Gaol 18 mouths, to be computed from theexpira ion of his present imprisonment, and to find sureties for five years, himself in 3001. and two others in 1001. each. Sir C. Wolscley.—May I ask when I am to go to Abingdon The Chief Justice observed, that would depend on the orders received by the officer who had him in custody. The defendants were then taken out of Court.—Tents ended. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY MAY 16 Marge after Taws. TEASDALE V. CLEMENT/. This was an action against the Proprietor of " The Ob " newspaper, for having insetted a libel in that Paper, reflecting on the character of the plaintiff. From the evidence it appeared, that the plaintiff is Constable of Si. Pancras parish. On the 3I of October he was going his rounds, accompanied by another consta ble, named Smith, about six o'clock in the morning, when, itt the New-road, near Brunswick-square, they saw two men before them, carrying a basket. Their meaner excited suspicion, and they pursued and stopped them. On searching their basket, they found a dead body. They secured the men and their burthen, and took them befure the late Mr. Leach, the Magistrate, when they underwent an examination, and %etre detained the misdemeanour. They refused to tell where they got the body from, and Mr. Leach directed them to apply to some surgeon, and inquire if the body would be useful for dissection. They accordingly applied to the surgeons at St. Thomas's Hos pital, and left word with the porter, the house surgeon not being at home, that they had a body in their posses sion, and an account of the manner in whirl. it came into their possession. In the course of the day the surgeons sent their porter for the body, and gave the 'colloid Itis. . to be divided between himself,Sruith,and the watch-house keeper, as a remuneration for their trouble. On the following Sunday, an account of this transaction appeared in The Ob , in which account it was stated, that the plaintiff Teesdale was ordered by the Magistrate to have the body interred, instead of which he took it to Mr. Carpue, the surgeon, and offered it for sale, but Mr. Carpus refused to purchase it, saying it was the property of the awn from whom the Constable bad taken it.—The plaintiff, it was alleged, then took the body to St. Thomas's Hospital, and there sold it; that the plaintiff had been held to bail to answer for his conduct, at the Sessions. Not a word of this latter part was true, and this was the libel complained of, and for which the present action was brought. The case having been proved, Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury ou the part of' the defendant. The Chief Justice slimmed up, end the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 801. THURSDAY, MAY 18. DELDEN AND WINE, v. JOSEPH AND DEOEDE PAGE. This was a cave of assault. There were two re cords—the one charging an assault upon the plaintiff's wife, to which the plaintiff himself was of necessity a party; the other charging an assault committed upon the plaintiff alone. It was agreed, in order to save the tune of the Court, that the two actions should be tried together. Mr. Gurney, on the part of the plaintiff, stated his case as one of peculiar hardship. His client, the learned Counsel said, was an industrious pains-taking hawker. who obtained his living by vending his com modities at fairs; and the defendants were gentlemen of property, residing at St. Alban's. It happened that, upon the 21ith of March 1819, the plaintiff and his wife were attending the fair of St. Alban's • and upon the morning of that day, which was the ' last of the fair, were peaceably packing up their wares, in order to their no less peaceable departure, when the two de fedants, who were wont from time to time to amuse the inhabitants of the town with a row, thought fit to make these poor persons the subjects of their dexterity. Those gentlemen, upon pretence of dealing, came to the booth of the plaintiff ; but, instead of making pur chases, by their beastly observations they indectutly in sulted and assaulted the wife, and proceeded, by way of sati l faction, to beat the husb and for interfering. INuing a period of nearly three hours the defendants continued to annoy and ill-treat the plaintiff and his wife; they broke down the booth, and endangered the loss of the goods • and when the subjects of their sport r e treated to an adjoining house, they followed them thither, amp threatened their lives. The Jury would naturally sup pose that souse attempts to protect themselve 1)1(1 been made by the plaintiffs. Such attempts had beets made. Mr. Gelden said to one of the defendants, ••• 1 will complain to the Mayor." " Then you must complain to me," answered the assailant, " for I am the Nlairir, at least I was Mayor last year." A constable was call ed, " but -he dated not touch Mr. Gape." 'lle gen tlemen, the learned Counsel believ(d, had die excuse of intoxication for their conduct; but if a ma?, behaved ill when he was drunk, he must pay for it when he was sober. The present action had not bern brought until sery moderate recompense had been refused ; and it was to be honed that the Jury, in g ving heavy dantagi s to the plaintiff., would at the same time give a valuable lesson to the defendants. A number of witnesses were then called, who fully made out the case as stated by . Mr. Gurney. 'Foe Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, informed the Jury that they 1111 l sr find distinct verdicts won each action The second verdict, however, would, he thought, depend in a areal measure upon the first. In causes of the present deseriptiou great consistency of evidence could tint lie ex i iecied : the matter indeed, in itself, was a scene of lie tholiAlti, however, that here was at East as much consisienry in tile plaintiff's Case as rid appe,,red that of the tlefentlauiN The .airs f .1 fur the pit tI!I ii omit the with loot. dam ttLei .1311) thh hi-., n 5, I. upon the A library is ail'. • ... 0. wlidesaic in a provincial paper, several ji , el square of handsomely ne nercr having 6cca h "--u"d kooks, which are as good as 106