The Sun. — London, England, 1822-04-11 00:00:00

THE MANCHESTER TRANSACTIONS. LANCASTER, TUESDAY, Arm 9. FOURTH AND FIFTH DAYS. UEDFORD V. BILLZ:ir AND OTHERS. A great mass of evideuce, from the ex.autina. tio.a of Mr. Hutton, the ;Rev. Mr. Hay, Mr. Tat.ton, and the Rev. C. W. Ethelstone, Magis. trues ; 11. Cholmondeley,_ nephew to'. Lord DelamOre ; several merchants and manufacturers; Reporters to newspapers ; Colonel L'EsttangA ; Lieut. F. Buckley, 15 Hussars ; Lieut. C. It. O'Donnell, ditto ; Lieut. J. i%l'Alpine, ditto; several other Officers and Privates; Special Con-. gtables, and other persons ; was - produced to, :prove the dangerous charr.cter of the Meeting, the alarm excited, the precautions Wand other measures adopted by the Magistrates,—the reading of the Riot A ct,—the issuing of the warrant to apprehend &c.; the resistance offered to the Yeo rnaury—the imminent peril iu which they were placed, until the 15th Hussars were brought to their assistance ; the previous clearing off of all _ . stones and other missiles from the place of meet ing and its nt ighbourhood, though great quanti, ties were picked up on the same spot after the Meeting was dispersed ; the martial array of the tl.visions of people which marched into Man chester ; the threatening and • seditious expres lions used by many of the people on their march; the exhortation of Hunt when the military appeared that the people," if their enemies created any disturbance," should " get them down, quiet them, and keep them down,"—&c. Stc. Sze. The attack upon the yeomanry, by assailing them with stones, &c., was so clearly established, that Mr. Justice lloLßoYo thought it unnecessary to call all the witnesses who were prepared to esta blish that fact. Mr. BLACKBURN commenced his reply at eight minutes Fist two o'clock. It was once more his duty to address the .Jury, and a painful duty he could assure them he felt it to be, since, after the five long days which had been employed in the examination of witnesses, it would take him some time to sub .. • mit to their consideration the impressions he had received from the testimony which had been given. He Would at the outset promise them that he would occupy as little of their time as he possibly could, consistently with the great importance of the ' case, and with the duty which he owed to his ill-treated client. It hed been said by his Learned Frie4l With an air of triumph, that he was glad that the time was at length come in which he should have an opportunity of repelling with scorn and indig elution all the calumnies and misrepresentations under which the Magistracy of Lancashire had too long been labouring. For his own part, he knew not of any calumnies, and was not a party to any misrepresentations ; but if calumny had been cast upon, and misrepresentations -published regarding, them, --who had been called to rebut and to d e stroy them ? who but the Magistrates and those immediately connected with them ? Had the Jury had any witnesses brought before them in the last three days but Magistrates and special constables, to make out a justification, if any was wanted, for the measures that the former had adopted. If the Magistrates had been of opinion, as one of them, the Vicar of R oc hd a l e , h a d sworn that he had been of opinion, that it was an act of riot and tumult to march with such ensigns as had been described to them, then it was their duty, on the appearance of the first party with them, to have warned them of the illegality they were committing—to have interrupted the meeting in its ver y f orma ti on , an d to - have prevented its increasing to that extent which it afterwards reached. All this they had had an opportunity of doing : they had met at an early hour in the morning of the day of the „ meet ing • they were acquainted, as they s ai d, with the stat e of th e , country about Manchester, and with the feelings of its inhabi tants ; they knew that drillings and trainings were going on ' amongst them almost as notoriously as the sun at noon-clay ; they knew that at the Whitemoss there had been spectators of those drillings ten times as nunterousas the drillers themselves ; they knew the consequences that were to be anticipated from a numerous assemblage of these persons ; they knew that before the close of the day this assemblage would be poisoned with the religious doctrines of Catlile, the political sentiments of Hunt, and the deleterious liquor of the ale-houses ; and therefore they were, afraid that when their minds became inflamed with the sentiments of the first, and their bodies with the ale of the last, they would sally forth to lay the town of Manchester in ashes. It was impossible that the Magistrates, knowing all this, should not also know of the manner in which the meeting of the 16th August was to be got together; and if they did know of that manner, and really expected such dangers to result from it to the town of Manchester, as they had stated on their oaths that they did, then he persisted in saying thet they ought to have prevented it altogether. Did they, hetvever, take any i rneaseres to prevent it ? No ; not one. One of the M.,istrates even thought that the meeting was legal. Undoubtedly it was so ; -for what was to render it otherwise ? Clearly, not the in tentions of those who had convened ite because, when they were told that the meeting which they had called for the 9th was illegal, on account of its object being to elect a representa tive for the unrepresented inhabitants of Manchester, they per sisted in it no longer. Why, he would ask, if their intentions were as dangerous and as criminal as they were stated to be— why did they not persist in it ? What mattered it to them whether their meeting was legal or not, if their intention was to sack the town of Manchester ? They might have met on the ,2th, but they did not meet ; and why ? Because they - were resolved to do nothing but what was legal and right ; and accordingly, when they were told that the object of their first meeting Was improper, they changed their requisition into one that was perfectly proper and legal : they called a meet ing to take into consideration the best means of obtaining a Yell, fair, and equal representation of the people in the Coannons' House el Parliament—a meeting which they had a right to 'attend, yea, though it had been for the purpose of discussing what his Learned Friend had been pleased to call the insane doctrines of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. He might here be allowed to tell his Learned 'Friend, that, insane as he might think that doctrine, it had been supported by men of as high rank, and of as dis tinguished talents, as had ever appeared in this or in any other country ; and that though it had failed in the practice, it was still the ancient and genuine principle of the constitu tion. Surely, surely those who only wanted to have what they considered their rights, were not to be deemed mad, if they peaceably' demanded theM ; or, if they were mad, were not, therefore, to be sabred and cut down. But, said his Learned Friend, if their intention was to dem a nd their rights in a quiet and peaceable manner, why had they met in such immense numbers ? Why had they not met at their private houses, as Mr. Earnshaw and his friends had done, and there drawn up their petitions for reform ? Why, be.. canes their petitions, if they, had done so, would, as his Learned Friend had. well remarked, have been read, laid on the table, and never heard of more. They wished to hav e their petitions treated in a different manner ; they thought that when 80,000 0rn,100,000 persons a:nernbled peaceably together— for the Jury would recollect that the number of persons on ' St. Peter's-field had been computed by respectable persons at both those sunis—the attention of the House of Commons would ' be called to the fact, that within one narrow district there were so many individuals without any representative to protect their interests. They knew that their individual petitionssfer reform -week' be laid on the table and disregarded; they trusted, how - ever, that the collected- wishes of such a multitude would de mend and obtain some consideration from the Legislature.— He trusted that he had now convinced the Jury that the object •of the requisition was perfectly legal, and that it was not ren dered otherwise by the number of persons who had afterwards atesialed the meeting. How, then, had these persons come into :Manchester as stragglers ? No—lf they had entered Manches ter in detached : find straggling parties, doubtless we should then have Lei - trill* the peace of the town had been endangered by the number of disorderly persons who were straggling through and blocking up the streets. To prevent the possibi lity of such an ontearrence, they came under banners, which were intended- for no other purpose, and which it had not been proved. had Leen used for any other purpose than to keep the inhabi tants of the different townships together, or tore-assemble them in case they shotild.streggle the one from the other. Though some of those banners bore foolish inscriptions on them, that exaggeration of sentiment did not belong to them all. " Equal ' Representation or Death" was inscribed on one of the banners ; :but it did not therefore follow that those who accompanied it meant they would have instant eetial representation or instant death. Absurd and foolish as such an inscription might be, still he must remind the Jury that it was -riot its folly or its absurdity that they had to try, but the legality of the con duct of the people. Now-he asserted that out of the 51 witnesses 'which his Learned Friend had called, and out of the 39 which he himself had produced, the Jury had not heard one speak to -any 'act of riot committed by the people; in or Out of Manches =ter, before the irruption of , the Yeomanry, except, indeed, it were Mr. Hay, the vicar of Rochdale, who called the carrying Of the banners an act of riot anti tumult. Numbers of them, bowever, had proved.the state of terror and alarm into which the meeting had thrown the inhabitants of Manchester. One of them, a very well-dressed gentleman, of the name of Read—indeed he had very seldom seen a better dressed witness in a witness-box-edeposed strongly to the fear by which he had himself been agitated; and yet, strange to say, it appeared from his crose-examinatioe, that afraid as he had represented himself to be, his fears were not strong enough to repress his curiosity. This Mr. Read went into thee middle of the crowd, and thence straight up to the hustings, without finding any man linked, without hearing any insult, without receiving any violenCe of treatment. He was better dressed than any person in the crowd, and yet to him nobody made any remark about the whiteness of his neckcloth—to -him -nobody made any threat regarding the goodness of his coat—to him nobody' said as they did to Joseph, ,‘ You're a great guts, and have got more food in your belly than we have."—(Laughter.)--If such were the case, and if the meeting was soyeaceably inclined; what was it, he must again ask, that had given a character of illegality to it ? He must again repeat, that he did not know. He would, however, for the sake of argument; suppose that it was the nature and the appearance of the banners that had rendered the meeting illegal ; and even then, he said, that it was only those who met, knowing the illegality of the meet ing, and with illegal intentions, that were guilty of any offence. Mr. Read, whose curiosity was so much stronger than his fears, had been guilty of no offence in attending it; and though his Learned Friend had said that all the persons who were pre sent at a seditious and treasonable meeting were equally amen able to the laws, yet he must certainly have meant to except his own witnesses at least from so sweeping a condemnation. He (Mr. Blackburn) was certain that the Jury would hear the Learned Judge lay down the law in conformity with the opi .nions which he had just been urging von their attention. He was certain that they would hear the Learned Judge tell them that an offence was not committed by those who attended an illegal meeting from curiosity merely, but by those oily who attended with guilty intentions. It a as a principle of- the law of England, that no act rendered a man guilty unless. it was accompanied by a criminal intention. There were, in deed, some acts, from the very nature of which the law inferred a criminal intention—such for instance, was the cutting and strik ing with a sabre. But no such inference could be (hewn from a man's attendance at a public meeting to effect a reform in Parliament and a redress of grievances ; for it was a right of which an Englishman had been immemorially possessed—it was a right of which he could never be deprived ; and therefore, if any man went to St. Peter's-field with the intention to exercise that right, and with no other intention, he was legally there, and if assaulted was illegally assaulted. If his client Redford had come from Middleton quietly and peaceably with his townsmen for the purpose mentioned in the requisition on which the meet ing had been called, even though lie came with a banner, on which were. inscribed " Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage," he was guilty of none of the things charged against him in the different pleas, and no man had a right to sabre him. He would even go farther, and say that no man had a right to sabre his client, even though he were present with a banner with criminal intentions, and for illegal purposes ; for if any perion were justified in cutting him with a sword on the shoulder, he would also be justified in case he had cut off his head. Before he went farther, he wished to ask the jury what proof there was of Redford's being involved in the conspiracy of which so much mention was made in the different pleas ? Who was there to prove his drilling ?—Two men from Stokehill, on whose evi dence he thought it quite unnecessary to make any comment. His Learned f riend, in opening the case, had said, ' that lie should prove, that at s om e t im es R e df or d' was drilled, and at others, that he was hims e lf a driller. Now, had . his Learned Friend proved, or attempted to prove, any thing of the kind ? But even it he had proved this fact, what did it matter ? Mr. Justice Bayley, in his charge to the jury at York, on a trial arising out of this very transaction, had used the following ex pressions respecting this very drilling :—" According to the evidence 'for Bamford, the people and his party, so far from be ing tumultuous, were peaceable and joyful ; and the drilling, as it was called, so far from being illegal and nocturnal, was open and innocent, the only object being merely to enable the people to attend the meeting as conveniently for each other and the public as was possible."—Supported by such great and emi nent authority, he (Mr. Blackburn) would say, that if the drilling were done openly, 'to enable the . 'parties to attend in a more peaceable and orderly manner, it was undoubtedly legal. Those who contended to the contrary must have forgotten that such a thing as the petition and bill of rights were in existence. By those charters we were enabled legally and constitutionally to do two things which it was material not to forget in the con sideration of this cause. First, that we had a right at all times to petition for a redress of grievances ; and, secondly, to carry arms in our defence. The language of Blackstone on this sub ject was so explicit, and so apposite, that he would take the liberty of reading" it to them :—, To preserve those rights from violation, it is necessary . that the constitution of Parliament be supported in its full vigour, and limits certainly known be set to the Royal prerogative ; and lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of En Nand are entitled, in the first place, to regular administration an free course of justice in the courts of law ; next to the right of peti tioning the King and Parliament for redress of grievances ; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preserva tion and defence." Now if they had aright to use arms foeself-pre , servation and defence, he (Mr. B.) maintained that they had a right to know how to defend themselves. But, fortunately, he had not to defend his client from any such imputation : all that his client had done had been to walk to a meeting for a redress of grievances with a banner. He said that the drillings which his Learned Friend had declared that he would prove to be clan- - destine drillings, had been proved to be no such thing ; and that no illegality had taken place at any one of them, except so far as was proved by the testimony of these three strange witnesses, Murray, Shawcross, and Haywood. If they were clandestine, • how was it that 800 only had drilled when the persons on the ground amounted t 0.3,000 ? If 800 only were drilled, what must the remainder have been ?—mere spectators. By what instrument also were they drilled ?—by the sound of a bugle, of all other instruments the most likely to excite and . attract at tention. Colonel Keymer had gone to the drilling, attracted by the sound of it ; he saw there men of his own regiment drilling. There was nothing clandestine in their conduct; for they marched past him, and said—`• You see, Colonel, we can march still : if we go on so, we shall soon be able to teach you to march." The Colonel went publicly and openly, and was not insulted ; but how was it that Murray and Shawcross had gone ? They had gone sneaking up sad down and about the field. He dared say that these people had heard that there were spies abroad, anxious to pick up every thing that could tell against them. Indeed, that circemstance had been proved, by the fact of a person sent from Rochdale, who, for the tales he had invented, had been made a police-officer. This fellow had said, that one of the party, at these drillings had told him. these most important facts—that they were about setting off for London ; that they intended to seize the property of every person of fortune by the way ; and that they intended by that means to carry the great cause of reform. In his cross-exa mination he was asked--was this said by a driller ? and then, and not till then, it came out, that it was said by a spectator, with whom he happened to be conversing. That conversation was, therefore, no evidence against any of the persons drilled who attended the meeting at Manchester. To returw, however, to what had been said by Shawcrosi and Murray : they had said that they came from Middleton to the drill; this the drillers knew to be a falsehood, and therefore they beat them, and not be cause they were, as they called themselves, " King's men." His Learned Friend had called upon them in a very pathetic strain to extend their pity to Murray and Shaweross ; he, too, called upon them to give these individuals their pity, but not to bestow it all upon them—to reserve a small portion of it, at leak, for the unfortunate creatures who were sabred at Manchester. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to explain the circumstances under which Haywood had been beaten, !and aid that it was clear from that individual's cross-examination that he had been beaten in a quarrel with a person on the drill-ground for legging him. No man, therefore, could fairly convict the meeting of illegality, on account of what had happened to Murray, Shawcross, and Haywood; and unless the Jury were prepared to say that they would convict individuals of illeeal training on the evidence of three such persons as he had mentioned, the Jury could not say that they found the issues they were directed to try in favo u r of the defendants. He was. however, prepared to maintain, that if they found all those issues in favour of the defendants, the defendant Oliver had no right to cut down his unfortunate client. For under what circum stances had his client been assaulted ? Had his client been assaulted as he was making resistance ? No : lie Was cut at and wounded as he was running from the spot. Now, he said, that before the defendant Oliver had cut him, he ought to have 'endeavoured to have taken him ; and that ha , was not authorized in striking him down until he had refused to surrender ; and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict at all events. It was said, however; by his Learned Friend, that the defendants had been called in by the Magis tracy to aid the civilwer. It was therefore worth while ex- whining the purpose for which the Magistracy had asked the aid of the military. The commands which the Magistracy had given to the military were, to take certain persons on the hustings into custody. Those commands were execnted. After the mili tary had executed that command, , they had done all that the Magistrates required them to do, and ought to have return ed to ' the place from whence they started; instead of' that, what did Mr. Tyas say ?—whom even his Learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant If ulloek) was compelled to acknowledge was a credible witness—what did Mr. Tyas say ? Why Mr. Tyas said that a 'Cry was raised, " Have at the flags," and that the flags after cutting rightund left, were immediately taken. That this was the case had 'been proved by two constables, who heid boasted, of taking two flags in this struggle, and - also a cap of liberty,— Here he would ask ; whether the people had not a right to carry caps of liberty ? His Learned 1 had stated, that what he had called the cap of liberty in the Coronation procession was in reality the cap of maintenance. He allowed, that it was so ; but it was riot the cap of maintenance in a pecuniary sense—ithwas neap of maintenwace, denoting that it was the bounden duty of-the sovereign to maintain unimpaired the rights and liberties of his subjects. Another signification was now, however, to be given it ; and he supposed that every man who henceforward dared to say one word in • defence of that. ancient .emblem, which had so often been carried before the Kings of England—which had so often been impressed upon their coins, and which was so frequently carved upon , their Courts of-Justice, was to be eonsidered as a Jacobin or a traitor. There was also another cruel test to which his witnesses were to. be subjected. If ever they had spoken a word with Hunt, or exchanged a glance with Carlile— it in any of the accidents of life they had been ever thrown to gether with those individuals—they were to be stigmatized in Courts of Justice, as unworthy of credit, and in public meet ings were to 'be cut down and sabred by the military ! Such some individuals might suppose to be the law in Lancashire; but sure he was that such was not the law of England, and he trusted that their verdict would set public doubt at rest upon that subject. He had been led to these remarks, as he was go ing to comment upon the fact that the Magistrates had comeinto C 7 e - urt to swear in justification of their own characters. That jus tification would have been better effected, if, when they found the meeting illegal, they had prohibited it altogether. They did, how ever, no such thing. Under their own eyes various parties came' with what they deemed illegal banners ; not one of' them said that "such conduct was illegal ; nor w a s on e w o r d to that effect uttered un til a mass of 80,000 0r100,060 persons, consisting of men, women, and children, had stationed themselves on the field. If the meeting; in their opinion; was of such a nature as to require to be dispersed, at all events they ought never to have allowed it to begin ; they had the whole military force in Manchester, and it was not a small one, wherewith to disperse the se parate parties. They might have read the Riot Act, and then ordered them to disperse. If they had refused to do so in the legal time, they might have called upon the military to force them. As to the reading of the Riot Act, as they had pretended to read it, he had never heard of any thing in his life so dis graceful as that reading was to the party who performed it. How had Mr. Ethelstone, the individual to whom he al ined, sworn that he had' read it ? He had said that he read it from the windows of Mr. Buxton's house ? Did he pretend to swear that he had read it any where else ? No. And why had he not ? Because, forsooth, when he went down stairs he did not find his servant waiting with a horse for him to mount, and on which to read it ? To whom, too, had he read it ? To nobody but the Rev. Mr. Hay, the vicar of Rochdale, who, though labouring, as he pretended, under the greatest alarm and anxiety, found time enough to say to his Rev. Coadjutor, with a Calculating coolness that was almost in conceivable, "Ethelstone, I never heard you in such goodvoice before;" and yet, though the tones of Mr. E.'s vpice were so clear and sonorous, not one magistrate had come forward to say that. he heard him reading the Riot Act, though it was a point that all of them would have been willing enough to prove had they been able to swear it. Did any body outside of the house hear it read ? No : for even, according to Mr. Ethelstone's own account, it was read at a time when the ringing of the horses hoofs on the pavement, anti the clashing of the Yeornens' swords with one another, rendered all other sounds quite inaudible. Mr_ Stanley, who was in the window of the room above that in which the magistrates were, did not hear a word of the Riot Act read, though he was paying the most earnest attention to every thing that passed ; neither did Mr. M‘Kin laya who was on the steps below them, and equally attentive io all that was going forward. His Learned Friend, in open ing his case, had stated, that there were 50 yards between the Magistrates' house and the crowd; and that the intervening space was filled with special constables. How then could the crowd know of the reading of the Riot Act ? The jury were then left to infer that Mr. Silvester had quitted the house to read it, and that he had been prevented by having been knocked down and trampled upon. If such were the case, why had the de fendants not called Mr. Silvester, the best of all witnesses on that head, to prove it ? Instead of that, they had called upon a person who said that he saw Mr. Silvester take up a card, on which the Riot Act was printed, leave the room, for a short time, and then return with a dirty coat. If Mr. Silvester could have proi'ed sa material a fact as his reading of the Riot Act, he would have done it, for he was one of those who had signed the warrant. It was well known that Mr. Silvester had never read it ; but in order to leave the Jury to infer that he had, an individual had sworn as he had before described. It was now worth while to see how the Riot Act was to be read according to the provisions of the statute. The Learned Coun sel here read the statute to the Jury, hut as the leading provi sions of it are well k now n, we re f ra i n f rom p resen ti ng it to our readers. 14e then contended that the reading of the Riot Act, as Mr. Etheistone had done, was no justification of the killing, maiming, and wounding, that afterwards ensued.—He then reviewed the evidence, aad said that it was clear from it that Birley, NVithington, Oliver, and Meagher, were all of them upon the field, aiding and abetting each other in the attack on the plaintiff. He next alluded to what had been said by Mr. Sergeant Hullock in his opening speech—that all the witnesses fo r th e 'plain tiff largely entered into the feelings of the prosecution, or had a latent interest in Parliamentary Reform. Surely his Learned Friend could not have known the description of the witnesses which he himself in. tended to call, when he made such an attack. on the witnesses on the other side; for the Jury, if they examined the 51 witnesses for the defence, would find that there was not one of them who had proved any essential point in their favour, who was not either a Magistrate or special constable. Mr.Hulton had confessed that he felt a considerable interest in the issue of this case. He did not blame Mr. Hulton for feeling such in terest, but he said that on that account Mr. Hulton was not a • more respectable witness than Mr. Stanley. Mr. Stanley had no feeling save that of reprobation of the meeting, and therefore came unprejudiced as to the side on which he gave his evidence. Had the Jury forgotten what had been deposed by the other wit nesses whom he had called for the defence, or was the testimony they had given entirely obliterated by the evidence which they had given for the last three days consisting of information about secret conspiracies ? When they recollected what his witnesses had proved—and his Learned Friend had admitted that Mr. Burgess was a very respectable witness—they would see that a most unjustifiable attack had been made upon the people. Did Mr. Burgess, who was himself one of the Yeo manry Cavalry, say that they were assailed by stones and sticks in their advance to - the hustings ? No such thing. He said, that after the Yeomanry had surrounded the hustings, then the stones began flying around them in all directions. He (Mr. Blackburn) admitted that this was the fact, and asserted that the people, after the attack made upon them, had a right to turn round and repel it. The meanest reptile, when trod upon, had a right to resist ; and the poor creatures assembled on St. Peter's field. had a right to resist their assailants, and to use every means in. their power to divert them from their purpose. Had not the numerous witnesses whom he had called as good means of information as those on the other side ? Mr. Stan ley was in the house with the . Magistrates ; Mr. 111‘Kinlay was on the, steps of it ; Mr. Earnshaw and h! r. 'Wood were in other houses within forty yards of the scene of action. Mr. Hindmarsh and Mr. Preston were in the yard of the Quakers' Meeting-house and overlooked the whole field.— To lessen the importance of Mr. Shuttleworth's evidence, his Learned Friend had stated that that Gentleman was a Mem ber of a Committee to relieve the sufferers on the 16th of August, and was also a strong advocate for a. reform iii' Parliament. Now he contended that a man might be what Mr. Shuttleworth confessed himself to have been, and still he without the slightest imputation on his moral charac ter. He (Mr. Blackburn) was himself a Parliamentary Re former, and he had yet to learn that he was upon that account an incredible witness. Mr. Shuttleworth's evidence stood un impaired, as. did.alepaMa., Sauadersori's, notwithstanding the rigorous cross-examihation to which - it had been subjected.— Mr. Saunderson had said that he did not see any body cut; but did it thence follow that nobody was injured ? If the Jury were only to believe the witnesses for the defence, no wounds were inflicted at the meeting, except one on a yeoman, who was cut off from his corps, and on another who was shot, but who fortunately revived again. Ilis Learned Friend had talked much of the sticks which lied been used by the people : those sticks were in the possession of the de fendants ; why had riot they produced them for the inspection of the Jury ? But then it was said that the arms of the people round the hustings were locked. He cared not the snap of his finger whether they were or not. But what had Mr. Garnett told them on that point ? He said that they were not locked, and gave, as a proof of it, that he had himself wanted through . the crowd to the hustings a very short time before the arrival of Hunt. 'hr. Hutton however, said that they were lockedabnt it was Mr. Hulton Hulton, had given orders for the cavalry to ad vance. He would take that opportunity of saying, that Mr. H ulton had given his evidence upon that point, and indeed upon every other, with great fairness and candour.* How it was that Mr. Hulton had been induced to ender the cavalry to advance he could not tell; he might have been misled by the warmth of his feelings; he might have been misled by the various i informations, he had received regarding drillings and secret conspiracies, and he might, on that account, have supposed that the danger of the Yeomanry was much greater than it actually was. Had there been any person called to prove the dangerous situation the cavalry except those who were bystanders in the crowd, and therefore could not see their actual situation so well as those who were elevated above it? Had not his beatieroil of witnesses (to use, the term of his• Learned Friend)—had not Mr. Shuttleworth, ,Mr. Greg, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Tyas, and others, been carefully watching the advance of the cavalry ? and had they not sworn that they 'saw no resistance made to the Yeomanry until they endeavoured to take the flags ? Ile (Mr. Blackburn) main. tained that the Yeomanry had no right to seize a single flag. They went into the meeting not to have at their flags," but to take into custddy certain persons named in a warrant. But he would say that the warrant, in the face of it, contained no designation of the offeuce, and did not justify the ulterior proceedings of those individuals..- The warrant was simply to take up certain persons therein named, at a quarter past one o'clock, and who were in the cart at.the hustings. Mr. Justice II oratoYro said, that the wary.lnt could only affect the parties concerned in executing it under the provisions of the statute of George 11., which expresses that no action shall be brought against a constable, or others acting in aid of a con stable, in execution of the warrant of a Magistrate or Magis trates, if the proceeding be illegal, unless the action be brought within six months. Mr. BLACKBURN said, that if he mistook the law, it could be argued hereafter. He cared not whether the warrant was good or bad, but he could never too strongly impress upon them that the wound inflicted upon the individual in this case occurred after the execution of that warrant—after the parties had been arrested on the hustings. They had done all that was required under the warrant; and having done so, the parties in possession of that warrant had no longer any power to act, and they were not justified in using the sabre, or even an in strument much less likely than a sabre to occasion death, hav ing performed the duty for which they were deputed to act. But it was said resistance had been offered; where was the proof of that resistance ? There were Messrs. Andrew, Moore, and Nadir, they said that they went up behind the Manchester, Yeothanry to execute the warrant—they saw no resistance offer ed, except the statement of Nadin, that a man's arm had been hurt by a blow of a stone. These people, therefore, furnished negative evidence of a most important kind to establish the main fact, that no resistance was offered before the cavalry reached the hustings. After that, it might be admitted, for every purpose of this prosecution, that a conflict arose between the parties who were assaulted and their assailants. Stones, it was said, were flying ; but Mr. Hulton would not say that he saw them, except just before the cavalry arrived at the hus tings. His impression was, that he saw the stones before the cavalry arrived ; but he would not positively pledge himself to swear that they were thrown before at an ear lier period. He was quite sure that, at the time he stated the stones to have been thrown, the cavalry were near the hustings. It was quite impossible, therefore, consistent with Mr. Hulton's testimony, that what was sa id . by other wit nesses could be true, namely, that the throwing took place 1 , while the cavalry . were yet 50 yards from the hustings. That there was a waving of the multitude when the cavalry got in amongst them was evident: how else could it be ? the unfor tunate people naturally pressed at one side and the other, to en deavour to escape from the unforeseen danger which menaced them. And yet, with all that pressure and sudden emergency of action, no act of specific violende was imputed, except the single act against a special constable, and that occurred after the eruption of the cavalry. The Jury could not put out of their minds the attempt which bad been so perseveringly made to over whelm them with a variety of speeches made on aifferent occa sions by %lr. Hunt, in parts of the country distant from each other, and the attempt to connect all these with the purpose of the meeting at Manchester on the 16th Aug. These speeches were ingeniously connected with the acts of Mr. Hunt at the meeting, and particularly with what was spoken to by some witnesses, that, by order of Mr. Hunt, those near the hustings locked their arms on the 16th of August. The object of this concurrent testi mony was to establish a species of connexion which did not exist, and a word of command at the meeting to bear out the charge of previous organization. The name of Mr. Carlile was also introduced by his Learned Friend, and for a purpose which could not be disguised. If Mr. Carlile were a leader, why was he not includedwith Mr. Hunt and others in the prosecution at York ? Surely, if his name was of importance enough to be used on the present occasion, it must have been, at least in the eyes of those who so used it, if they claimed credit for their sincerity, 'sufficiently important to have marked out Car lile as a fit object for punishment at York. But no such at tempt had been made, and it was only now when Carlile's name had acquired a publicity which it had not at the time of the Manchester Meeting, that an attempt was made to connect, it with the transactions of that day. It was since the 16th of Aug., 1819, and the Jury could not fail to bear that fact in their minds, that the name of Carlile had burst forth in the full blaze of all its glory. But was not there evidence enough to show that if this locking of arms, and expression of _ Mr. Hunt to keep down those who should interfere had really occurred in the manner in which it was stated, or in any manner of the same kind, there must have been other parties present who could speak to the fact with the most perfect certainty ? There were those present whose connexion with the public press indispensably re quired the exercise of close observation, and they all with one voice denied the acts imputed to the crowd on that day. There was Mr. Tyas, whose testimony was complimented by his Learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Hullock), and who spoke with great precision as to all the acts at that meeting : there was also Mr. Garnett, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Baines, who all concurred in declaring that they saw (and they saw every thing at that meeting) no act of resistance offered by the multitude to the advance of the cavalry to the hustings. They had the best oppor tunity of calmly seeing what had occurred. They had no con nexion with the parties at the Meeting; it was their duty and their particular interest to report what had occurred, and they saw no such thing. 'Why did not his Learned Friend ask any of these gentlemen what Mr. Hunt had said in his speech at the meet ing; had he done so, he would have much better ascertained what was said than he could expect to have heard it from a wit ness who could not tell the distinction between such words as a " blood-sucker and a feather-bed soldier." It was not a little remarkable, that when so much was said of the injury done to the Yeomanry, that not a single individual of the corps was brought forward, to prove the assault. How easy it would have been to have proved the fact, had it occurred as his Learned Friend was instructed to represent. But what said Lieut.-Col. Keymer, with anticipation of mischief, not from the people, but from the cavalry. He said, that the moment. he saw the latter coining on the ground, he ordered - the women and children to get away, because, said he, "I then dreaded mischief." There was nothing, then, according to that witness's evidence to excite apprehensions in his mind, until the Yeomanry came ; it was then only that he warned the worsen and children to depart, and it was then only that he became sure of the occurrence of mis chief. This was at the period of the advance of the cavalry to wards the hustings ; and up to that time nothing had been done, either to excite or propagate alarm, except on the part of those who had by spreading previous reports infused alarm and doubt into those around them, by disseminating their own fears, apprehensions, and clangors. Except the Rochdale witness, - who talked of the man saying to him that they meant to march up to London, change the Government, and live on the estates of th e me n oipropnty on the way, there was not a single witness to assign any ground or reason for the alarm which was kept up. It was quite imposible to answer a charge expressed in ehis manner in any other than in a general way. If conspiracy be alleged by the defendants in their plea, he defied any man whose name was introduced into that plea, to have the power of rebutting the allegation by any other means than those used -by the present plaintiff; But, after all, what proofs of ,conspiracy had been proved against his client ? He had never been at White Moss, where the assaults were committed ; he had been once only at Tandlehills ' • and suppose he were drilling on that spot, that was no legal offence at the time alluded to : The Act of Par liament against drilling had been subsequently assed, ' and ' such a meeting was not 'penal at the time Redford was re. presented to have attended it. He (Mr. Blackburne) had often been drilled ; it was the common practice of 'school-boys for their amusement ; it was a pastime, aed clearly innocent before the late enactment of th?legislature : and unless in this case something else attached , to the act of drilling, which took it out of the plea of innocence, to be urged. in the plaintiff's behalf, he was 'sure that the jury would not infer a criminality, from a practice which mielit be for the mast innocent indul gence. With the other drilling matches the plaintiff had had no concern ; and therefore the jury would disconnect him from the acts spoken to at those drillings; of whatever character they were. The Learned Gentleman strongly enfdrced the claim of his client ' for the protection and relief of the jury, and en. treated them to found their verdict upon the facts of the case alone, and not upon the idle alarms and surmises which were so unsparingly'spread around this case. ' He said, that, to a person of, so little experience in his profession, and so unac customed to lead a cause, the jury must be struck with the difficulty, nay, the impossibility, of his replying in detail to all the weight of evidence adduced throughout three days on the part of the defendants : So-strange and conjectural a body of evidence had never been before adduced upon any trial. —He had, hoWever, endavoured to unmask its character, and perform his duty to his client ht. the best of his power. He trusted that he should have th benefit of their atten tion, and that they would attach to his observations whatever weight they were fairly entitled to among calm and dispassionate men. He left the case of his unfortunate client—for unfortu nate he was, whatever verdict, he could receive—to their judg ment with confidence, perfectly assured that the humble man's poverty, instead of being.a bar to his obtaining redress at their hands, would only the more strongly recommend him to their consideration, their humanity, and kindness. If they thought he had been wantonly and unjustifiably wounded, then they would give him that protection which the law equally extended to the poor as well as the rich ; and which would show to the country the desire they manifested by their firmness to uphold and preserve the liberties of their fellow-subjects. Dl r. Justice HOLROY D rose at 20 minutes before 4' o'clock to charge the Jury, and stated that the time had then arrived, when it became his duty to direct their attention to the mass of evidence which had been given in this case, and to the law as applicable to its several parts. This was an action brought by the plaintiff Redford, against four persons, one of whom, Birley, was Captain of a Troop of the Manchester Yeomanry; another was an officer of a different troop of the same corps ; a third was a private named Oliver, and the fourth was Meagher, a trumpeter; and the action was brought by the plaintiff to re cover compensation for an injury which Redford alleged he had. sustained by an assault of the said defendants on the 16th of August, 1819, at Manchester. The Jury had heard that the defendants were Yeomanry, and the law made this dis tinction in cases like this—that if they (the Yeomanry) went among the people on that day, by command of the civil magi stracy, and to execute 'a lawful purpose—and that one of them, while so engaged, committed an unlawful act, then the others being lawfully employed, and not participating in the unlawful act of one of their party, were not answerable for his conduct. If others went in a body to do, not a lawful, but an unlawful, act, the: all were by the law held responsible,—their original intent being alike illegal. But even in the latter case, if one of the party separate from the rest, and does an act not in pursuance of the common design, then they who were so separated from him are not involved in his particular guilt. If the military were called in. for a lawful purpose, they were bound to execute the commands of the civil magi strate, and only those who shall act unlawfully in obeying those commands can be held, responsible ; for the law said ? a man might act unlawfully in executing a legal purpose, for instance in the forcible removal of a public nuisance. The Learned Judge here recited the pleadings . (which we published ,in the first day's proceedin g s of th e t ria l) in det a il, a nd commented upon their technical import. In the defence upon some of these pleas, it was contended that the meeting of the 16th of Aug. 1819, was, if not actually riotous according to law, at least what was denominated a riotous meeting, and one which might become riotous if permitted to carry its object into effect; and that they (the Yeomanry) were called in to disperse such meeting by the order of the Magistracy. There were other parts of the pleas which led to a great deal of evidence —namely, that there existed a previous seditious conspiracy to excite discontent in the minds of the King's subjects, and that divers persons were at that meeting engaged in the designs of the conspirators. Now upon the subject of the drilling it was right he should tell the Jury. that whether drilling , was clandestine or not, if it was intended by those who were so drilling for the purpose of overturning or overawing the civil government, then it was unlawful. A great deal of evalencelad been adduced for the purpose of showing that the Magistrates' warrant could not be executed without the aid of the military. As to what constitutes, in the eye of the law, an illegal assem bly, he could not explain the point more clearly than it was laid down by his Learned coadjutor (Mr. Justice Bayley) at a former trial in York. In the first place, a riot consisted of three or more persons unlawfully meeting together, with or without cause of quarrel, so as to endanger the King's peace. A riotous assembly was where the parties met for a common purpose, in tending to do something in a riotous manner, but yet not re maining long enough to accomplish it. An unlawful assem bly was any meeting convened under such circumstances as the law could not with safety to the public allow : he would state to the Jury some of the circumstances which brought a meeting within the scope of the law, and constituted an unlaw lawful assembly ; and here, again, he begged to be understood as speaking in the language of his excellent coadjutor, who had favoured him with some notes of his ch a rge on the trial at York. Actording to the opinion of that Learned Judge, an opinion since confirmed by all the Judges of the Court o King's Bench and adopted by that Court, any meeting .was unlawful which assembled to sow sedition and bring into hatred and contempt the Constitution of the country. All meetings assembled to promote any object which was calculated to pro duce such an effect were illegal. Then to ascertain how far this metting of the 16th Aug. came within any of these descriptions, they must look at the mode and manner of its assembling—what were all the circumstances preceding and attending its organiza tion—who were the leaders who brought the divisions to the meet ing —what were the banners, and how the bearers of them con ducted themselves on that occasion—who had been drilled, and what was the apparent object of that drilling ? The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had truly said that drilling might be innocent; but was it so here ? Drilling was a part of military discipline, and regulated under the prerogative of the King—a prerogative, it was true, regulated in mo dern times under the control of Parliament. Formerly the King's military tenants, uncontrolled by the authority of Parliament, and holding their estates in fee, were bound by their tenure to give the King their military services when required ; and they were even bound, in many in stances, to assist the civil power of the country in the per formance of its civil duties ' • and he found to his surprise, when he had occasion in the former case of Sir Francis Bur. dett, in which he was Counsel, to refer to ancient records upon the species of service required by the military tenures, that in several statutes of the Henrys and Edwards, officers were ap pointed expressly to go about the country, and see that the mi litary tenants of the Crown had their armour, arms, horses, &c. ready and in fit condition • and for what purpose ?—to assist the sheriff, who was the King's civil officer, to raise the posse comitatns. He stated this to show how early the military au thorities had been called in aid of the civil, for the purpose of executing the law. Indeed he hardly knew how the posss cornitatus could be now called out ; he knew not how the sheriff was to raise them. But it was not so at the former period to which he alluded, when there' were military persons expressly enjoined to assist in calling them out. Referring back to the question of drilling, he must say, that if the object of it were so to arrange the parties at the meeting as to secure, by a confidence in their own numbers, an attention to the speeches to be then made, and having the ultimate object of attaining the complete purpose they had. in view by a demon stration of their strength, then such a meeting so *ot toge ther was clearly illegal. If from the general appearance and all the accompanying circumstances of that meeting, it excited reasonable grounds of alarm and apprehension, then it was generally criminal and unlawful, and all persons at tending it in such a manner as to evince a determination to co-operate in the attainment of its object were equally criminal. The appearance of the meeting and the intentions lof the parties could only be collected from evidence. If these were of such a nature as, when taken together, to ex cite alarm, then it was for the Jury to say whether it did not become the bounden duty of those who were sworn to keep the peace to take such steps as were calculated to avert 'from the peaceable inhabitants the apprehended mischief. It might be, that had they refrained from doing so, they would have incur red, as Kennett, Lord Mayor of London had, in the year 1780, a criminal prosecution. At that period Lord George Gordon, the brother or son of the th en D u k e o f G or d on , had collected together an immense body of people, ostensibly for a law ful purpose : It was to petition Parliament not to repeal certain acts, on the score of religion, in favour of the Cathy lies. After accompanying Lord Geo. Gordon with that petition to Westminster, they committed several acts of violence, burned houses, broke open and fired one of the prisons, and did immense injury for three days to public and private property, until at i length the milit a ry were o r d ere d nto the' city, where they acted, and by doing military execution 'upon the rioters, at length suppressed the tumults. A prompt and timely in terposition of the civil power might have prevented these consequences ; and for not acting with firmness and due pre caution the Lord Mayor was fined one thousand pounds. Now Lord George Gordon's first meeting in St. George's fields was for a purpose ostensibly legal, but in its con duct it had subsequently incurred the penalties of the law. The Spa-fields meeting was also convened • for a - legal purpose, and yet they saw how a party of those who were concerned in it broke out from the spot, and carried riot and tumult into the city. With reference to the character of the Manchester Meet ing, and whether, like the others, its circumstances rendered it clearly illegal, or whether it was an exception to them, and. only meant for the lawful exercise of the right of petition, the' Jury must determine for themselves by an attentive considera tion of the voluminous evidence before them in this case; and which, if they pleased, he should read over to them in detail ; or, if they preferred, he would confine himself to an abstract of principal bearings. Two or three of the Jurors here rose, arid stated to his 'Lord ship, that the outline would be quite sufficient. • The Learned JUDGE then enumerated the different heads of the evidence. • • At six o'clock the Jury retired for about sir minutes, and then returned with a verdict for the Defendants. MURDER.—Tuesday evening ad Inquest was held at the Buffalo's Head, New-road, before THOMAS STIRLING, Esq., Coroner, on the body of a female child unknown, who was found murdered on Sunday morning last in the Regent's Park. It appeared from the evidence of Edward Smith and David Walker, labouring boys; that on Sunday morning last, about six o'clock, they went out together bird-nesting, in the Regent's Park, and on their arrival near Primrose-Hill, they saw the body of the deceased lying under a hedge, upon its side, and its head appeared as if it had been dreadfully beaten. At about 200 yards distant from the spot they saw a Lady and Gentleman, fashionably attired, walking together, and it struck them that they had left the child under the hedge, and they ran towards them and informed them that they had seen the child. The Lady and Gentleman proceeded to the , spot, and requested them to have nothing to do with the body, or else they would get themselves into trouble, but said they might cover it with some grass, which they did. The Lady ap peared to be very much affected, and continued crying the ' whole of the time. Witn esses afterwards laid information of the circumstance to the Parish Officers, and had the body con veyed to the Workhouse. The Jury were of opinion that the Lady and Gentleman to whom the boys spoke were concerned in the affair ; and after sitting for a length of time, they re turned a verdict of " Wilful Murder, against some person or persons at present unknown." zoo, for, tie; talc ag a he