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

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
jury to believe 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