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

TENTH DAY.

The Court met this morning at nine o'clock, and the
names of the Jury having been called over, his Lordship
proceeded to detail the evidence to them. He bad stop-
ped on Saturday with the evidence of Shawcross, which
lie now continued and went on to that of• the last wluu•s,
for the prosecution. The principal observation that arose
out of this was grounded on the resolutions which were
proposed and adopted at the Smithfield meeting in July
last; ttlsiclt, according to Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. How pi °-
cloyed from his pocket on that occa•unt. His Lordship
would read them to the Jory, in ostler that they might
judge of the feeling and temper of the individual by %lions
they were proposed. He world make no co 1111 l lent on
them, for the Jury would see how tar they Here calcu-
lated to excite discontent in the innids of those to %hoin
they were addressed. His Lordship now came to the
evidence for the defence. On the part of Nlooritouse and
Jones it had been stated, that their attendance at tile
meeting so near the hustings was merely accidental ; and
it was observed, that it the object of the 'fleeting was legal,
and its conduct peaceable, numbers would not make it
illegal. lit this lie concurred. Numbers did not make a
meeting illegal, unless they were such as to excite a terror
in the minds of 0; hers, or to be a probable cause of !et ror.
Healy. in his defence, expressed a hope that his ease
would be judged %%Mma any party feelings. His Lord-
ship hoped so too. lie trusted the Jury would dismiss
from their minds every feeling which was not excited by
the evidence before them. He would do his duty faithfully
to isle croon and the in ogle on the one hand ; and it lie
did not do it to the defendant. on the other, there was
One ;Move him, under whose e• e he was acting, and to
%hum lie was I esponsible. He sinew ely lhoped vud trusted
111:11 that Ittillg Would guide hint in the observatissie, when is
he had to make, awl the Jury in weighing welt %hat lie
should submit to then,. (This Wiser% was iielivh.ll'll
jo so uoirrebsiVe a 01401101 as to :Affect :wit r.. 1 pessows
iu
Colott eseii to teats.] It was true, as hail set
0110 or Ilse detewlants, that %torte their was no law, these
would be uu transgsesslOn t rind if the .Itet) lostuttl that, at
the 1111:e 1.1 this turelisog, there was 110 law ag.slll,l it, ths•~
I gist, list tleiendatits the benefit of ii. Lei tautly the
carry tog ofstieks or bananas in the procession weer. not in
themselves illegal, and could not be so, miless carried as

JO

borne with a bad intention. Io the address of Mr. Hula,
it was observed by him, that his intentions on this occasion
were innocent, and that the *hole of his observations were
addressed for the preservation of the peace, and that the
object of their meeting was !aerial—circumstances which
would be wholly for the consideration of the Jury. He
would now proceed to the very voluminous evidence
offered fur the defendants ; but, as he said to the Jury on
Saturday, he would put it to the parties whether it was
necessary to go through the evidence of each witness. He
did not think that the Jury would find it necessary i and
the less so, as it was probable that, by-and-by, they would
be of opinion that the facts to which these witnesses were
called were satisfactorily established.
Mr. Hunt.—My Lord, we leave it entirely to your Lord-
ship's discretion.
Mr. Justice Bayley.—l only wish that every thing
should be fairly done, and so considered.
Mr. Hunt.--If your Lordship should happen to leave
out any particular point of evidence, will you allow us to
call it to your Lordship's recollection?
Mr. Justice Bayley.—" I will not only allow it, bat 1
desire it may be done; and I hope those concerned for
the crown will also do the same, if I should omit any
point of evidence making for the case."—His Lordship
then went on to recapitulate the leading points of the de-
fence, as it bore on the defendants generally. As to
Sallee, the Crown had very properly given up the case
against hint. To him it appeared, if the evidence of the
several witnesses were to be examined, the conduct of the
meeting was peaceable ; and if those who attended it
were innocent in their intentions in going to the meeting,
they committed no offence in so doing. It appeared from,
a number of witnesses (whom his Lordship enumerated)
that the people went peaceably along—that there were
women and children up with them—end it would be forthe
jury to consider how far their intentions most have been
peaceable when many of them thus brought their wives
and children with them. As to their having cheered on
the field, or at the appearance of soldiers, they had a
perfect right to do so : and unless the cheers were those
of defiance, they were quite innocent. Several of the
witnesses (for the defence), indeed all of them who spoke
of those cheers, louked upon them not as cheers of delis
ance, but as proceeding front a cuusciousuess of inno-
cence. Many of the persona, even the women, when
they saw the soldiers, looked upon their approarh as in no
manner hostile to their meeting. When his Lordship, in
summoning np the evidence of Mr. Tyas, Caine to that
part which mentioned the hissing opposite the police
office,
Mr. Mint requested that his Lordship would recollect
that neither he nor Johnson had given any directions or
encouragement to the people to hiss.
His lordship soil that he was about to state that fact to
the jury.
Having gone through the evidence of several other
witnesses, his lordship agent called the attention of the
jury to the peaceable conduct of the meeting on the Ititle,
and the fact that no person had been called to prove that
any act of violence had been committed before the ca-
valry came. There welt now two questions which lie
should put for the consideration of toe jury. The first
WAS, whether the meeting was illegal in its nature, or in
its manner; and the second, how any, and which of the
defendants, were criminal in pilling it. If the meeting
were perfectly legal, some of ilatee who were present
might have acted illegally, if it was their intention to give
the meeting a wrong direction. If any of time defendants
should, in the opinion of the jury, have so acted; then
they would be guilty at the crime of having met for an
illegal purpose, though the great bulk of the meeting
might have been perfectly innocent in their intentions.
If the object of meeting was to discuss or petition for
reform in a peaceable manner, that would be strictly a
legal meeting, unless there appeared something in the
manner of assembling to create terror in the minds of
the people of !Manchester. It such terror were excited
so as to produce alarm to the town of Manchester, then
the meeting would be illegal, and all those who concurred
in it would be gniliy of an illegal act. If the jury believed
that the alarm excited was not produced by a fear of e-
sent, but of a future danger, if the meeting had continued
together, they would give a special verdict to that effect.
They would recollect that there was no interruption of
!nosiness on that day, and this would materially influence
them in the judgment they should totem, whether imme-
diate or remote danger was to be feared. On the me tof
the Crown it was suggested—and it might possibly have
been so—that an immediate disturf Janet. Was not the ob-
ject of the parties accused, but that they looked to tee
future [towel nt. sonic mischief. It avoid be for the Jet y
to inquire how far this aus prom ed by the et idence. The
next question was, wheilii t the meeting was unlawful as
to the intentions of any, and which of the defendants. la
looking at the case in this view, it was necessary to exit
mine time actions of the several pal ties. The meeting eua
admitted oit all hands to have been very large, and nee 1 r
the charges against the defendants was, that they lied at-
tempted to excite, in the minds of douse pm esent, Les:tire-
(ion and discontent, amid to produce a hatted and contempt
for the Government of the country, as by law established.
Let the Jury look at the tact. It was said that this meet-
iugs was called by item housekeeper. However, no one c f
those persons had been celled to prove ilia tact ; and as
to the moniker in which it really was called, or by whom
the notice was given, the Court and the Jnmy were left in
the 'talk. Mr. Hunt, it depraved, had recently beim e
this been at a meeting in Smitlitieid, where eertaie rest,.
lotions had been agreed to. From thence, or at least soon
after, he was found in the neiobourhood of Ilaticilesteis
He was there before the time at which the meeting of the
eth was to have taken place. Noe, if eh !IA
intended to propose resolutiens at the meeting of the 161 h,
Illlnilar to these which lie had proposed at the Smithfield
meeting, it would be for 1114 .14,1 y to say how far they
%%mild he likely to excite discontent and disaffection en
the minds of illt.Se whi) weer' He would leave
this part of the question entisely to them, with only this
(Iloil•lAation—lisat if elm. Hunt had such object, and that
the ITS41:11!lolls a ere calculated to excite discontent, then
qoutul Mr. limit, the meeting would be illegal, and if Le
coisminnicated such intentions to any °Mei*, and C.i.t
they approved of them, then there a °Mil be a t ~wavy ;
and it any thlee or thou went to Ile. uleettn %inn ankh
Mimi!, the meeting wonlii, 31 fem as 4.11.) e
gal;be id. for the law said,'' thi CC Ur inure persons."
The Cl/111 I :41111 tile Jury went, nut only MI a hilt was
proved, Ina What ttiti;lit he ',loved, and no evidence had
been mitred fib.' 41 was thteitiled to Sonoma may 0 ..et
esoluttuns to the twill. With iesnerts to the mlaes a
(For coman,;aiiore 64• C Page 110.)