The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-05-16 00:00:00

LA, INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, *crrNornsli,

MbMbar, MAY 15.

The LORD CHARCILLOR sunk the moth§ of office;
they were odmini•trred by Mr. Abbott, an officer
front the Crowu Office.

This beitig the lu.t 'lay of Term, the Cou►t wee
occupied with hearing motions moved oubirle of the
BA', of no iiitere,t'except to the psrtir► concerned.
Toe LORD CHANCELLOR will sit oil Thursday RA

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wertimorrot,

MON DAY, MAY U.

THE KING V. HUNT, BAN! FOND. HEALY, JOHNSON,

AND KNIGHT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the judgment
of the Court on the above Defendants.
Mr. Hunt wished in know, if the Attorney-Ge-
nerul meant to tile any affidavits in aggravation of
punishment. as he hail several affid.rvits which he
would nut give the Court the trouble of hearing
read, if the Attorney-General had none of that
de•c►iptinn to tile.
The COURT intimated, that the regular course
would be fur Mr. Hunt to put in all hie affidavits
first.

• Mr. Hoot then handed op several affidavits,
which were read in the followisig order, viz.
Henry Hunt's affidavit states the circumstances
attending hie going down to Manchester, and thence
to the period at which he was arrested by the military
on the hustings on the Ifith August ; after which
the rffitivit,states, ne was assaulted by the constables
*it!) tht ir staves, and the military cut at hint with their
pi/torch, and one iierson, a Major General on half-ply,
struck him behind his back, and that he had his hat
taken oil, for the purpose of affording a fairer op-
portunity to his assailants of striking him; and that
he had no intention of proposing any resolutions,
nor did he know of any person who intended to pro-
pose any ; and finally, that he had already been put
to considerable expense in law, expenses which hail
pressed very seriously on his properly. already much
depreciated by the pressure el the times.

Joseph Johnson's affidavit stated, tleit he attend-
ed with intention of promoting Parliamentary Re-
fa►m by legal means, and that he did not intend,
nor any person to his knowledge, to pas simil•er
resolutions to those psssed at the Smithfield meet-
ing, and that if such had been proposed he would
have opposed them.
Joseph Ilealv's affidavit prated, that he had no
previous knowledge of the flag or motto thereon,
which was carried by the company with whom lie
marched to the hustings. That he had on the 16th
of August been crushed and trampled on, and in
consequence had stilt blood ever since that he suf-
fered great hardships when put in confinement, and
has a wife and fire children dependant on him for
support, amid that by his absence in confinement,
at-
tending at his trial at Yo►k, and iii this Court, he
has lost nearly all his businesses ass apothecery,and
most have to begin the world again.
Other affidavits were put in of persons who had
signed the requisition for the meeting, stating that
they had lived at the places set against their name.'
at lilatichester, for periods of from 5 to 25 years,
and that some of them were weavers; could not, by
from 13 to 15 hours labour each (fly, earn at the
utmost more than 94. a week, and some not more
than 60. per week ; and that they thought Reform
in Parliament would lead to u redress of their
grievances.

N. %%lilt worth's affidavit states that he had seen
400 persons who had been wounded by sabre cuts,
gun-shot sousids, or limited by On trampling of
the cavalry.

Robert Hall and Joseph flayner, two members
of the Committee appointed in London to distri•
butt relief to the sufferers at Manchester; their affi-
davits state that they had seen 300 persons wounded
with *Are and gon-•hot wouods, many of whom
were women and children.

IVi Cordingley and Jan Lees, of Oldham.
Their affidavit contradicts the teroiniony of Stand.
ring given at the t,ial respecting Healy stopping
at his 'muse to drink.

The ailfi.lavila of Thomas Driver and John Lin-
ney. of llaneltr►trr—that they knew Chadwick (a
witness at the trial), and accompanied him on the
16th Augli,t„ and ih.st he shouted when the people
were opposite lthirroy'a house ; that lie had propos.
ed to them toipurrhase pikes for arming themselves;
and finally, that they would not believe him on his
oath.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAI, objected to the rend.
ing of this aihid a it, tending as it did to attack• the
character of a. witness ezniniiird at the trial.

Mr. Jvartcx BEwr --11 It goes not only to attack
the tentless's character, lint it goes to charge him
with an °treater nearly amounting to high treason.
Mr. flutit—.4 It guns so alleW, my Lord, that he
was the hero of los own story which he told at the
trial. It goes on to that."
Mr. SCARLETY contended that they bad had time
to send fur these witnesses from Manchester to
York in time to hare them examined at the trial,
as they actually did send for and examine one wit-
ness to contradict the testimony of

Mr. Hunt explained the reason they did not
call the witnesses at the trial was, that they could
not he found; hut the person who could invalidate
Willies' testimony they pricked upon immedi-
ately, and brought him up to York accordingly.
The Court consulted whether the affidavits of
Driver and Linney should be received, mid John.
son not wishing to press it, they were ultimately
rejected. Another affidavit of Matilda Jones was
also rejected on the same account.

Mr. Hunt said, liclure tittering any. thing in ex-
tenuation of punishment, he begged the Court
would separate and dismiss from their minds all the
evidence given, and applying to those counts on
which they were acquitted, and attend only to that
applying to the fourth count. This was the more
necessary, as he perceived that that testimony had
weighed on the mind of one of their Lordships.
Mr. Justice BUT said, the ill-treatment or
Murray, the constable, was certainly evidence tot
their consideration, as•that fact served to shew the
illegality of the meeting.
Mr. float adverted to his affidavit, in which he

lad sworn that his intentions were not to pnt siAsi.
tor resullgloll6 ai those pa►srd at Smithfield.
The Lord Chief Justice. ABBOTT said—" The
Court will :uttered to your affidavits."
Mr. Hunt proposed that the Court should bear
the Defend:tuts in the same order as at York.
The Court did not accede to the proposition.
hut decided the Defritelvtit% were to address the
Court a• tli!y stood in the indictment.

Mr. Haut then rose and said, that he had ex-
pected the Attorney General would have had many
affidavits to filr in aggravation of punishment; lie
thought lie ought to have had costly in justifica-
tion for calling up himself and his co-defendants
for their Lordships' judgment. Ii • must say, that
after the length of time occupied in this important
case, both at York and in that Court, and after a
decision of a Jury, in oppwation not only to the
feeling+ of the country, but to the Learned Judge
who tried the cause--.

Mr. Justice BATLEY —" I can't allow you to
state that, Mr. Hunt ; had 1 been of the Jury, I
should certainly have found a verdict of guilty as
against you and some of the other Defendants."
Mr. Hunt resumed. and sail, that he went to
atten,l a public meeting, to obtain that reform for
whirl, millions had petitioned, and he thought it
perfectly legal for Inne to do in. That ■s to the
flaw of whirl, so much had been said, the practice
of bearing, thew was as old as the country itself.
All clubs for convivial purposes—the freemasons
—nay the peerage itself, had their standard-bear-
er.; and lie would, therefore, submit, that the
files could not make the meeting illegal. He
quoted a speech of Lord Sidttiouth's in the House
of Lords, to shew, that his Lordship, speaking under
the advire of the Law Officers oft he Crown, thought
additional legislative measures were necessary, as
such meetings could not be prevented by ant• of the
laws ill force. Ile,therefore, submitted to the Court,
to consider what sort of crime lie was accused
of—a crime which my Lord Sidmoutle and the
Law Officers of the Crown doubted the existence
(deny law to punish; he begged the Court to con-
sider that with reference to the puoi-limeut to he
meted out to them. Mr. Hunt here quoted Mr.
Burke. who haul thought such meetings useful, and
haul called them the " Safety alve•s" of the Con.
stitution, but Mr. Holton and the Manchester Ma.
gu-1 rates wished to seal up hermetically these
"safety valves," even with the blood of the Re.
formers. He contended that these Reform Meet-
ings had been productive of much good, inasmuch
its they never heard now of any homing's of mills,
cur robbing of butcher► and bakers, or any other
species of violence ; they now approached the Prince
and Parliament with Petitions, and sought their ob-
jects by legal means alone. He adverted to the
effidavits of the requisitionists amid contended their
long res;dence at the same place was a proof of good
character ; for they would have soon been remov-
ed, had they ever rendered themselves obnoxious
to the law; " but such men (continued Mr. Hunt)
as Hulton, of Halton Hall, remain above the
reach---"

Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT" No man, how-
ever high in rank, is above the reach of the law of
England."

Mr. Hunt contended, that it was not necessary
to inflict any punishment on them by way of ex-
ample, if the Court should think any punishment
aas due to them. us the late Acts of Parliament
stow rendered it impossible for any person to com-
mit this ofFritte again. He went on to state. that
he had already suffered a grievous puttishrhent, not
only to the personal ill-treatment he had sustained,
lint be the iticap icily he felt of bringing to justice
the perpetrators of the acts of outrage which he had
enumerated in his affidavit. He asked the Court
whether it was no punishment to have witnessed all
- these outrages, and yet be unable, from the want
of pecuniary means, to bring the utletiders to
justice. It had been said the Courts were open to
the rich as well as tlik poor, and so it had been said
was the Crown and Anchor open to both; but he
apprehended that a poor man iu both places would
110011 be kicked out. Ile must ►ay, though he wus
dissatisfied with the Jury, yet the ten or eleven days
of the trial at fork was one of the finest specimens
of British jurisprudence that ever was exhibited.
Mr. Justice BAT LEY desired him to forbear eulo-
gizing him: he hoped he had dune his duty.
Mr. Hunt resumed, and complained that though
hr bad so much reason to be satisfied with the
Judge, the same was not the case of the Jury, nine
of whom were Magistrates, and they might have
found the Defendants guilty by way of
,saving their
brother Magistrates; but he trusted their Lord-
ships would not participate in such feelings.
Mr. Hunt now animadverted on the choice which
lie supposed had been made of the Learned COUI/.
Pt I who led the cause for tbe.prosecation—imagin-
ing as he (Mr. Hunt) had once or twice foiled him
at his own tactics, he was selected to bring, in addi-
tion to his great abilities, a little personal pique.
He then apologised for having taken up so much of
the time of the Court. and said, as the other De.
frodants were to speak for themselves (all were pre-
sent except Knight, wham the Court intimated
would not be brought up for judgment), he would
not intrude any longer on the time of the Court.
Johnson then addressed the Court from a written
paper, the principal scope of which was to shew
that from the previous meetings in Spafields.
Smithfield, and in the north, he was led to believe
they were not illegal, and that if he was doomed to
suffer for this act of his life yet it was one of which
he could never repent.
Healy addressed the Court also from a written
paper, and read it with apparent difficulty and em-
barrassment. He alleged the purity of his motives,
and his previous sufferings in confiuentent, and also
dwelt upon the contradiction of the witness Stand-
ring's evidence, es appeared from the affidavits
which he had put in, aud coirjored their Lordships
to act by hint as they would wish he should act by
them in similar circumstances.

Bamford then addressed the Court with a con.
eiderable degree of fluency, and contended for the
goodness of the motive by which be was actuated,
lie endeavoured to chew that the whole of the
mottos ou the flags were susceptible of an inno.
cent interpretation, and concluded with observing
that at any future period of his life, unless
jostle* were to be done .ass the perpetnitors of the
violemes at Manchester, he should abstain from
adapting patience to the opeople who might be
complaining of their grievances. He did not stand