The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-14 00:00:00

SE MAUI, ISLIAGTO.V.

According to ANCIENT USUAGE AND CUSTnM
Vestry Meting of this populous, extensive, and highly
respectable parish was field on Eisler Tuesday last,
for the E'ection of Churchwardens and other pro.
chial °Ulcers. Our readers will remember, that in ton-
sequence of their previous misconduct,-;tit opposition
to the re-election of the former chtirchwardensiLd taken
place on Easter Tuesday, 1821 ; that a ballot took
place, and that the wishes of the majority of the iiinahn.
ant householders were defeated by the snivel and iliegal
allowance of acplurality of votes, as pernirled by Siiir, es
Boorne's Act—front the effect of which Act the Parish
of St. Try, ldington, is exempted, in language as push
and unambiguous as can possibly be used—the 6riitle..
men whose views were thus improperly defeated, were
nevertheless anxious to oblivionize all rancorous remem-
brances and to restore neighbourly feeling lIIIOOJI the
parish, and therefore ins:ead of seeking to triumpn met
their opponents by another contest, leg: ry conducted,
they contented themselves with mining, on Tuesday last,
a resolution, declaratory of an incontrovertible fact. that
the Vestry of St. Mary, Islington, on Lamer Tuesday,
being held by ancient usage and custom, was removed
from every influence of Sturges Bourne's Act—this reso-
lution, in spite of its conciliatory nature, was resisted in
every possible manner—ill the first place the previous
question was moved—that being lust, a lung, *lmen
effectual opposition was made upoo every quibble e.hich
could be started ; the resolution was, howerer,,arried
a triumphant majority, and thus is the Parish indebted
to the gentlemen in question for rescuing it from a most
unjust and partial influence as well as for their atielopt
(which we ardently hope may succeed) to restore that
good fellowship, which could not possibly exist under
tile iattlignaut feelings produced by an attempt at 1:1qal
advantage and unjustifiable assumption.

Orders, we understand, have been issued to the
collector of the King's taxes to collect them with
rigour; but such is the poverty of numerous house-
holders from the depression of trade, that it they
are not allowed time, the distraining of their goods
must follow, which will throw them on their respec-
tive parishes, awl ultimately occasion an alarming
falling off in the taxes. It is recommended to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to call upon the differ-
ent tax gatherers for information on the subject,
and we are persuaded, that he will find our state-
ment perfectly correct.

PRICE 0/
Rank Stork 2flt
3 pet Cent. Keil. 771.
s• 3 per Cent. Cononls ttit
3j per Cent. 84
4 per lent. 05i
J per Cent. NaLvy 1021
I 'MI' A.lll* 20

STOCKS.
Omni 00000 0.
Imp. 3 per Cent.
1111114 Bonds 64
Stuck
Exchequer 111114 4;. prem,
Conn. tor Ac. 76i
L.,riery Ticket. .177 194.

11IE NATIONAL REGISTER.

ton Don :
SUNDAY. APRIL 14.
--,.--

The trial respecting the Manchester outrage has
terminated, and a Jury has declared that one of
the victims of " PRoMPriTUDe" on the memorable
pith of August, is not entitled to a compensation
for the violence done to him on that day. The
institution of Juries is of great antiquity, and is
regarded by all with deserved ven,..ation—but all
deci,ions of Juries are not of necessity correct—or,
why du we see from time to time verdicts reversed on
application to the Court,—we may, theref re, un-
der such existing implication of fallibity, be
allowed to doubt the correctness of the conclu-
sion, to which the Lancastrian Worthies have ar-
rived—and without meaning to impute any improper
motives to the Learned Judge—without supposing
that in his charge to the Jury, he had in view a
possibility that that charge might be read else%Aere
to his future advantage, we do not hnsitate to
declare our opinion, that it was erroneous in many
points—:n►d we think he himself will agree with
us, if he contrast kis observations on the legality of
the meeting, with those made by his senior brother,
Mr. Baron ‘Vood, (on a trial for riot), at the last
Surrey Assiaes.—" The mere assemblage of two or
three hundred persons," said that worthy Judge,
" would not constitute a riot, for if so, persons
assembled at a horse-race or a bull-bait, might be
liable to punishment as rioters. If an assemblage
of people, however numerous, conduct itself
peaceably and orderly, it is not a rims It must be
sliewn that the people assemble for the purpose of
breaking the King's peace► and that their conduct
was such as to endanger the public peace, and to
carry terror, dismay, and affrightment, into the
surrounding neighbourhood." Thus the law was
&fined as we have always read it, but certainly
differently from Mr. Justice Holroyd's definition—
we are all open to error, and in the present case
the Counsel for the plaintiff having tendered ex-
c:ptions, an argument may most likely take place
upon them.—We do not mean to harrow up the
feelings of our Readers, by an account of the
evidence given in support of the action—they
as of them remember that given on the Old-
ham Inquests, and it will suffice to say that it
rztuains not only uncontradicted but confirmed, and
in some instances added to, on the score of the
enormities committed on the field of Manchester
gory. The evidence for the dcffince may be gene-
rally dismissed, by observing that it was given by
those who were decidedly PARTICIPATORS in the
crimes of the day—but we shall stay to notice two
or three points :—in the first place, in the report
blore us (which is taken verbatim from the notes of

a reporter, whose correctness we have cause, from
experience, to rely upon) it is stated that NADIN, the
notarions constable of Manchester, swore that on
hi.; receiving the warrant to apprehend Hunt, &c.
he withdrew the whole of the special constables that
had till that time formed a line of communication
between the Hustings and Buxton's house, where
the magistrates were assembled, anti this he dis-
tinctly states he did before the Yeomanry moved
Enward, to enable them to reach the hustings.—
Now, Mr. Peter Statham (whose evidence follows
immediately that of Nadia) swears, " I saw the
Manchester Yeomanry come to the ground—the
special constables appeared to open right and left fur

the Yeomanry to go to the hustings. I was about

five yards from the special constables when the ca-
valry advanced." Surely, if we understand our own
language, one of these men was mistaken.-3)

much for

Mr. Hay, in speaking

of the evening of that dreadful day, says " four
women were represented at the time t• be dead,
but the communication was overstated to us—l saw
a woman, in the room where Hunt and Johnson
were, brought in—she looked very faint and sick,
but I never heard before to-day that she was
wounded."—He then replied, with a smile, to Mr.
Evans's question, " Did you look at her accurately ?"
" THERE WAS NO ORFAT TEMPTATION"—SO much
for decency and humanity on the part of one of the
Pastors of our Established Church. Whatever may
be the decision of a Lancashire Jury—history will
pronounce the true character of the proceedings of
that day, and the visitings of severe compunction in
this world, on the part of the actors in them will,
we hope,'have the effect of lessening the punishment
they may escape here, but cannot hereafter—
.* In the corrupted currents of this world
•• Ofrencesgildeti hand may shove by justice;
•• But 'tis not so above."

THE LIBERTY OF TILE PRESS.

As the persevering advocates of that Palladium
of Liberty, an unfettered Press, we have to apo-
logize to our Readers for having so long neglected
to notice a publication, which is calculated to do
great service to the cause it espouses--but the fact
is, that it came into our hands on the very day that
Parliament met, and we have since that time had
our columns fully occupied, besides which it is pro-
bable if we had noticed it, while the intense interest
of the Parliamentary proceedings engaged general
attention, our encomiums might have passed un-
heeded—our praises scarcely have been read. The
work to which we allude is from the pen of a Mt.
Thomas, (a professional Gentleman, already well-
known to the literary world, by several publications
at once able and utile). and is entitled " A Legal
and Constitutional- Argument, against the alleged
Judicial Right of Restraining the Publication of
Reports of Judicial Proceedings, as assumed in the
King v. Thistlewood and others, enforced against the
Proprietor of the 06,terver,• by a fine of £5OO. and
afterwards confirmed by the Court of King's Bench."
For the proprietor of the Observer, we felt neither
commisseration nor pity, because we believe his
disregard of the order of the Court did not arise
from an honourable feeling of independence, and a
determination to fight the battle of the Press in
general, but from a petty, selfish cupidity, which
anticipated considerable profit from forestalling his
brother proprietors, who might not chusc to set at
nought the declared wish -of the Judges: still we
feel that Mr. Thomas has an indisputable claim to
the gratitude of the public at large, and cf the
Proprietors-of Newspapers in particular for his pre-
sent interference in their behalf, and for the very
great industry he has exercised in his researches
after authorities, by which precedents are proved to
have been decidedly Qposed to this unconstitutional,
and unjustifiable assumption on the part of the
Bench. Peter I'indar, describes a certain deceased
philosopher, blown up with conceit un the score of
his own arguments, thus—.
grant that he's no intellectual lion
Subduing every thing he darts his eye on ;
Rather, 1 wecn, an intellectual 11,..a
Hopping on science's broad, bony back
Yoking his iltlt proboscis of ath.ck,
Drawing a drop of blood and tinging it a sea."
Now, though totally unknown to bun but by pis
works, we think that Mr. Thomas is the very oppo-
site of Peter a philosopher—his advertisement is
tuodesty itself, and in it he feelingly deprecates the
censure of his Readers, for faiths we cannot find—
for negligencies we have sought fin in vain. In
his PIICFACE (for we might be accused of pedantry,
if we followed the author in the use of the word
Paiiest—besides which, many of our r.:aders might
not so well understand a word derived from the
Greek), Mr. Thomas properly observes—
" The politics of the day are entirily unconnected with
the serious legal matter which I have undertaken to in-
vestigate. It is simply the question considered whether
or no an Englishman has a right, by the law and constitu-
tion of his country, to publish the proceedings of an Eng-
lish court of jastiee t If this be a question involving, or
even affecting a particular system of politics, then I must
confess that I have been egiegionsly mistaken iu my view
of the case. I defend the affirmstive of the proposition,
conceiving the right of publication essential to the pure
administration of the law hi our venerable courts of Jus-
tice, who, like Truth, her constant undeviating compa-
nion, needs neklier mask nor veil. Notssitlistaniling the
little differences and petty animosities occasionatty ex-
cited by particular measures, we should never sacrifice
our judgments to our feelings, nor our charity to our
indignation. We should bury all our private resentments
in the public benefit of our hallowed country. Cairo
investigation is astral, bat violent contention is always
dangerous.'•
The nature of the work, which consists of well-
selected authorities, precludes the, possibility of a
quotation—we therefore chi*: our notice of it with
a re-iteration of our thanks to the author, for a
laborious and essentially useful publication, in de-
fence of that right, which " Is like the air we
breathe, if we have it not, we die."