The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-06 00:00:00

ground, in the face of that Court and in an
unfair the Countr,
that the prosecution was carried on in an manner. It
had been shown that the prisoner was a man of an excellent
character ; that he was a peaceable man ; that had been shown
already by the Attorney- General's own witnesses ; but he (Ser-
geant Goulburn) would show it still more by a witness that he
would call, and such a witness that they would not object to.-
It was true that he was a man of extreme polities, and of poli-
ties. that he (Sergeant Goulburn) did not approve of ; but
,the last witness was going to tell the Jury all this,
when the Attorney General put him down. Who
could ever have thought this of . a Government func-
tionary, coming down to prosecute a poor working man—
with all the wealth and influence of the Treasury at his com-
mand, that he would close the mouth of a witness in his favour.
But if any one wanted to know the reason he (Sergeant G. )
could tell them it was because the prisoner was a poor working
man. If you would be on good terms with a Whig Govern-
ment you must never find any faults you must approve of all
their acts. We all know what they are in office, and what
they are when out of office. Had they been out of office they
would have said the language of this placard was the voice of
the nation; and, to talk of prosecution—they would have
laughed at it, and called it the whisper of a faction. If the At-
torney-General, as plain John Campbell, were out of office, they
would find him in the middle of the crowd, tossing up his cap
in the air, and telling them that the people had a right to meet.
He (Sergeant G.) would give them chapter and verse for this,
and when told by the Magistrates that he was placing the
peace of the town in danger he would smile and say, do not tell
me about breaches of the peace, or torches, which are no more
than farthing candles. It appeared to him (Sergeant G.) to
be very hard that men, who all their lives had preached up and
supported sedition, should now call on a jury to send one of
their poor brethren to prison for doing the very acts that they had
themselves indulged in. The Attorney- General had given them
a history of the riots, which had nothing to do with his client,
for he was not near the spot, and if they had put the Mayor into
the witness box, he e ould have told them that there was not a
more peaceable man in the town. The Mayor had himself ac-
tually called on the man and requested him to address the mob ;
and they would learn, that to this interference might be
attributed the preservation of the peace of the' town.
But they dared not to put the Mayor into the box. Why was
the riot introduced into this indictment, but to influence the
prejudices of the Jury ? His client was not in the riot ; he was
accused of publishing a seditious libel. He was opposed de-
cidedly to the riot, and that was well known to the Mayor. The
Attorney-General in addressing them, had said, in a very so-
lemn tone of voice, that the prisoners had perhaps more to an-
swer for than those who had committed the riot. The Whigs
merely wanted as much agitation as would keep them in office.
Why had not the Learned Attorney. General flown at higher
game, if he wanted a prosecution and conviction for se-
dition. Where was Mr. Attwood, and Mr. Muntz, and Mr.
Scholefield who hail uttered again and again more violent things,
than ever Collinsirad uttered.—(Laughter.) They had done
so repeatedly, and in the face of day, but many of them were
men of influence, and some of them had that valuable commo-
dity, a vote in Parliament—( A laugh)—and were of great
influence and station. It would be very awkward to prosecute
where two votes in Parliament were concerned in a majority
of two, as some times happened. Attwood and Schofield would
just do.--(Much laughter.) Prosecute them ! Aye, that
would be a troublesome proceeding, and Sir John Campbell
would soon be down to plain John Campbell.--( Roars of
cang dhter.) Why had not these cases been met fairness and
lour r
?) Why had the Attorney-General condescended to
pick and choose, and take the humblest offenders when others,
a hundred miles beyond them in violence, had been passed over.? He could not endure to think of the opposite conduct of the
Whigs when out of office and in office. The 'uestion his Lordship would put to the Jury would be, was the document
that had been read a seditious libel, and if they found and knew
in their consciences that others had uttered and published
things' of much greater violence, persons in high stations,
and filling the Magisterial office, could they for very shame
sake, could they from very conscience sake, hnd the defendant
guilty, who had merely, at a very humble distance, uttered the
truths that had been passed over, aye, and lauded in the mouths
of higher and more responsible persons? The present was a most
extraordinary trial ; it had been conducted with all the—
" Pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war."
But it might be that the Attorney-General was not speaking
in his own person but in that of some one else, because he had
known an instance which had occurred a great while ago in a
certain prosecution in a Court of justice for libel,that a man was
indicted, who was a great friend of the then Attorney-General,
who was in fact one of his most most intimate friends. The
poor man found himself indicted one day, the draper and friend
of the Attorney-General found himself suddenly at the bar, and
he was a good deal astonished to find that his chosen and par-
ticular friend was about to be the prosecutor. He wrote the
Attorney-General a letter, and a reply was sent which was so
curious that he had procured a copy. It stated that the draper
and some others in the town had been under a slight mistake
in supposing that the Government had had any thing to do with
the prosecution, which in truth was not a Government one at all.
That he had been one day merely as a private barrister sitting
in the Court, when he had received a brief to apply to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a criminal information against the
party, that he hail been obliged to snake the application in the
discharge of his duty as any other gentleman of the bar would
have these, but that in addressing the Court he had spoken, not
in his own person, but according to the- instructions he had re-
ceived.— (Laughter.) He hoped his Learned Friend was not
speaking in-his own person that-diy—pOssilily he might, but if
not he was merely following the precedent set on a former oc-
casion. As the circumstance was matter of history he really
thought the Attorney-General should state in hat capacity he
was speaking. Why, if he was not mistaken, the Attorney-
General had himself addressed crowded constituencies, and he
did not quarrel with him for that, and had urged them very
feelingly to combine for the obtaining of their rights. He
might therefore possibly be now speaking from his instructions.
There was ene part of the case which had been ingeniously
shut out, and which must have great weight with the Jury.
It was the most unfair and unjustifiable way in which
his client had been dealt with. They had gone before
the Grand Jury with one case, and they had tried another.
One class of cases had been selected in the first instance to pro-
duce its proper impression, and they must have observed the
stage effect with which the verdict of the jury had been intro-
duced in the course .of his opening speech by the Attorney-
General. They could not forget that piece of acting. He was
about to show them an act which he had good grounds for say-
ing was without precedent in a Court of Justice. Here was a
poor man of the working class, one of the most respectable of
that class which the Attorney-General, when the occasion
served and suited him, was in the habit of commending.
He was a man who worked for his bread, but who chose to
cultivate his mind and to discuss all the public questions freely
and fairly. He was without wealth or means, and he was
brought before the Magistrates and put upon his trial by the
following means. The Magistrates get the Learned Recorder
of Birmingham, a gentleman of twenty years' standing at the
bar, to come upon the bench for the special purpose of
cross-examining, when he was without counsel, attorney,
or a creature to advise him. That Learned Recorder
bad thought it becoming to put a quantity of questions
to him framed wills ingenuity, and drawn up in such
a way as to entrap the most crafty mars alive. Not
a single witness was called; but upon that eresss-examination
was that poor man committed to gaol, and for eleven days sub-
jected to the greatest severity of treatmept. He was about to
say that it was a case without precedent,;mt he recollected what
he had heard from his Noble and Leatied Friend Lord Den-
man, and of course it was a Whig pr ecedent--( A laugh. )—it was
that of Michael Angelo Taylor, Who was presiding at the Quar-
ter Sessions at Newcastle, I..nd he was putting questions to a
prisoner which induced ("Ounsel to interfere, and say that was
not the usual course of proceeding. The reply of Michael
Angelo
" Hold oury tongue. May I not try my
own prisoner
own way ?" That he believed was the pre-
cedent on which Mr. Hill had acted when he cross-ex-
amined Collins, and he believed a more unfair or unjustifiable
PrePseclent was never acted upon in a Court of Justice. He
-would say it was French, and not the good old English custom
which required a man to be proved guilty in the face of a Jury
of his country. He confessed he was astonished at his Learned
Friend the Recorder of Birmingham, who, like Nell,
the cobler's wife, was no sooner in the golden bed,
than he cried out, " Bring in the prisoners, that I may
cross-examine and convict them." Why had not the
whole of Mr. Collins's cross-examination been read over ?
Because even in it there was something favourable to the de-
fendant, which it was endeavoured to keep out of sight. The
Learned Sergeant here read several extracts from the answers
of the defendant, as taken down before the Magistrates, and
dwelt particularly on the one in which Collins denounced the
meetings in the Bull-ring, and never having taken part in them.
He would now say a few words on the alleged libel, which was
said to have had a tendency to incite the people to a breach of
the laws, if not resistance to them. Although the institution
of the Metropolitan Police was a most excellent measure, it did
not follow that it was wise or prudent to bring them down to a
crowdedtownwhichwas then in a state of great political excitement
and ferment, to introduce without any previous notice, persons
who were said to be foreigners, and to let them loose and to
lay about them, or, as Dr. Booth said, to permit them to in-
dulge in manual acts toward the people with a great
deal of reciprocation.—(Laughter.) Dr. Booth had merely
said " Disperse," and then, having raised his arm, the
police rushed in and attacked the mob. He contended that
such conduct was quite enough to raise the feelings of any
man like his client. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded at
some length to comment upon the several resolutions that had
been read to the Jury, and contended that there was nothing
in them beyond a fair expression of opinion upon the conduct
have
the police. He was aware that his Learned Friend would ha
R N EY-G"TElRycoAaineuLstidadabeWienlilisislne
and better times, but he relied upon the uprightness and
the advantage of a reply, which he would not have had in otb
Intel-
ligence of an English Jury to protect his client from. the unfair
and improper proceedings that had been adopted against him.
The following witnesses were then examined.
Mr. Scholefield, Mayor of Birmingham, examined by Mr.
Sergeant GOULBURN.—I knew the defendant for the first time
about three months ago. So far as I knew him his character
has been that of a quiet and peaceable man. lam not aware
of requesting him to address a meeting, but I recollect re-
questing him to use his influence to keep the people peaceable.
That was about the middle of May. I believe he did so on that
occasion. I applied for the use of the Town-hall to enable the
tpartiesiona p belongingointsto
wthoiethh et
hCeoyn
referred,
pt oprdoivsciduesds
tthheeysedicdonsostiitnu.;
proper and peaceable manner. I addressed a letter to the
Commissioners, but got no answer. 1 was not present 'when
by Mr. Clarke, the Magistrate.
Collins was committed. The document handed mviei:lne'ssisgnealnly
queTsh:onAs.TTO
Joseph G illett—l know the defendant.
Perlie.binasakwero.rkedHewhithas
me more than six years.i
'His chaia:cter has
Ithdeon
peace. t think him a
personbe beenTenh ei anAatTar every
10l journeymanßlit.;kreeEsl respect
Edal sl:tlunrAbLthsearo"lie,
tilainst depositions were
defendant that anything he
taken down, it was stated to
said would be used in eviden-ce
Sergeant GOULBUItIi "said if that was so it ought to be proved,
".auch if suehwas the case. r
but he doubted ve
John Joseph Jaera g
ex-
amined. I was present when Col ins was asthere before the examination commenced, and,
to the be-,t "
of my knowledge, he was not cautioned. I heard
c examined, and he was cautioned. Collins was present,
',at I don't think he was considered as being present, because
Lovett was called forward and examined separately. Lovett
was cautioned against saying anything that would criminate
himself. That caution was directed to Mr. Lovett solely. I
am satisfied that Mr. Collins was not cautioned.
Cross-examined by the ATTORN EY-GENERA L.-1 have not
my short-hand notes—l have destroyed them. I was in the
office before Mr. Collins was examined, and remained in it
during the examination.
hoped he should not be betrayed into any warmth unbecomingted by his
The ATTORNET=GENERA L then addressed the jury.
a Court of Justice. He thought the line mop
of his profession,
party. Lord Erskine, that great.. ornament
t Goulbuin—but he was
was as zealous and as ardent as Serjean
Learned Friend was one which would not be approved. ofyany
always gentlemanly and polished—he
attempted to draw him (the
Scur-
rility and Billingsgate. He had
reoa
of
politics,
why had be
Attorney-General) into the a
for several years a Member of the
disappointed. He had been
never dbeuseteihideedshtooulde
rhdetlhmedsebenienatttheresre very silent. -Why
Lord Jol n Russe:l,
cr even the humble in-
dividualnot there impeached Lor
The present wasthenroet—
h the first time
assailed, but certainly i
Illiandulstee of
foCnt broughtnlmons,febre"-ta
h high office whichn he more mea-
sured terms,
and the
of abuse, although in filled was fre-.
quently made the
more IP assured
the presentj occasion. He had
tiiathe had
denh
been
nfare
terms, than on
made the
topic of the first case brought bofore the Court, in the, -second, and
edtriaiiletl,nitcot, ask
the