The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-11 00:00:00

were Mr. Hay, the vicar of Rochdale, who called the carrying
Of the banners an act of riot anti tumult. Numbers of them,
bowever, had proved.the state of terror and alarm into which
the meeting had thrown the inhabitants of Manchester. One
of them, a very well-dressed gentleman, of the name of
Read—indeed he had very seldom seen a better dressed witness
in a witness-box-edeposed strongly to the fear by which he
had himself been agitated; and yet, strange to say, it appeared
from his crose-examinatioe, that afraid as he had represented
himself to be, his fears were not strong enough to repress
his curiosity. This Mr. Read went into thee middle of the
crowd, and thence straight up to the hustings, without finding
any man linked, without hearing any insult, without receiving
any violenCe of treatment. He was better dressed than any
person in the crowd, and yet to him nobody made any remark
about the whiteness of his neckcloth—to -him -nobody made
any threat regarding the goodness of his coat—to him nobody'
said as they did to Joseph, ,‘ You're a great guts, and have
got more food in your belly than we have."—(Laughter.)--If
such were the case, and if the meeting was soyeaceably inclined;
what was it, he must again ask, that had given a character
of illegality to it ? He must again repeat, that he did not
know. He would, however, for the sake of argument; suppose
that it was the nature and the appearance of the banners that
had rendered the meeting illegal ; and even then, he said, that
it was only those who met, knowing the illegality of the meet-
ing, and with illegal intentions, that were guilty of any offence.
Mr. Read, whose curiosity was so much stronger than his fears,
had been guilty of no offence in attending it; and though
his Learned Friend had said that all the persons who were pre-
sent at a seditious and treasonable meeting were equally amen-
able to the laws, yet he must certainly have meant to except
his own witnesses at least from so sweeping a condemnation.
He (Mr. Blackburn) was certain that the Jury would hear the
Learned Judge lay down the law in conformity with the opi-
.nions which he had just been urging von their attention. He
was certain that they would hear the Learned Judge tell them
that an offence was not committed by those who attended an
illegal meeting from curiosity merely, but by those oily
who attended with guilty intentions. It a as a principle of- the
law of England, that no act rendered a man guilty unless.
it was accompanied by a criminal intention. There were, in-
deed, some acts, from the very nature of which the law inferred a
criminal intention—such for instance, was the cutting and strik-
ing with a sabre. But no such inference could be (hewn from
a man's attendance at a public meeting to effect a reform in
Parliament and a redress of grievances ; for it was a right of
which an Englishman had been immemorially possessed—it was
a right of which he could never be deprived ; and therefore, if
any man went to St. Peter's-field with the intention to exercise
that right, and with no other intention, he was legally there, and
if assaulted was illegally assaulted. If his client Redford had
come from Middleton quietly and peaceably with his townsmen
for the purpose mentioned in the requisition on which the meet-
ing had been called, even though lie came with a banner, on
which were. inscribed " Annual Parliaments and Universal
Suffrage," he was guilty of none of the things charged against
him in the different pleas, and no man had a right to sabre him.
He would even go farther, and say that no man had a right to
sabre his client, even though he were present with a banner with
criminal intentions, and for illegal purposes ; for if any perion
were justified in cutting him with a sword on the shoulder, he
would also be justified in case he had cut off his head. Before
he went farther, he wished to ask the jury what proof there was
of Redford's being involved in the conspiracy of which so much
mention was made in the different pleas ? Who was there to
prove his drilling ?—Two men from Stokehill, on whose evi-
dence he thought it quite unnecessary to make any comment.
His Learned friend, in opening the case, had said,' that lie
should prove, that at some times Redford' was drilled, and at
others, that he was himself a driller. Now, had . his Learned
Friend proved, or attempted to prove, any thing of the kind ?
But even it he had proved this fact, what did it matter ? Mr.
Justice Bayley, in his charge to the jury at York, on a trial
arising out of this very transaction, had used the following ex-
pressions respecting this very drilling :—" According to the
evidence 'for Bamford, the people and his party, so far from be-
ing tumultuous, were peaceable and joyful ; and the drilling,
as it was called, so far from being illegal and nocturnal, was
open and innocent, the only object being merely to enable the
people to attend the meeting as conveniently for each other and
the public as was possible."—Supported by such great and emi-
nent authority, he (Mr. Blackburn) would say, that if the
drilling were done openly, 'to enable the. 'parties to attend in a
more peaceable and orderly manner, it was undoubtedly legal.
Those who contended to the contrary must have forgotten that
such a thing as the petition and bill of rights were in existence.
By those charters we were enabled legally and constitutionally
to do two things which it was material not to forget in the con-
sideration of this cause. First, that we had a right at all times
to petition for a redress of grievances ; and, secondly, to carry
arms in our defence. The language of Blackstone on this sub-
ject was so explicit, and so apposite, that he would take the
liberty of reading" it to them :—, To preserve those rights from
violation, it is necessary
.that the constitution of Parliament be
supported in its full vigour, and limits certainly known be set
to the Royal prerogative ; and lastly, to vindicate these rights,
when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of En Nand
are entitled, in the first place, to regular administration an free
course of justice in the courts of law ; next to the right of peti-
tioning the King and Parliament for redress of grievances ; and
lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preserva-
tion and defence." Now if they had aright to use arms foeself-pre-
, servation and defence, he (Mr. B.) maintained that they had a
right to know how to defend themselves. But, fortunately, he
had not to defend his client from any such imputation : all that
his client had done had been to walk to a meeting for a redress
of grievances with a banner. He said that the drillings which
his Learned Friend had declared that he would prove to be clan--
destine drillings, had been proved to be no such thing ; and that
no illegality had taken place at any one of them, except so far
as was proved by the testimony of these three strange witnesses,
Murray, Shawcross, and Haywood. If they were clandestine, •
how was it that 800 only had drilled when the persons on the
ground amounted t 0.3,000 ? If 800 only were drilled, what
must the remainder have been ?—mere spectators. By what
instrument also were they drilled ?—by the sound of a bugle,
of all other instruments the most likely to excite and.attract at-
tention. Colonel Keymer had gone to the drilling, attracted
by the sound of it ; he saw there men of his own regiment
drilling. There was nothing clandestine in their conduct; for
they marched past him, and said—`• You see, Colonel, we can
march still : if we go on so, we shall soon be able to teach you
to march." The Colonel went publicly and openly, and was
not insulted ; but how was it that Murray and Shawcross had
gone ? They had gone sneaking up sad down and about the
field. He dared say that these people had heard that there
were spies abroad, anxious to pick up every thing that could
tell against them. Indeed, that circemstance had been proved,
by the fact of a person sent from Rochdale, who, for the tales
he had invented, had been made a police-officer. This fellow
had said, that one of the party, at these drillings had told him.
these most important facts—that they were about setting off
for London ; that they intended to seize the property of every
person of fortune by the way ; and that they intended by that
means to carry the great cause of reform. In his cross-exa-
mination he was asked--was this said by a driller ? and then,
and not till then, it came out, that it was said by a spectator,
with whom he happened to be conversing. That conversation
was, therefore, no evidence against any of the persons drilled
who attended the meeting at Manchester. To returw, however,
to what had been said by Shawcrosi and Murray : they had said
that they came from Middleton to the drill; this the drillers
knew to be a falsehood, and therefore they beat them, and not be-
cause they were, as they called themselves, " King's men." His
Learned Friend had called upon them in a very pathetic strain to
extend their pity to Murray and Shaweross ; he, too, called upon
them to give these individuals their pity, but not to bestow it
all upon them—to reserve a small portion of it, at leak, for the
unfortunate creatures who were sabred at Manchester. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to explain the circumstances
under which Haywood had been beaten, !and aid that it was
clear from that individual's cross-examination that he had
been beaten in a quarrel with a person on the drill-ground
for legging him. No man, therefore, could fairly convict the
meeting of illegality, on account of what had happened to
Murray, Shawcross, and Haywood; and unless the Jury
were prepared to say that they would convict individuals of
illeeal training on the evidence of three such persons as he
had mentioned, the Jury could not say that they found the issues
they were directed to try in favour of the defendants. He was.
however, prepared to maintain, that if they found all those issues
in favour of the defendants, the defendant Oliver had no right
to cut down his unfortunate client. For under what circum-
stances had his client been assaulted ? Had his client been
assaulted as he was making resistance ? No : lie Was cut at
and wounded as he was running from the spot. Now, he
said, that before the defendant Oliver had cut him, he
ought to have 'endeavoured to have taken him ; and that ha ,
was not authorized in striking him down until he had refused
to surrender ; and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict at all events. It was said, however; by his Learned
Friend, that the defendants had been called in by the Magis-
tracy to aid the civilwer. It was therefore worth while ex-
whining the purpose for which the Magistracy had asked the aid
of the military. The commands which the Magistracy had given
to the military were, to take certain persons on the hustings
into custody. Those commands were execnted. After the mili-
tary had executed that command, , they had done all that the
Magistrates required them to do, and ought to have return-
ed to ' the place from whence they started; instead of' that,
what did Mr. Tyas say ?—whom even his Learned Friend (Mr.
Serjeant If ulloek) was compelled to acknowledge was a credible
witness—what did Mr. Tyas say ? Why Mr. Tyas said that a
'Cry was raised, " Have at the flags," and that the flags after
cutting rightund left, were immediately taken. That this was
the case had 'been proved by two constables, who heid boasted,
of taking two flags in this struggle, and-also a cap of liberty,—

Here he would ask; whether the people had not a right to carry
caps of liberty ? His Learned 1 had stated, that what he
had called the cap of liberty in the Coronation procession was
in reality the cap of maintenance. He allowed, that it was
so ; but it was riot the cap of maintenance in a pecuniary
sense—ithwas neap of maintenwace, denoting that it was the
bounden duty of-the sovereign to maintain unimpaired the
rights and liberties of his subjects. Another signification
was now, however, to be given it ; and he supposed that
every man who henceforward dared to say one word in
• defence of that. ancient .emblem, which had so often been
carried before the Kings of England—which had so often
been impressed upon their coins, and which was so frequently
carved upon, their Courts of-Justice, was to be eonsidered as a
Jacobin or a traitor. There was also another cruel test to
which his witnesses were to. be subjected. If ever they had
spoken a word with Hunt, or exchanged a glance with Carlile—
it in any of the accidents of life they had been ever thrown to-
gether with those individuals—they were to be stigmatized in
Courts of Justice, as unworthy of credit, and in public meet-
ings were to 'be cut down and sabred by the military ! Such
some individuals might suppose to be the law in Lancashire;
but sure he was that such was not the law of England, and he
trusted that their verdict would set public doubt at rest upon
that subject. He had been led to these remarks, as he was go-
ing to comment upon the fact that the Magistrates had comeinto
C7e-urt to swear in justification of their own characters. That jus-
tification would have been better effected, if, when they found the
meeting illegal, they had prohibited it altogether. They did, how-
ever, no such thing. Under their own eyes various parties came'
with what they deemed illegal banners ; not one of' them said that
"such conduct was illegal; nor was one word to that effect uttered un-
til a mass of 80,000 0r100,060 persons, consisting of men, women,
and children, had stationed themselves on the field. If the
meeting; in their opinion; was of such a nature as to require
to be dispersed, at all events they ought never to have allowed
it to begin ; they had the whole military force in Manchester,
and it was not a small one, wherewith to disperse the se-
parate parties. They might have read the Riot Act, and
then ordered them to disperse. If they had refused to do so in
the legal time, they might have called upon the military to force
them. As to the reading of the Riot Act, as they had pretended
to read it, he had never heard of any thing in his life so dis-
graceful as that reading was to the party who performed it.
How had Mr. Ethelstone, the individual to whom he al-
ined, sworn that he had' read it ? He had said that he
read it from the windows of Mr. Buxton's house ? Did he
pretend to swear that he had read it any where else ? No.
And why had he not ? Because, forsooth, when he went
down stairs he did not find his servant waiting with a horse for
him to mount, and on which to read it ? To whom, too, had
he read it ? To nobody but the Rev. Mr. Hay, the vicar of
Rochdale, who, though labouring, as he pretended, under the
greatest alarm and anxiety, found time enough to say to his
Rev. Coadjutor, with a Calculating coolness that was almost in-
conceivable, "Ethelstone, I never heard you in such goodvoice
before;" and yet, though the tones of Mr. E.'s vpice were so
clear and sonorous, not one magistrate had come forward to say
that. he heard him reading the Riot Act, though it was a point
that all of them would have been willing enough to prove had
they been able to swear it. Did any body outside of the house
hear it read ? No : for even, according to Mr. Ethelstone's
own account, it was read at a time when the ringing of the horses
hoofs on the pavement, anti the clashing of the Yeornens' swords
with one another, rendered all other sounds quite inaudible.
Mr_ Stanley, who was in the window of the room above
that in which the magistrates were, did not hear a word
of the Riot Act read, though he was paying the most earnest
attention to every thing that passed ; neither did Mr. M‘Kin-
laya who was on the steps below them, and equally attentive
io all that was going forward. His Learned Friend, in open-
ing his case, had stated, that there were 50 yards between the
Magistrates' house and the crowd; and that the intervening
space was filled with special constables. How then could the
crowd know of the reading of the Riot Act ? The jury were then
left to infer that Mr. Silvester had quitted the house to read it,
and that he had been prevented by having been knocked down
and trampled upon. If such were the case, why had the de-
fendants not called Mr. Silvester, the best of all witnesses on
that head, to prove it ? Instead of that, they had called upon a
person who said that he saw Mr. Silvester take up a card, on
which the Riot Act was printed, leave the room, for a short
time, and then return with a dirty coat. If Mr. Silvester
could have proi'ed sa material a fact as his reading of the Riot
Act, he would have done it, for he was one of those who had
signed the warrant. It was well known that Mr. Silvester had
never read it ; but in order to leave the Jury to infer that he
had, an individual had sworn as he had before described. It
was now worth while to see how the Riot Act was to be read
according to the provisions of the statute. The Learned Coun-
sel here read the statute to the Jury, hut as the leading provi-
sions of it are well known, we refrain from presenting it to our
readers. 14e then contended that the reading of the Riot Act,
as Mr. Etheistone had done, was no justification of the killing,
maiming, and wounding, that afterwards ensued.—He then
reviewed the evidence, aad said that it was clear from it that
Birley, NVithington, Oliver, and Meagher, were all of them
upon the field, aiding and abetting each other in the attack
on the plaintiff. He next alluded to what had been said by
Mr. Sergeant Hullock in his opening speech—that all the
witnesses for the 'plain tiff largely entered into the feelings of
the prosecution, or had a latent interest in Parliamentary
Reform. Surely his Learned Friend could not have known
the description of the witnesses which he himself in.
tended to call, when he made such an attack. on the
witnesses on the other side; for the Jury, if they examined
the 51 witnesses for the defence, would find that there was not
one of them who had proved any essential point in their favour,
who was not either a Magistrate or special constable. Mr.Hulton
had confessed that he felt a considerable interest in the issue of
this case. He did not blame Mr. Hulton for feeling such in-
terest, but he said that on that account Mr. Hulton was not a
• more respectable witness than Mr. Stanley. Mr. Stanley had no
feeling save that of reprobation of the meeting, and therefore
came unprejudiced as to the side on which he gave his evidence.
Had the Jury forgotten what had been deposed by the other wit-
nesses whom he had called for the defence, or was the testimony
they had given entirely obliterated by the evidence which they
had given for the last three days consisting of information
about secret conspiracies ? When they recollected what his
witnesses had proved—and his Learned Friend had admitted
that Mr. Burgess was a very respectable witness—they would
see that a most unjustifiable attack had been made upon the
people. Did Mr. Burgess, who was himself one of the Yeo-
manry Cavalry, say that they were assailed by stones and sticks
in their advance to - the hustings ? No such thing. He said,
that after the Yeomanry had surrounded the hustings, then the
stones began flying around them in all directions. He (Mr.
Blackburn) admitted that this was the fact, and asserted that the
people, after the attack made upon them, had a right to turn
round and repel it. The meanest reptile, when trod upon, had
a right to resist ; and the poor creatures assembled on St. Peter's-
field. had a right to resist their assailants, and to use every
means in. their power to divert them from their purpose. Had
not the numerous witnesses whom he had called as good
means of information as those on the other side ? Mr. Stan-
ley was in the house with the. Magistrates ; Mr. 111‘Kinlay
was on the, steps of it ; Mr. Earnshaw and h! r. 'Wood
were in other houses within forty yards of the scene of action.
Mr. Hindmarsh and Mr. Preston were in the yard of the
Quakers' Meeting-house and overlooked the whole field.—
To lessen the importance of Mr. Shuttleworth's evidence, his
Learned Friend had stated that that Gentleman was a Mem-
ber of a Committee to relieve the sufferers on the 16th of
August, and was also a strong advocate for a. reform iii'
Parliament. Now he contended that a man might be what
Mr. Shuttleworth confessed himself to have been, and still
he without the slightest imputation on his moral charac-
ter. He (Mr. Blackburn) was himself a Parliamentary Re-
former, and he had yet to learn that he was upon that account
an incredible witness. Mr. Shuttleworth's evidence stood un-
impaired, as. did.alepaMa., Sauadersori's, notwithstanding the
rigorous cross-examihation to which- it had been subjected.—
Mr. Saunderson had said that he did not see any body cut;
but did it thence follow that nobody was injured ? If
the Jury were only to believe the witnesses for the defence,
no wounds were inflicted at the meeting, except one on a
yeoman, who was cut off from his corps, and on another who
was shot, but who fortunately revived again. Ilis Learned
Friend had talked much of the sticks which lied been used
by the people : those sticks were in the possession of the de-
fendants ; why had riot they produced them for the inspection
of the Jury ? But then it was said that the arms of the people
round the hustings were locked. He cared not the snap of his
finger whether they were or not. But what had Mr. Garnett
told them on that point ? He said that they were not locked,
and gave, as a proof of it, that he had himself wanted through .
the crowd to the hustings a very short time before the arrival of
Hunt. 'hr. Hutton however, said that they were lockedabnt
it was Mr. Hulton Hulton,
had given orders for the cavalry to ad-
vance. He would take that opportunity of saying, that Mr.
H ulton had given his evidence upon that point, and indeed upon
every other, with great fairness and candour.* How it was that
Mr. Hulton had been induced to ender the cavalry to advance he
could not tell; he might have been misled by the warmth of his
feelings; he might have been misled by the variousi informations,
he had received regarding drillings and secret conspiracies, and
he might, on that account, have supposed that the danger of the
Yeomanry was much greater than it actually was. Had there been
any person called to prove the dangerous situation the cavalry
except those who were bystanders in the crowd, and therefore
could not see their actual situation so well as those who were
elevated above it? Had not his beatieroil of witnesses (to use,
the term of his• Learned Friend)—had not Mr. Shuttleworth,
,Mr. Greg, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Tyas, and others, been carefully
watching the advance of the cavalry ? and had they not sworn
that they 'saw no resistance made to the Yeomanry until they
endeavoured to take the flags ? Ile (Mr. Blackburn) main.

tained that the Yeomanry had no right to seize a single flag.
They went into the meeting not to have at their flags," but
to take into custddy certain persons named in a warrant. But
he would say that the warrant, in the face of it, contained no
designation of the offeuce, and did not justify the ulterior
proceedings of those individuals..- The warrant was simply to
take up certain persons therein named, at a quarter past
one o'clock, and who were in the cart at.the hustings.
Mr. Justice II oratoYro said, that the wary.lnt could only
affect the parties concerned in executing it under the provisions
of the statute of George 11., which expresses that no action shall
be brought against a constable, or others acting in aid of a con-
stable, in execution of the warrant of a Magistrate or Magis-
trates, if the proceeding be illegal, unless the action be brought
within six months.

Mr. BLACKBURN said, that if he mistook the law, it could be
argued hereafter. He cared not whether the warrant was good
or bad, but he could never too strongly impress upon them that
the wound inflicted upon the individual in this case occurred
after the execution of that warrant—after the parties had been
arrested on the hustings. They had done all that was required
under the warrant; and having done so, the parties in
possession of that warrant had no longer any power to act,
and they were not justified in using the sabre, or even an in-
strument much less likely than a sabre to occasion death, hav-
ing performed the duty for which they were deputed to act. But
it was said resistance had been offered; where was the proof
of that resistance ? There were Messrs. Andrew, Moore, and
Nadir, they said that they went up behind the Manchester,
Yeothanry to execute the warrant—they saw no resistance offer-
ed, except the statement of Nadin, that a man's arm had been
hurt by a blow of a stone. These people, therefore, furnished
negative evidence of a most important kind to establish the
main fact, that no resistance was offered before the cavalry
reached the hustings. After that, it might be admitted, for
every purpose of this prosecution, that a conflict arose between
the parties who were assaulted and their assailants. Stones, it
was said, were flying ; but Mr. Hulton would not say that he
saw them, except just before the cavalry arrived at the hus-
tings. His impression was, that he saw the stones before
the cavalry arrived ; but he would not positively pledge
himself to swear that they were thrown before at an ear-
lier period. He was quite sure that, at the time he stated
the stones to have been thrown, the cavalry were near the
hustings. It was quite impossible, therefore, consistent with
Mr. Hulton's testimony, that what was said . by other wit-
nesses could be true, namely, that the throwing took place 1,
while the cavalry. were yet 50 yards from the hustings. That
there was a waving of the multitude when the cavalry got in
amongst them was evident: how else could it be ? the unfor-
tunate people naturally pressed at one side and the other, to en-
deavour to escape from the unforeseen danger which menaced
them. And yet, with all that pressure and sudden emergency
of action, no act of specific violende was imputed, except the
single act against a special constable, and that occurred after
the eruption of the cavalry. The Jury could not put out of their
minds the attempt which bad been so perseveringly made to over-
whelm them with a variety of speeches made on aifferent occa-
sions by %lr. Hunt, in parts of the country distant from each
other, and the attempt to connect all these with the purpose of the
meeting at Manchester on the 16th Aug. These speeches were
ingeniously connected with the acts of Mr. Hunt at the meeting,
and particularly with what was spoken to by some witnesses,
that, by order of Mr. Hunt, those near the hustings locked their
arms on the 16th of August. The object of this concurrent testi-
mony was to establish a species of connexion which did not
exist, and a word of command at the meeting to bear out the
charge of previous organization. The name of Mr. Carlile was
also introduced by his Learned Friend, and for a purpose which
could not be disguised. If Mr. Carlile were a leader, why was
he not includedwith Mr. Hunt and others in the prosecution
at York ? Surely, if his name was of importance enough to
be used on the present occasion, it must have been, at least in
the eyes of those who so used it, if they claimed credit for
their sincerity, 'sufficiently important to have marked out Car-
lile as a fit object for punishment at York. But no such at-
tempt had been made, and it was only now when Carlile's name
had acquired a publicity which it had not at the time of the
Manchester Meeting, that an attempt was made to connect, it
with the transactions of that day. It was since the 16th of
Aug., 1819, and the Jury could not fail to bear that fact in
their minds, that the name of Carlile had burst forth in the full
blaze of all its glory. But was not there evidence enough to
show that if this locking of arms, and expression of _ Mr. Hunt
to keep down those who should interfere had really occurred in
the manner in which it was stated, or in any manner of the same
kind, there must have been other parties present who could speak
to the fact with the most perfect certainty ? There were those
present whose connexion with the public press indispensably re-
quired the exercise of close observation, and they all with one
voice denied the acts imputed to the crowd on that day. There
was Mr. Tyas, whose testimony was complimented by his Learned
Friend (Mr. Sergeant Hullock), and who spoke with great
precision as to all the acts at that meeting : there was also
Mr. Garnett, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Baines, who all concurred
in declaring that they saw (and they saw every thing at
that meeting) no act of resistance offered by the multitude to the
advance of the cavalry to the hustings. They had the best oppor-
tunity of calmly seeing what had occurred. They had no con-
nexion with the parties at the Meeting; it was their duty and
their particular interest to report what had occurred, and they saw
no such thing. 'Why did not his Learned Friend ask any of these
gentlemen what Mr. Hunt had said in his speech at the meet-
ing; had he done so, he would have much better ascertained
what was said than he could expect to have heard it from a wit-
ness who could not tell the distinction between such words as a
" blood-sucker and a feather-bed soldier." It was not a little
remarkable, that when so much was said of the injury done
to the Yeomanry, that not a single individual of the corps was
brought forward, to prove the assault. How easy it would have
been to have proved the fact, had it occurred as his Learned
Friend was instructed to represent. But what said Lieut.-Col.
Keymer, with anticipation of mischief, not from the people, but
from the cavalry. He said, that the moment. he saw the latter
coining on the ground, he ordered- the women and children to
get away, because, said he, "I then dreaded mischief." There
was nothing, then, according to that witness's evidence to excite
apprehensions in his mind, until the Yeomanry came ; it was
then only that he warned the worsen and children to depart, and
it was then only that he became sure of the occurrence of mis-
chief. This was at the period of the advance of the cavalry to-
wards the hustings ; and up to that time nothing had been
done, either to excite or propagate alarm, except on the
part of those who had by spreading previous reports infused
alarm and doubt into those around them, by disseminating
their own fears, apprehensions, and clangors. Except the
Rochdale witness, -who talked of the man saying to him that
they meant to march up to London, change the Government,
and live on the estates of the men oipropnty on the way, there
was not a single witness to assign any ground or reason for
the alarm which was kept up. It was quite imposible to
answer a charge expressed in ehis manner in any other than
in a general way. If conspiracy be alleged by the defendants
in their plea, he defied any man whose name was introduced
into that plea, to have the power of rebutting the allegation
by any other means than those used -by the present plaintiff;
But, after all, what proofs of
,conspiracy had been proved
against his client ? He had never been at White Moss, where
the assaults were committed ; he had been once only at
Tandlehills ' • and suppose he were drilling on that spot, that
was no legal offence at the time alluded to : The Act of Par-
liament against drilling had been subsequently assed, ' and
' such a meeting was not 'penal at the time Redford was re.
presented to have attended it. He (Mr. Blackburne) had often
been drilled ; it was the common practice of 'school-boys
for their amusement ; it was a pastime, aed clearly innocent
before the late enactment of th?legislature : and unless in this
case something else attached, to the act of drilling, which took
it out of the plea of innocence, to be urged. in the plaintiff's
behalf, he was 'sure that the jury would not infer a criminality,
from a practice which mielit be for the mast innocent indul-
gence. With the other drilling matches the plaintiff had had
no concern ; and therefore the jury would disconnect him from
the acts spoken to at those drillings; of whatever character they
were. The Learned Gentleman strongly enfdrced the claim
of his client ' for the protection and relief of the jury, and en.
treated them to found their verdict upon the facts of the case
alone, and not upon the idle alarms and surmises which were
so unsparingly'spread around this case. ' He said, that, to a
person of, so little experience in his profession, and so unac-
customed to lead a cause, the jury must be struck with the
difficulty, nay, the impossibility, of his replying in detail to
all the weight of evidence adduced throughout three days on
the part of the defendants : So-strange and conjectural a body
of evidence had never been before adduced upon any trial.
—He had, hoWever, endavoured to unmask its character,
and perform his duty to his client ht. the best of his power.
He trusted that he should have th benefit of their atten-
tion, and that they would attach to his observations whatever
weight they were fairly entitled to among calm and dispassionate
men. He left the case of his unfortunate client—for unfortu-
nate he was, whatever verdict, he could receive—to their judg-
ment with confidence, perfectly assured that the humble man's
poverty, instead of being.a bar to his obtaining redress at their
hands, would only the more strongly recommend him to their
consideration, their humanity, and kindness. If they thought
he had been wantonly and unjustifiably wounded, then they
would give him that protection which the law equally extended
to the poor as well as the rich ; and which would show to the
country the desire they manifested by their firmness to uphold
and preserve the liberties of their fellow-subjects.
Dl r. Justice HOLROY D rose at 20 minutes before 4' o'clock to
charge the Jury, and stated that the time had then arrived,
when it became his duty to direct their attention to the mass of
evidence which had been given in this case, and to the law as
applicable to its several parts. This was an action brought by
the plaintiff Redford, against four persons, one of whom, Birley,
was Captain of a Troop of the Manchester Yeomanry; another

was an officer of a different troop of the same corps ; a third
was a private named Oliver, and the fourth was Meagher, a
trumpeter; and the action was brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover compensation for an injury which Redford alleged he had.
sustained by an assault of the said defendants on the 16th of
August, 1819, at Manchester. The Jury had heard that
the defendants were Yeomanry, and the law made this dis-
tinction in cases like this—that if they (the Yeomanry) went
among the people on that day, by command of the civil magi-
stracy, and to execute 'a lawful purpose—and that one of them,
while so engaged, committed an unlawful act, then the others
being lawfully employed, and not participating in the unlawful
act of one of their party, were not answerable for his conduct.
If others went in a body to do, not a lawful, but an unlawful,
act, the: all were by the law held responsible,—their original
intent being alike illegal. But even in the latter case, if
one of the party separate from the rest, and does an act not
in pursuance of the common design, then they who were
so separated from him are not involved in his particular
guilt. If the military were called in. for a lawful purpose,
they were bound to execute the commands of the civil magi-
strate, and only those who shall act unlawfully in obeying those
commands can be held, responsible ; for the law said? a man
might act unlawfully in executing a legal purpose, for instance
in the forcible removal of a public nuisance. The Learned
Judge here recited the pleadings. (which we published ,in the
first day's proceedings of the trial) in detail, and commented
upon their technical import. In the defence upon some of these
pleas, it was contended that the meeting of the 16th of Aug.
1819, was, if not actually riotous according to law, at least
what was denominated a riotous meeting, and one which might
become riotous if permitted to carry its object into effect;
and that they (the Yeomanry) were called in to disperse
such meeting by the order of the Magistracy. There were
other parts of the pleas which led to a great deal of evidence
—namely, that there existed a previous seditious conspiracy
to excite discontent in the minds of the King's subjects, and that
divers persons were at that meeting engaged in the designs
of the conspirators. Now upon the subject of the drilling
it was right he should tell the Jury. that whether drilling ,
was clandestine or not, if it was intended by those who were so
drilling for the purpose of overturning or overawing the civil
government, then it was unlawful. A great deal of evalencelad
been adduced for the purpose of showing that the Magistrates'
warrant could not be executed without the aid of the military.
As to what constitutes, in the eye of the law, an illegal assem-
bly, he could not explain the point more clearly than it was
laid down by his Learned coadjutor (Mr. Justice Bayley) at a
former trial in York. In the first place, a riot consisted of three
or more persons unlawfully meeting together, with or without
cause of quarrel, so as to endanger the King's peace. A riotous
assembly was where the parties met for a common purpose, in-
tending to do something in a riotous manner, but yet not re-
maining long enough to accomplish it. An unlawful assem-
bly was any meeting convened under such circumstances as
the law could not with safety to the public allow : he would
state to the Jury some of the circumstances which brought a
meeting within the scope of the law, and constituted an unlaw-
lawful assembly ; and here, again, he begged to be understood
as speaking in the language of his excellent coadjutor, who had
favoured him with some notes of his charge on the trial at
York. Actording to the opinion of that Learned Judge, an
opinion since confirmed by all the Judges of the Court o
King's Bench and adopted by that Court, any meeting .was
unlawful which assembled to sow sedition and bring into hatred
and contempt the Constitution of the country. All meetings
assembled to promote any object which was calculated to pro-
duce such an effect were illegal. Then to ascertain how far this
metting of the 16th Aug. came within any of these descriptions,
they must look at the mode and manner of its assembling—what
were all the circumstances preceding and attending its organiza-
tion—who were the leaders who brought the divisions to the meet-
ing—what were the banners, and how the bearers of them con-
ducted themselves on that occasion—who had been drilled, and
what was the apparent object of that drilling ? The Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff had truly said that drilling might
be innocent; but was it so here ? Drilling was a part of
military discipline, and regulated under the prerogative
of the King—a prerogative, it was true, regulated in mo-
dern times under the control of Parliament. Formerly the
King's military tenants, uncontrolled by the authority of
Parliament, and holding their estates in fee, were bound
by their tenure to give the King their military services
when required ; and they were even bound, in many in-
stances, to assist the civil power of the country in the per-
formance of its civil duties ' • and he found to his surprise,
when he had occasion in the former case of Sir Francis Bur.
dett, in which he was Counsel, to refer to ancient records upon
the species of service required by the military tenures, that in
several statutes of the Henrys and Edwards, officers were ap-
pointed expressly to go about the country, and see that the mi-
litary tenants of the Crown had their armour, arms, horses, &c.
ready and in fit condition • and for what purpose ?—to assist
the sheriff, who was the King's civil officer, to raise the posse
comitatns. He stated this to show how early the military au-
thorities had been called in aid of the civil, for the purpose of
executing the law. Indeed he hardly knew how the posss
cornitatus could be now called out ; he knew not how
the sheriff was to raise them. But it was not so at the former
period to which he alluded, when there' were military persons
expressly enjoined to assist in calling them out. Referring
back to the question of drilling, he must say, that if the object
of it were so to arrange the parties at the meeting as to secure,
by a confidence in their own numbers, an attention to the
speeches to be then made, and having the ultimate object of
attaining the complete purpose they had. in view by a demon-
stration of their strength, then such a meeting so *ot toge-
ther was clearly illegal. If from the general appearance
and all the accompanying circumstances of that meeting, it
excited reasonable grounds of alarm and apprehension, then
it was generally criminal and unlawful, and all persons at-
tending it in such a manner as to evince a determination
to co-operate in the attainment of its object were equally
criminal. The appearance of the meeting and the intentions
lof the parties could only be collected from evidence. If
these were of such a nature as, when taken together, to ex-
cite alarm, then it was for the Jury to say whether it did not
become the bounden duty of those who were sworn to keep the
peace to take such steps as were calculated to avert 'from the
peaceable inhabitants the apprehended mischief. It might be,
that had they refrained from doing so, they would have incur-
red, as Kennett, Lord Mayor of London had, in the year 1780,
a criminal prosecution. At that period Lord George Gordon,
the brother or son of the then Duke of Gordon, had collected
together an immense body of people, ostensibly for a law-
ful purpose : It was to petition Parliament not to repeal
certain acts, on the score of religion, in favour of the Cathy-
lies. After accompanying Lord Geo. Gordon with that petition
to Westminster, they committed several acts of violence, burned
houses, broke open and fired one of the prisons, and did immense
injury for three days to public and private property, until at
i
length the military were ordered nto the' city, where they
acted, and by doing military execution 'upon the rioters, at
length suppressed the tumults. A prompt and timely in-
terposition of the civil power might have prevented these
consequences ; and for not acting with firmness and due pre-
caution the Lord Mayor was fined one thousand pounds.
Now Lord George Gordon's first meeting in St. George's-
fields was for a purpose ostensibly legal, but in its con-
duct it had subsequently incurred the penalties of the law. The
Spa-fields meeting was also convened • for a - legal purpose,
and yet they saw how a party of those who were concerned in
it broke out from the spot, and carried riot and tumult into the
city. With reference to the character of the Manchester Meet-
ing, and whether, like the others, its circumstances rendered it
clearly illegal, or whether it was an exception to them, and.
only meant for the lawful exercise of the right of petition, the'
Jury must determine for themselves by an attentive considera-
tion of the voluminous evidence before them in this case; and
which, if they pleased, he should read over to them in detail ;
or, if they preferred, he would confine himself to an abstract
of principal bearings.
Two or three of the Jurors here rose, arid stated to his 'Lord-
ship, that the outline would be quite sufficient. •
The Learned JUDGE then enumerated the different heads of
the evidence. •
•
At six o'clock the Jury retired for about sir minutes, and
then returned with a verdict for the Defendants.

MURDER.—Tuesday evening ad Inquest was held at the
Buffalo's Head, New-road, before THOMAS STIRLING, Esq.,
Coroner, on the body of a female child unknown, who was
found murdered on Sunday morning last in the Regent's
Park. It appeared from the evidence of Edward Smith and
David Walker, labouring boys; that on Sunday morning
last, about six o'clock, they went out together bird-nesting, in
the Regent's Park, and on their arrival near Primrose-Hill,
they saw the body of the deceased lying under a hedge, upon
its side, and its head appeared as if it had been dreadfully
beaten. At about 200 yards distant from the spot they saw a
Lady and Gentleman, fashionably attired, walking together,
and it struck them that they had left the child under the hedge,
and they ran towards them and informed them that they had
seen the child. The Lady and Gentleman proceeded to the ,
spot, and requested them to have nothing to do with the body,
or else they would get themselves into trouble, but said they
might cover it with some grass, which they did. The Lady ap-
peared to be very much affected, and continued crying the '
whole of the time. Witnesses afterwards laid information of
the circumstance to the Parish Officers, and had the body con-
veyed to the Workhouse. The Jury were of opinion that the
Lady and Gentleman to whom the boys spoke were concerned
in the affair ; and after sitting for a length of time, they re-
turned a verdict of " Wilful Murder, against some person or
persons at present unknown."