The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-12 00:00:00

Tilt MANCHHESTER TRANSACTIONS.

LANCASTER.

CONCLUSION PP JUDGE HOLROYD'S' CHARGE.
As to the nature of the meetings for the purpose of drilling,
it was proved by different witnesses, those meetings were secret;
and if they were held for a proper purpose, why should there
be any concealment about them? John Haywood stated that
he tsas at the 'White Moss; that he saw the people drilling,
and that on his being observed, he was knocled down and
severely treated. Shawcross also stated that he was knocked
down at the White Moss,, and tumbled into a ditch. He, it
appeared, was beaten until he was insensible. He heard some
of the people say, that Hunt was to be at Manchester on the
next day, and they must all be there. James Heath spoke as
to persons' going by his house at Cheetham hill, on the I,6th
August; one of them said, " You shall not sleep in that
house to-night." Many declarations had been made, with
respect to persons drilling, in different divisions. Lieute-
nant-Colonel Kepner deposed, that he had seen persons dril-
ling, one of whom said, If we march, we will teach you a
new tune ;" and on the 16th of August, the very next day, he
saw some of those persons going into Manchester. Mr. Roger
Entwisle stated that he saw the Stockport division march to.
wards Manchester in military step, . and with music and ban-
ners. One of the persons said to "Thou hest got a good
coat on thy back, but before the day is over, I will have as good
a coat as thee." Another witness said that was standing on
the steps .of the portico at Manchester when the people were
passing ; one of the people observed that he should like to go
and see the inside of the portiCo. Another replied, "that if he
had a little patience he might see the inside of the portico, and
of many other places, before night." The Jury would con-
sider how far this evidence was important, as proving that this
meeting was unlawful, as well as showing the necessity for
the Magistrates being on the alert, in consequence of the
notification that such a meeting would be held. It had been
asked, why did not the Magistrates prevent this meeting from
taking place originally ? But the question was, not whether
a more effectual method might have been taken, but whether
that which had been adopied was not legal, particularly as
tar as the military were concerned. The military were not
responsible for what the Magistrates ordered. They re-
ceived particular directions, and it was not for them to con-
sider whether the course pursued was or was not the most ju-
dicious. Besides, before any step could be taken to prevent
the meeting, it was necessary that some proof should be given
of the intention of those who meant to assemble together.
—Those who assembled on such an occasion might meet
under a mask,- and it was for the Jury to consider whether
in this case the parties did not meet .under a pretence—
whether they did not assemble apparently-for the purpose of
doing a legal act, but really with a view to do that.which was
illegal. Evidence -was given as to the alarm which the meeting
excited; that evidence was given not only by the Magistrates,
but by several respectable individuals unconnected with them,
and who were inhabitant. of Manchester. Many of those per-
sons acted as special constables, and were induced to do so be-
cause they were • seriously apprehensive of the consequences
which were likely to result from the meeting. Mr. Sharp
spoke very strongly on this point. He stated, that if it had not
been for the wisdom of the Magistrates, a very great commotion
would, in fiis opinion, have taken place. Some evidence had
been given as to the interruption which the Yeomanry experi-
enced in approaching the hustings ; and, on the other hand,
witnesses were called to deny that any interruption took place.
It was the province of the Jury to decide on the conflicting testi-
many. Evidence had also been given relative to circumstances
which occurred previous to the 16th of August. Certain resolu-
tions, agreed to at a meeting held in Manchester, were put in, and
proved to have been received from Hunt. Those resolutions
pledged the parties to an alteration of the government. To at-
tempt by force to alter the government would be high treason; and
to endeavour to effectthat object by menace, though not amount-
ing to high treason, was, at least, misprision of treason—an of-
fence of a very high character. One of the resolutions called on
the people to disobey the measures of Parliament ; it called on
them not to pay taxes levied according to the law of the land.
That resolution was clearly illegal. Another resolution declared,
that all men had a right to freedom. The proposition was a
very just one. All men were free in this country,-_ and he
hoped that freedom would always continue to be the birth-right
of Englishmen. So far was the principle carried, that the
moment a slave put his foot on our shore, he became free. No
person, then, had power over him, except under some special
contract. Another resolution stated that life, liberty, and pro-
perty, were especially dear to every man ; and that all men
were equally entitled to a voice in the enactment of those laws
by which they were to be governed. Now, if a government
were about to be established, these would be very proper
subjects for consideration ; but the case was entirely different
when a government was established. Under our free govern-
ment, changes were made from thne to time by the proper
authorities, with respect to matters that appeared to be
inconvenient or . troublesome. When regular representations
were made to the proper quarter, as to any alteration which
seemed to be necessary in the existing law, they were, it 'was to
be presumed, fairly attended to. If this were so, then the resolu-
tion which he had read was unnecessary and improper. The next
resolution declared, that " any law hereafter enacted, or any
taxes hereafter imposed by the House of Commons, ought not
in equity to be attended to, because the great body, of the peo-
ple were unjustly excluded from electing their representatives."
The 9th resolution set forth, that " after the Ist day of Janu-
ary 1820, the persons assembled could not conscientiously con-
sider themselves as bound in equity to obey any future enact-
ment made by persons styling themselves their representatives,
other than those who are freely and fairly elected by the major
rity of the people." The 10th resolution advised an address to
the Prince Regent, calling on him " to issue his writs to his
sheriffs and other officers, directing them to order representa-
tives to be chosen, agreeably to the principles laid down in a
former resolution." The 12th resolution adverted to the state
of " our fellow-countrymen in Ireland, professing the Catholic
faith ;" and it went on to state; that " the resolutions should
be signed by the secretary, and transmitted •to the Catholic
body in Ireland." The 16th resolution was addressed' to
the British soldier ; and the 17th resolution attacked the na-
tional debt; and called on the people to leave the borough-
mongers who contracted it without the consent of the people,
to pay it. Such were the resolutions, which were proved to
have been proposed by Hunt at a meeting held in Smithfield in
July, 1819. This meeting, it would be observed, took place
shortly previous to the intended meeting at Manchester, which
was held on the 16th August. A placard was published prior
to the meeting, which bore, in a very considerable degree, on
the resolutions which he had read. That placard was couched
in these words Manchester public meeting. The public
are respectfully informed, that a meeting will be held in the
area opposite fo Si. Peter's Church, on the 9th of August, for
the purpose of considering the bestoneans of effecting a Radical
Reform in the Commons House of Parliament, and also to
consider the propriety of electing a person to represent the now
unrepresented people of Manchester." This was an illegal
proposition. Members of Parliament must be elected in ;en-
sequence of the King's writ being issued for that purpose.
Therefore, such a proceeding as that mentioned in the placard
was against the law. A proceeding of this kind was adopted
in another town ; but punishment was inflicted on those who
adopted a, course so illegal. Next came the placard of the 16th
of August.
Mr.--BeeexeUßN.—Nothing was proved, my Lord, relative
to the placard of the 16th. •
- Mr. Justice HOLROYD admitted that the placard of the 16th
was not in evidence. It was, however, proved, that a very great
number of people assembled together on that day. It was for the
Jury to consider, whether they really met for the purpose of
furthering the object which, it was said, they had in view, or
whether they did not contemplate some other object. Of this
the Jury would judge, from the circumstances which had been
proved. The crowd as they passed the Star Inn shouted and
bellowed. They did the same at the police-office and Hunt was
sworn to have cheered when he saw Col. L'Estirange advance.
Now, supposing the meeting to have he'll called for a legal ob-
ject, the Jury lutist pay some attention to the fact, that persons
were placed at the head of it, such as Hunt and Carlile, who
were brought from a distance, and who had no connexion what-
soever with the town of Manchester. The declarations and
expressions of those who were present at the meeting demand.
ed peculiar attention', as evidence of the feeling- which existed.
Mr. Garnett, a reporter for the Manchester Chronicle, depoSed
to the words made use of by Hunt. This witness said, that
when Hunt saw the cavalry advance, he cheered, and desired
the people to cheer also. He (Hunt) called the meeting a tre-
mendous meeting. If the meeting was of such a nature as was
calculated to create terror and alarm, and if some necessity
were not shown fee the assembling of such a meeting, then it
was clearly illegal. The witness, whose evidence he was ade
verting to, described Hunt as saying " that he was obliged to
the-Magistrates for putting off the former meeting. It had
produced a two-fold effect—it created confidence and increased
their numbers; He believed their enemies, who had flattered
themselves that they had pined a victory, had, in fact, sustained
a great defeat." George 'Brown, George Read, Roger En-
twistle,' and others; gave evidence as to the apparent object of the
meeting. Their evidence was worthy of observation, because it
would enable them to judge whether the meeting was of such a
nature as was calculated to alarm the country. It would he ne-
cessary for them to consider that, in this case it was proved that
the people came from all,quarters, to the amount of 50,000 per-
sons. 'Weed some of the witnesses swore that the meeting
consisted' of a much larger body. On the part of the plaintiff
it had' been stated that et great number of women and child-
ren attended the meeting. This circumstance the Gentlemen
of the Jury would Also-tat into their conSideration. It was en-
deavoured to be 'hewn that the object of the meeting was We.