The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-29 00:00:00

ttention, because I am persuaded that you will find, on a
' full consideration, that the weakness of my Learned Friend's
evidence is not supplied even by the strength of his argu-
ment. My Learned Friend stated that "Magistrates have an
authority," as undoubtedly they have, "and a duty was cast
upon them to endeavour to prevent those crimes which
relate to breaches of the peace, and that they were invested
by law with the authority of every man within the
sound of their voice, even to take up arms if it be necessary.
But do not let us depend too much upon words. In
one sense certainly Magistrates can compel persons to
take up arms; but it was not in that sense that it
could be applied to Mr. Pinney. It is not true, that if
a man refuse to take up arms he was therefore liable to be
punished by the Magistrates. If, indeed, the law would
invest the Magistrates with the force of a giant, and
with a hundred arms, like Briareus, then, indeed,
they might have used such a power ; but as the law
stood, a Magistrate could only cause a person who re-
fused to come to his assistance, to be prosecuted by in-
dictment, so that you see the process in such a case is ex-
tremely slow. How could my unfortunate client expect
that assistance, or how command it? or, indeed, if he
could command it, how could he have enforced it ac-
cording to the evidence you have heard Although I
agree with the proposition of my Learned Friend,
that the law makes a man liable to punishment
if he refuse to assist in keeping the peace, there is no law
to enable the Magistrates to force the nature of another,
and compel hint, if he refused, to assist him. The next
proposition to which I now come is one which I can
hardly think my Learned Friend expected you on calla
deliberation to agree with. He said, " The law requires
every Magistrate under such circumstances to act with
promptitude and vigour, and that in case of a small
excess of power, in consequence of his good inten-
tions, he need not he afraid of any severe conse-
quences either of a civil or criminal nature." So that
the good intentions, it seems, may excuse a Magistrate
in case he should find it necessary to shed blood; my
Learned Friend is right, if he and those with whom he
acts concur, that it is necessary to use arms, and that in
eonsequence blood is shed; but my Learned Friend
was quite silent on another part of the case. If
the Magistrates had good intentions, and wished
to avoid the shedding of blood, and if they erred
not in the excess of severity, but in the excess of
lenity, my Learned Friend did not say that the Magi-
strates should then be excu-ed because of their good
intentions. Nor has there been any one motive,
any one corrupt intention even suggested, by my
Learned Friend ? Have I not a right to say, that
they have erred, as that they have formed a mistaken
judgment of the state of Bristol, and that they could
not obtain their fellow-cifzens to suppress the riot ?
Have I not a right to say, that for that error,
they ought not to be subject to this criminal pro-
cess ? My Learned Friend's law is, that where there
is an excess of severity, with good intentions, they were
entitled to protection ; but that when there is an excess of
lenity, also from good intentions, they were not to be excused,
Gentlemen, what is the result of the whole evidence you
have been hearing for several days ? Do me the favour to
consider that you are now sitting calmly free from all
fear, free from all alarm, free from all agitation, to deli-
berate what is proper to be done in the midst of tumults—
in the midst of agitation and violence that might dis-
turb the coolest judgment. Let me ask you if you would
think it right at this time, supposing the evidence had
been different to what it iF, and which would have led
more justly to the conclusion to which my Learned Friend
requests you to come on it, whether because you might be
of opinion at this distance of time, that by some other
course which might be adopted, Bristol might have been
saved from conflagration, therefore the Magistrates are
guilty ? You are now in a different situation to
that in which they were. You have nothing
to fear—you have no wives and families to protect--you
have not the city to save—you are not under the necessity
of acting with or without the support of the military—you
may therefore I ortn an opinion, and you may suppose that
if a few lives had been lost on Saturday—that if blood had
been spilled, the town and the city might have been saved,
But suppose you were right in that conclusion, are you
ready on that account to condemn the Magistrates when
they acted under the authority of an officer of his Ma-
jesty, who declared to them that the town was safe with-
cat that expedient? Mere than that, if there be any
honest man who believes, that if the Magistrates had
done that which my Learned Friend says they ought
to have done—spilled blood on the Saturday, and saved the
town—does any body doubt that they would have been in-
dicted for murder without giving offence to Government?
Can any man doubt that if an officer, riding up and down the
town, had said, " I can't fire," and the Magistrate had said,
" Sir, I don't ask you to be responsible, I am responsible
myself. I call on you to fire"—can any body doubt that
if the soldier had fired, and life had thereby been taken
away, the /tlegistrate would have been made amenable?
Would his good intentions have saved him then? I
think they ought; but I have great doubt that they
would. Why we know the effect of that very case.
A constable who went out of Bristol—a half-
pay Captain—on the Monday morning, had the
misfortune to kill a person. He was indicted, but
I never heard that that had offended the Government. I
allude to Captain Lewis. Gentlemen, let us look at the
evidence. I think the whole of it, which my Learned
Friend has given you, may be summed up in two sen-
tences—namely, that all the efforts of the Magis-
trates to G•lunel Brereton to use his exertions
to App me eke were totally ineffectual—the se-
cone s', coat so consequence of the military refusing
to suppress the riot, the civil force of Bristol also refused
to aid the Magistrates, I should lie glad to know then
what they were to do, deserted as they were, on the one
hand by the military, and on the other by the citizens.
That really is the general state of the case laid before you
by the prosecution ; and upon that, you are called on to hold
the Magistrates responsible for the burning of the town. That
is the sum and substance of the evidence. I admit it has
been given to you with a degree of ridicule cast on the
Mayor. The whole having been founded on fabrication,
supported by perjury, if not by the greatest misrepresenta-
tion. Then, by a number of ne.2atives, my Learned Friend
thinks of snaking fun of it; for a man is put into the box and
asked if he went to the Guildhall by direction, or to the Cus
tom-house by direction, and if he had done, forsooth the
Magistrates must be guilty. Is it not singnlar that their
should not have been called before you any one person who
could have given a most detailed account ? There is Mr.
Burgess, the City Solicitor—there is my Hon. and Learned
Friend, Mr Serjeant Ludlow, before me, whose name has
been mentioned by almost every witness, but they don't
think fit to call him or them. They take the
case of the Magistrates, divided into tatters, as it were—
they show him here and show him there, till at last they
show him, as to the opinion of the last witness but one,
Mr. Goss, out of Bristol altogether during the night. Mr.
Goss is a gentleman who goes to the Council-house to
make a speech to the Magistrates. He gives a great deal
of trouble, and because his foolish plan is not adopted, and
because the Magistrates will not tell him what their plans
are, he gets access to the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, and writes a letter of his feeling to the Go-
vernment. You will be surprised when I inform you
that the inquiry into the state of the arms in the
town had taken place on the Sunday—that arrange
ments had then been made to protect the arms,
tbough they did not think proper to inform Mr. Goss of
that, anti that on the Monday arms were actually sent
into the gaol, not into the float, but into the jail by Major
Alackworth, and there secured. Why should they
then tell Mr. Goss—why should they tell this speech-
making gentleman who goes to bully the Magistrates,
what they had done ? Ile goes like a military man
to divide the town into parts—to put arms into the
hands of all who could use them, and to let them sweep the
whole town. Mr. Alderman Daniel—a gentleman of the
greatest respectability, as I am informed—upwards of 70
years old, says, a Oh, Mr Goss, we had better throw
them into the float." Mr. Goss then said, " Why throw
them into the ffoat ; surely, Sir, you are not in earnest ?"
No, nor was Mr. Alderman Daniel in earnest. Ar-
rangements had been made to protect them ; but it was
not necessary to put Mr. speech. stalking Goss
in possession of that information. Gentlemen, you
are told the Magistrates did not form a clan, so that when
the military deserted them, as if it were inherent in the
office of Aldermen, they were not as they ought to have
been, in possession of the knowledge of an engineer, carrying
about with them all the knowledge of how to defend a
town, and how to arrange and organize the inhabi-
tants of that town, to defend it in half an hour. Why,
if the Magistrates were a little taken aback—if they
slid not know exactly how to defend the town—if,
when they summoned the whole, only 200 came—if
when they bid them disperse and tiring those, a smaller
number came— ind if, at last, they found it was impos-
sible for theist to defend the town—perhaps you will think
.
the crime is of a very aggravated kind. I speak ge-
neral of the evidence, let us come now to details. I
earnestly hope you have the evidence on your minds, and
that you do not refer to any other source to obtain a
knowledge of it. Mr. Roberts was called ; lie is a Dissent-
ing clergyman, and from his habits, had much intercourse
the town orders. That gentlemen gave his evidence
in a way that satisfied me—he was a man of conscience
and of honour, though I never heard his name before
he came into Court. lie suggested to the Magistrates,
first of all, that he should go to the people is Queen-