The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

case the jury had the good sense to acquit the prisoner. In the
next case referred to an action was brought againt the military.
The Learned Judge said, "If they acted on a warrant they
were themselves under the circumstances of the case justi-
fied ; in truth, these persons would be entitled to their
acquittal, acting as they dii in pursuance of the warrant,
although the parties granting the warrant might not." The
next case referred to conspiracy, and in support of the plea
evidence was required as to whether a person felt any
,alarm during the proceedings of the meeting. He was
asked whether he would go with these persons to get a big
loaf for 'a little one. He said they would have reform in
Parliament, and make their way to London to effect that
purpose ; and that they would make use of the property of
anybody who had property on their march as they went
on the road. About 700 of these persons proceeded to drill.
Evidence was also given by a person who signed a paper which
he sent to the magistrates, expressing the terror and alarm which
he experienced in consequence of those parties meeting for
drill. It was also proved in evidence (page 96) that im-
pressions of terror and alarm were made on the inhabi•
tants by a meeting at which Hunt presided. In page 99
of the charge it is said—" In one of these counts drillings
are alleged, which are stated to be clandestine, but whe-
ther they are clandestine or not I give no opinion ; but if
done for the purpose of overawing the Government, or ex-
citing tumult or resistance to the chi' powtr, they would
be unlawful. It is also alleged that divers of those persons
assembled unlawfully, armed with stones and various
weapons to carry out this conspirocy." In page 102, he
says—" If they came armed, so as to terrify other per-
sons, that in itself would be an unlawful assembly."
His Lordship then referred to the memorable case of
Lord George Gordon, and the vast meeting of people
in SL George's-fields, and said—" There were called toge-
ther an immense number of persons in St. George's-fields.
(Kennett was then Lord Mayor of London.) They met for
the ostensibly legal purpose of petitioning Parliament not to re-
peal the Acts passed in favour of Roman Catholics. Lord
Gordon went with their petition to the House of Commons.
They, accompanied kim there. There was nothing amiss in
that"-70,000 or 80,000 people meeting in London, and
speeches being made in a very vehement, if not in a very vio-
lent manner, and then going en masse to the House of Com-
mons, was not amiss—" except it was indiscreet, because it
had the appearance of being tumultuous ; and if they were not
satisfied with the result, some of them might break forth into
acts of violence." They were not satisfied; they broke
out, and we know the result—confusion in London
for an immense number of days. He (Mr. White.
' side) would not trouble their Lordships by stating
the judgment of the Court on the matter of drill-
ing. In the case of the King v. Hunt, 3d Barnewall
and Alderson, the parties were indicted for a conspiracy.
The evidence was not given in the Report ; but the result was
given, which was that the accused were acquitted of the con-
spiracy, but found guilty of being at an illegal assembly. He
(Mr. Whiteside) had procured a report of the evidence, with
the view of showing on what evidence the Court and jury came
to such a conclusion. The Learned Gentleman then produced
a history of the life of Henry Hunt, which contained an ac-
count of his trial, from which he (Mr. W.) read the evidence
of several witnesses examined for the prosecution. The evi-
dence was to this effect—that a meeting was held in Spital-
fields, London, at which a series of resolutions were adopted.
The first of these was, that if the grievances of the people were
not redressed within a given day, and the Parliament re-
formed, they (the persons composing the meeting) would
be all released from their allegiance. That Mr. Hunt pre-
sided at that meeting, and afterwards at a meeting in l's an-
chester, at which the same resolution was proposed and carried.
It was also resolved that they should meet together to elect re-
presentatives for Manchester. They did so without any writ
from the Crown, and the magistrates declared that meeting
illegal. On the night of the 14th of August, 1819, they met
on White Moss, where they were drilled. Two policemen
were present, and having been discovered were severely beaten,
but their lives were spared on their promising never to be
King's men again, and never to name the King's name during
their lives. On the morning of the 16th they met in Man-
chester. They came to the place of meeting with flags and
banners, marching in military array, with sound of bugle, &c.
Threats of making a Moscow of Manchester were heard.

Several mottos ol a seditious character were inscribed
on their banners, and great terror and alarm was ex-
cited. A controversy arose on the trial as to how far
all the persons at the meeting were affected by the inscriptions
on the banners. Justice Bayley, who charged the jury, ob
served on this point—" With respect to the banners, those
only who showed that they were favourable to any motto in-
scribed on them by carrying them, or immediately marching
under them, could be considered as liable to any penalty which
the illegal nature of any of the inscriptions might warrant."
He (Mr. Whiteside) called particular attention to that part of
the charge, because in the present case evidence was adduced
of an arch that was erected, on which was a motto, and that
motto was brought forward as evidence of the illegal intentions

of persons going to that assembly. Having commented with
severity on the resolutions passed at the meetings at Spital-
fields, the case went to the jury ; and on that charge and those
facts they acquitted the defendants of the crime of conspiracy,
and found them guilty of attending an unlawful assembly.
The Learned Gentleman next referred to the case of the Queen
v. Vincent, 9 Carrington and Payne, p. 91, a case which the
Attorney-General did not cite.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—He did.

Mr. WHITESIDE said it was another case of the same na-
ture in the same book. In this case the defentlints were
charged, first, with having combined together maliciously
to assemble for an unlawful purpose. The second count charged
them with having assembled in immense numbers, armed with
weapons ; and with having caused great terror and alarm to
the peaceable and well-disposed subjects of her Majesty, for
the.unlawful and seditious purpose of offering unlawful and
seditious opposition to the Government and Constitution, and
to the terror and alarm of the subjects of the Queen. Another
count charged them with assembling with clubs, &c. The
12th count charges them with being at an unlawful assembly ;
and the 13th for a riot. He wanted to show that, in this case
the same result followed, and that those counts which were
not found in the present indictment were those on which,
according to the authority of the Learned Judge and the
finding of the jury, a verdict was had. The Learned Gentle-
man then read portions of the evidence given in the case of the
Queen v. Vincent, to show that violent language had been
used at a public meeting at which the defendants were present,
and that the inhabitants were put into a state of great terror
and alarm. Vincent, in his speech, had described the system
of Government as cannibal and atrocious—that it doomed
men, women, and children to toil in factories, in starvation,
and nakedness, to increase the wealth of the aristocracy. The
snowball of Chartism was increasing in size, and he called on
the people of Newport to roll it down on their oppressors and
crush them. He had also threatened the magistrates with
violence, and wanted to purchase a large quantity of
arms—muskets, cutlasses, pistols, &c.—from a commercial
traveller, named Johnson. Baron Alderson said that any
meeting assembled under such circumstances, or likely to
produce danger to the tranquility of the neighbourhood, was an
unlawful assembly. He then alluded to the petition to obtain
the five points of the Charter, which points went to a length that
sensible persons would think inconsistent with the Constitution
soafgtehsewehouienhtrmdit•y
country. Gentlemen, nothing is more unfair than to
take a part of a speech without taking the whole. In doing so
sentence. wi lbe unable to judge justly, for there may be many pas-
God
be thanked," dcshaairdigethteheLeenartioreedm
Judgeeanin
g of a
who
presided over the Chartist trials, "that the Constitution does
not forbid men to meet peaceably to petition the Queen. It
is the inalienable right of the subject, and surely it is not now
to be usurped." It is not evidence to be given against a man for
a conspiracy, namely, that he attended a meeting, if that meet-
ing be not illegal. Neither are the acts of another who may
have been guilty of violence to be offered in evidence against
a man for attending a legal meeting. He is not accountable
for such acts, and cannot be made so. Nor is it evidence of a
conspiracy that a number of persons propounded the same doc-
trines for the accomplishment of the same object. You must
convict them of one and the same conspiracy, and of one and
the same act—in different counts, if you will—but it must be
proved that they have combined to effect an illegal act, or a
legal act by illegal means. On the banners which the Man-
chester rioters bore before them was inscribed—" Englishmen,
the blood of your brothers reddens the streets of Preston, and
the murderers thirst for more ;" and on another banner was in-
culcated the observation of peace, law, and order ; but it was
decided that such an inculcation was absurd, as their acts
were to be evidence of their intentions, and their acts did not
correspond with the words which expressed those intentions.
Let us see, before we go further, what you are to find the
party guilty of. Is it that they have agre-d together for the
furtherance of a common object ? No. But that they con-
federated and conspired, by a complete union of purpose, and
a premeditated plan, to do any of those acts charged in the in-
dictment.
Judge PERRIN—Yon don't mean to say that they must find
them guilty of every overt act ?
Mr. WHITESIDE—NO, my Lord.
Judge PERRIN—I was afraid that the jury might misunder-
stand you, Mr. Whiteside.
Mr. WHITESIDE—I thank you, my Lord. I say that they
must find them guilty of the whole of the conspiracy, and that
these acts were the result of a fixed and settled confederation.
Judge By RTON—Is that report of the Chartist trials authen-
ticated ?
Mr. WHITESIDE—It has been published, my Lord, by Mr.
Feargus O'Connor. He says that he is quite satisfied that
he has been tried by law, and punished by law. The report
was taken in short-hand. There has been no evidence pro-
duced that the acts charged were done in accordance with a
previously-arranged plan. My client, Mr. Duffy wished to
accomplish the repeal of the Act of Union, which I need not tell
you is a perfectly legal Act, for no one Parliament can make a
law which another cannot repeal--otherwise the Legislature
would be cramped, and posterity would be bound by a number
of unjust and oppressive laws. The act of Mr. Duffy is re-
ceived in evidence, because he is on trial. But if my client
agrees with a party for a legal purpose, aided by legal means,
he is not accountable for the intemperate conduct of others who
are not on their trial, nor is that conduct evidence of guilt.
Would the meeting at Trim have been less illegal if a
thoustndp
with readingersonsm the speechesoreorlesshadst at homeaway,ayed? Could it
and contented
themselves be
said that the Hillsborough meeting of seventy-five thousand
persons, headed by Lord Downshire in person, was illegal?
To agitate for a repeal of the union was perfectly legal,
and, therefore, the numbers who attended meetings for
effecting that object were only important in so far as they
gave alarm to peaceable persons living in the vicinity of the
several places of meeting. The meetings mentioned in the
indictment had excited no alarm; and he would ask, was the
Solicitor-General prepared to affirm the monstrous doctrine
which had been laid down by his Learned Colleague,that the more
perfect the tranquillity which prevailed at a meeting, the
more dangerous was its character—the more they form the
determination not to break the law, the more palpable the
indications of crime and conspiracy ? He (the Learned
Counsel) would say, that meetings of such a nature were
always disliked by Kings and their Ministers ; for men born
to command disliked the voice of the people when raised
in murmur and complaint. Such sounds disturbed the
tranquillity of a Court; and Ministers of the Crown, ex-
cept when they could make popular ferment a stepping-
stone to power, disliked meetings called to complain of
grievances. Such meetings were always unheeded, ex-
cept when imposing in character and appearance. Sup-
pose the twelve gentlemen he had then the honour to
address met to discuss a fiscal grievance—suppose they
passed strong resolutions, their resolutions and their
meeting would pass unheeded—they would wither under
the silent contempt of the press, and the Minister's shimbers