The Sun.
London, England, 1820-03-29 00:00:00

4X.•
. 'l4
•

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1820.

TRIAL OF Alit. MINI' AN!) OTHERS.

TENTH AND LAST DAY.

YORK, MUNDAT Nzc T.

Mr. Justice BAY LET, upon coming into Court
this morning, resumed his charge by beginning
with the evidence of lhawcroft, with which he
had left. off on Saturday evening. This witness,
he observed, proved no more than the. banners
used on the 9th of August. Michael Fitzpatrick
was the next, and his testimony was material, as
he put in the Resolutions of the meeting in Smith-
field. Upon these he would refrain from making
any comment. It was entirely for the Jury to
say whether or not they had a tendency to over-
throw the establishments founded upon the laws
of the country. This was the last witness for the
prosecution, and he was now come to the ad-
dresses of the Defendants. First, to that of
Johnson. Johnson asked, was it illegal to meet
fur the purpose of petitioning for Reform in Par-
liament ? Certainly not. He asks, if the meeting
was legal, could numbers make it otherwise ?
They could not. Johnson entreats him (Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley) to refrain from prejudicing the Jury
by any observations. Such a request was quite
unnecessary. In the course which lie had to take,
he would endeavour to hold the scale equally be-
tween the Crown and the Defendants. A serious
and important duty devolved upon him, and he
trusted God would give him discrimination enough
to discharge it with the most rigid impartiality.
Mr. Hunt asks, why are not the Magistrates or
Nadin produced i Very proper questions. It cer-
tainly struck himself as extraordinary, that if the
evidence of Mr. Holton could be confirmed, they
should not bring those persons forward to con-
firm him. It was said the people had sticks, but
it would entirely depend upon the intention, whe-
ther there was ;thy criminality in their brineing
them there.—With regard to the character of the
banners, he would speak mote of these when he
came to sum up the evidence. There was nothing
in the addresses of any of the other defendants
material. Having now given 'to the Jury the
substance of the addresses, he won't! proceed with
the evidence offered on their behalf. To begin
then with Bamford, a great deal bad been offered
for him, which, if it was his wish, he would state
the substance merely to the Jury.
Mr. Hunt—,-My Lord, you may use your own'

discretion.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I desire, however, that
you would attend, to see that I do it correctly.
I also wish that the Counsel for the Crown would
correct me, it I omit any materiel point.
Nis Lordship continned—Froni the evidence
'respecting Mr. Bamford, his conduct appear:ed
to be quite peaceable. He is represented as re-
commending the people to hear any thing that was
said, to hear all that was offered, not to insult
any one, and to go home quietly. This was the
conclusion he drew from it but he desired the
Jury not to be influenced by it, but' draw their
own. Upon Sexton, as the Crown had given up
the case against him, he did'uot think it neces-

nary tO mace' iny'remitrki. One part.of the evi
dence proved 'that' the leaders'recommended to
stand firm. If the purposelor'which they met
was constitutional there would be no criminality
in• this. Neither was it a crime in there to cheer
the cavalry, it the Jury believed the motives of it
were what the witnesses assigned, namely, to re-
assure the people. Perhaps it would be as well to
state the substance of what the other witnesses
stated, as reading a 1 the evidence over would em-
barrass the Jury. (The defendants assented.) The
erect of it all taken together, as it appeared to
him, was to show (and to that it should be re-
collected there was very respeilable evidence)
that no alarm was produced upon the people of
Manchester by the meeting. In addition to this,'
a witness stated that he understood the drilling
was, that the peOple.inight come its a more regu-
lar order. This was Mr. Shuttleworth. It was
also confirmed by Mr. ryas, for he said, though
there was considerable regularity in their gait,
still it was not a military step. Now, assuming
the object
,of the meeting to be legal, the next
question would be, whether the manner of hold-
ing it was legal or not. Mr. Walker, a military
man, and consequently qualified to form a judg-
ment, did not think from their appearance that
they had been (billed. Mr. Grundy spoke in the
sante way, though be allowed there was a great
deal of regularity io it.
144 r. Hunt. wished his Lordship to turn to that

part of Mr. Tyas's evidence, which said tie (Mr.
Ei ) had condemned the black flag as foolish.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that Mr. Hunt
was not entirely to be identified with the inscrip-
tions on the banners, for he must he supposed to
have his mind too NU of the part he was to take
himself. Mr. Tyros had said Carlile was in the
coach with Mr• Hunt, but that was not confirm-
ed. He next adverted to that of Mr. Hindwarsh,
who, as a clergyman, he observed, very properly
refrained from giving any opinion upon politics.

Mr. Hunt wished his Lordship Co tell tl,e Jury
hat he had no knowledge of a meeting of Magis-
Niles at the Star.

11Ir. Justice BAYLEY-There is no evidence et
all that you knew any thing of it• I did intend
to read over all Mr. Tyas's evidence, and I feel
obliged to you for calling back my attention, it I
omitted any thing.
His Lordship continued—The evidence of Mr.
Tyas was maferiat. He seemed to think that
Johnson waved his hand to prevent the prople
from hissing in front of the Star Inn. His evi-
dence applied itself to all, and, in effect, went to
prove this, that in the several processions there
were several women and children. Now, it was
extraordinary, if they were really disposed to riot,
that they should have women amongst them, fin-
less indeed the Jury thought that this was part
of their plan ; that they did not offer insult to
any one, and that there was no act of vio-
lence committed upon that day. If any had taken
place, in such a populous place as Manchester,
it ought to be easy to bring witnesses in proof
of it. So far, therefore, the case for the prose-
cution appeared to hint detective. With regard to
the evidence of Mr. Hunt's servant, he observed,
that he only spoke of seeing Knight at Smedley
Cottage. The Jury would form their own opi-
oiew!4 of the credit to be given Willie, Irons the
evidence adduced to prove him perjured. in ad-
dition to this, his Lordship observed, the adver-
tisement calling the meeting was put in. This,
the Jury would observe, was done with a view of
showing the objects of it. He would pot the
questions to them, first, did they think the meet-
ing was legal with regard to the bulk of those at
it ? and, secondly, to how many, and which of
the defendants, it was so ? He had already said,
he considered it legal with some ; but there were
others who came there with illegal objects. It
might be an object with these latter to give a
wrong direction to the others, and therefore, as
to them, their conduct was criminal, though the
bulk might be innocent. There was nothing
illegal in persons meeting to discuss the question
of Reform, unless the manner in which they did
it was calculated to excite terror and alarm in the
neighbourhood. If such meeting had that object,
or that efft!ct, then all who gave countenance to
it knowingly were criminal. In this view of the
case, the evidence to this point was material On
both sides. All who assisted at a meeting which,
from its appearance or its numbers, created alarm,
were criminal in being there. There could has no
doubt but many went there from motives of cu-
riosity. Buts did not some go. to produce terror or
alarm ? if the Jury came to a conclusion that
they did, he would be glad it they would find a
special verdict on that point. In order to arrive at
this, they would du well to look at the evidence
offered for the Crown. substance, this amount-
ed to prove, that the meeting was peaceable, that
there were women and children in great numbers
there ; but still they were left to infer from all
these circumstances, whether or nut ulterior mis-
chief was intended from it. , On .the part of the
Crown, it was not charged that they meant in-
stant mischief; quite the contrary. They say,
that the appearance of the women and children
was for the purpose of evading the crisis, and
put tiogriff the danger to a more distant day. An-
other question was, after considering whether the
meeting was illegal as to any, to see how it look-
ed as to all. In order to help them in coming to
a conclusion on this head, they would do well to
consider its views, as well as could be gathered
from the evidence. Ile meeting was so popu-
lous, that deliberation was quite impossible. But
still no light was thrown upon the views which
they had. The requisition was said to be signed
by seven huinired householders, but no one of
them was put into the witness box. There
was, therefore, no distinct proof as to its precise
objects, and the absence of this proof affected
the case for the prosecution materially ; but, in
order to supply its. place, they connect the con-
duct of Mr. Hunt with some resolutions which
were passed at a .meeting in Smithfield, at which
he presided some time before. From this, they
would have the Jury conclude that he meant to
propose the saute resolutions here. He thought,
however, the evidence did not bear out this itt-
ferenee. Mr. Hunt was Chairman of the meeting
at Manchester he was also Chairman of that
at Smithfield. So far there was a similarity in
the situation in which he was placed at both.--
But it was proved, from the evidence of a Mr.
Fitzpatrick, that at Smithfield, -befOre the Reso-
lutions were put, time. Chairman gave au intime-
tion that such Resolutions would be propounded.
Was that done here, or was any thing done to
show that he meant to propose Resolutions at
Manchester similar to those which had passed at
Smithfield
.? Uri the of her hand,
.why, did not
Mr. Hunt negative his having such an intention ;
for in'Courfs of Justice as notch was to be gtv her-
ed front evidence which was not produced, as trout
what was proved. Had Mr. Hunt, or bad he not
such au intention ? That was the question. If
he had such intention, there was no doubt but,
(pond his attendance there was illegal. It
any of the others knew he had these internisins,
and acted w;ila him, then they and he were colt),
of 'a eotispifacy, The Jury coold cut, howtver,

- [PRICE SEV'ENPENcr®

convict them of a con piracy, unless tl.ey were
convinced they had this knowledge. In the next
place, if any of the defendants were there with ati
intention of exciting disaffection, and Mr. Hunt
wai connected with them, then it was a crime
ejusdem genera es to them ; for where three
combine together to bring about a certain, object,
the law declares that a conspiracy. .Now,
come at the intention of the parties at this meet-
ing, it was material to look at the flags, and the dif-
ferent inscriptions which they bore,. If it be as-
sumed that a man carrying a flog with ate inscrip-

tion, speaks his sentiments and those of his fol-
lowers in that way, then, if the language or
,sen-
timents of these sags be illegal, he is of course
idenrified with them. His Lordship then pro-
ceeded to read the inscripr ions on the flags. The
Jury would see whether r•,ey were not of the slime
tenor with the resolutions. Those of " Annual
Parliaments," and " No Corn Laws," were not
improper, if the objects of them were proposed to
be brought about by legal means. " No 80.
roughniongers" was also one : this they wonld
see agreed more with the resolutions. His Lord-
ship censured the inscription of " Unite and be
free," as when addressed to a large body of men,

likely to excite discontent. " Equal itepresen-
tstion or Death" was also reprehensible, if it was
intended by that to indtice them to resort to the
alternative of putting their lives in danger if they
did not attain their objects. " Taxation with-
out Representation is unjust" was also improper,
if the Jury thought they meant by that that eve, y
than who had not a vote in sending a Member of
Parliament should be taxed. The lksw supposes
every man to have a vote, and a Member, whets
returned to Parliament, not only serves that par-

titular place which he represents, but the king.
dons at large. There was a large class of copy-
holders who had no votes ; there were many free.
holders who bad nn votes ; but could all these.
say, "I am unjustly taxed." These were aa
impressions made upon his mind by the fligs, but
he did not wish the Jury to adopt them ; he wished
them to judge fur themselves. Another banner
(his Lordship continued) bore the inscription,
" Labour is the Source of Wealth." This was true;
labour was the source of wealth ; and he hoped
every man would continue to enjoy the protection
of the laws, in transmitting to his children the
profits of his iudustry. The next was Let
us die like men, and not be sold as slaves."—
The Jury would consider whether or trot holding'
out such a sentiment to a inultitude like this was
calculated to produce discontent and disaffection.
They would next consider whether the bearers of
these flags were identified with the inscriptions
on them. If they were of opinion that a man
holding out an inscription on a banner took that
way of applying to the eyes of the multitude a
sentiment which he could not make them hear,
and that sentiment was calculated-to excite dis-
content, then they most find those bearing theta
guilty, and consequently as to them the meeting
was illegal. There was another circumstance in
the case which they should not overlook, as a fea-
tare denoting the preparations used before the
meetitsg, and that was the dvWtp. lt had been
said that ibis was done only with a view of en-
abling the people to walk with more regularity to
the meeting, and of making a more respectable
appearance when there. If this was its object it
was quite innocent. But, on the other hand, it
was said, that it was with k view of more effec-
tually inspiring them. In that case it would
be little short of High Treason. It might
have a purpose between the two. rerhisiss
it was only meant by making a show of
strength, to encourage those who were (Hellos•
eel to make seditious or iutiammatory speeches.
In that case the object of it was illegal.—
After all he desired them to keep in view, thke
though the meeting might be innocent as to all,
yet it might be criminal as to .4orne, who came
there with bad intentions. There might he thou-
sands who went there with no other object than
to discuss how, reform might he brought about by
constitutional means. They were clearly inno-
cent ~unless by the manner in which they assem-
bled they excited terror or alarm in the neigh-
bourhood. He would now shortly state how tar
it appeared to him each of the Defendants wele
criminated by the evidence. It was endeavoured
to show Mr. Hunt's motives by the resolutions at
the Smithfield meeting. It was not however
proved that he took any steps to intimidation, as
it appeared, when the hissing took place before
the Magistrates' house, he knew nothing of their
meeting there. The Jury would draw their own
conclusions from the evidence, whether or not
he had any intention of proposing at Manchester
resolutions similar to those passed at Smithfield.
As to Johnson, all that was found against him was

that be was taken up on the road by Mr. Hunt ;
that he was with hint on the 9,h ; and that he was
present at the groaning before Morley's. It did
not appear he did any thing to check it. Ile was
on the hustings, and proposed Mr. Hunt as chair-
man ; and the Jury would consider from this cir-
cumstance whether or not he knew of Mr. Hunt's
intentions. Moorhouse seemed to have dune less
than Johnson. lie was met at Bullock Smithy
by Mr. Hunt, but he lett the ground before the
dispersion of the meeting. The only evidence
against Swift was, that one witness heard him
say '' their enemies were on the alert." Healey
was at the head of a party which bore flags
with inscriptions of " Equal Representation nr
Dealt," "No Corn Laws," &c. If the Jury
were of opinion these inscriptions were sedi-
tious, then they most find him guil,y. That
of " No Corn Laws" did not appear to him to he
improper, for it was a question of political eco-
nomy upon which there was grest difference of
opiniOn. If the means, therefore, of having it
repealed were constitotiunal, there. Weil no ira-