The Sun.
London, England, 1820-05-16 00:00:00

Witness ought to have been proved at the
by oral testimony.
Mr. SciaLaTT added, that the defenthinH
plenty of time from the protracted length of :he
trial, to send to Manchester for %vitnesses to Hill
effect, if such could have been adduced ; and they
had actuallyadopted' that course with respect
to
another witness.

Hunt stated, that the present deponent could
not then be founts, but he knew where to " prick
tor" the witnesses who deposed to the hail charac-
ter ot the other person alluded to. He also sub-
mitted that as Chadwick was not a witness on the
pull of the indictment, he could nut be aware
that he would be called.
Lord Chief Justice A BBITT stated, that the
only difficulty the Court had, was in allowing its
Rule as to the reception ot affidatits in mitigation
of punishment to be extended b,yond that boon.
Clary which strict justice required.—The Learned
Judges consulted.

Mr. Justice liavLeY theft asked Hunt, what
part of Chadwick's testimony the affidavit in ques-
tion was calculated to itnpeach ?
Hunt replied, that Chadwick had sworn he
came by the side of, his (Hont's) gig from Stock-
port, and heard him invite the people to hiss and
shout. This affidavit was- to contradict him iii
that respect.

Mr. Justice liAvl.RY—Your own affidavit does
not Legative Ow.

The Conn, after further consultation, de'cided
that the affidavit in ►lnestion must be rejected.
'['hen defendants catne up for judgment, it was
not for them to be casting general slurs and impn-
atinns on the character of the witnesses against:

I)eni.

Mr. Hunt, after the affidavits were disposed 01,
addressed the Court at considerable length, and
went over all his eld topics.
Johnson, Healy, -and Bamford, the other de-
fend4uts, severally read address es to the Court,
which were principally appeals to its mercy.
The ATToRNEY-GlsNisuAL. pointed oul the mis-
chievous consequences of the conduct of which
the defendants had been found guilty, and de-
scribed the serious and alarming character of their
ploceedings. Their affidavits, he contended, in-
stead of extenuating, only went to aggravate
their offenees.
Mr. SemiLeTT and Mr. Serjeant Caoss
ed on tkae same side.
A considerable pause ensued whilst their Lord-
ships were in deliberation on the quantity of
punishment which they ought to .aw4rd. Halt
an hour had elapsed before Mr. Justice BAY-
LEY pronounced judgment. After reciting the
in-
dietwent, and the particular charge upon which
the Defendants had been toned guilty, his Lord-
ship went at some length into the circumstances
of the case. That it was a charge nt a most seri-
ous nature no one who read the evidence could
tor a moment deny. His Lordship censured the
conduct of the defendants, who had taken advan.
(age of the distresses of the people to excite :theta
to illegal acts. It was well known that distress
prevailed to a great extent at Manchester,. and
therefore an assembly of persons su situated could
not be peaceable, or, in any sense of the word, he
said to be a deliberative one. He asked, was this
the way to remedy their distresses ? It a represeL,
tat rots was to be made iu the proper place, lie wits
convinced a deaf car would not be -homed to
it. No one could doubt that the Resolutions of the
Smithfield Meeting were extremely improper, and
it was incumbent on the defendants to show that
they did not mean to propose similar ones at the
Meeting at Manchester. 'This had not been doge
at the trial, nor had it beenaloue by.affidavits since
put in on the part of the delendants, In the ab-
sence therefore of such proof, it Was rational to
presuMe that such Resolutions were intended Id
be proposed at the Meeting at Manchester.—.
His Lordship then to,k a view of the evidence as
it applied itself to tire defendants individually,
and censured as criminal the endeavours made
by them to look upon a Reform in Parliament
as a cure for all their ills. It was making a belittle
of their distress, and only irritating feelings which
before were festering in their breasts. The ques-
tion of the conduct of the Military or the Magis.
(rates, the Court could not inquire into; for it
would be unjust towards them, as prejudging tire
question. Under .011 these circumstances, the
Court had taken .the mrifier in'o their serious
consideration, and feeling themselves . called
upon, as far as in them lay, to protect the
public peace, and prevent the lower ordets
from being brought together in large numbers, and
having seditious, and, to them, foreign speeches
delivered,. did order and adjudge, that for this
offeit.ce the defendant, Henry Huut, should be
committed to his Majesty's Gaol at Dellester, in
the county of Somerset, for the space of twb years
and"six mouths, and at the end of that time to
find sureties to keep the peaee for five years, him-
self in 10001. and two sureties in 5001. each ; and
the other three defendants, Johnson, Healy, and
Bamford, to be confined in the Gaol at Lincoln,
each for the space of one year, and at the end of
that time to firol sureties, themselves in 2001. Eliot
two sureties in 1001. each, to keep the peace for
five years, and to be further confined until these
securities were perfected, and in the mean time to
he committed to the custody of 'the Marshal of
the Marshalsea.
After the sentence, Hunt asked if he was to he
put itisolitarycootinement.—The Court intimated
that they had made no order haying float effect.
The defendants were taken out of Court, and
conducted, through a number of persons assembled
in the Hall, to a coach.

STOCKPORT MEETING.

TEIR KING V. SIR C. woLsELRY AND JOSEPH

HARRISON.

The defendants were brought into Court to

receire sentence.

Judge BAYLEY, addressing Sir Charles NVolseley
and Harrison, said, they had been convicted by i
Jtiry, and it become his duly to pass on them tiler
judgment of the Court. The information stated;
that the.defendants, being seditiously disposed,
and endeavouring to excite tumult and insurrec-
tion, on the 2Stl► of June, with divers other per-
sons, to the number of 5000, by force of arms
did assemble to disturb the peace, and being so
assembled, did, by certain speeches, incite the