Star.
London, England, 1822-04-11 00:00:00


to the patty who performed it. liovitad Mr. Ethel-
stone, the individual to whom he alluded, sworn that
he ha:t read it? He had said that he reedit from
the windows of Ms. Button's house. Did he pretend,
td swear that he had read it anywhere else? No.—
And why had he not ? Because, forsooth, when he
went downstairs, he did not find his servant waiting
with a horse for him to mount, aad on which to read,
it ! To whom, too, had he read it ? To nobody but
the Rev. Mr. Hay, the Vicar of Rochdale, who, though
labouring, as he pretended, under the greatest alarm'
and antiety, found time enough to say to his Rev.
Coadjutor, with a calculating coolness that was al-
most inconceivahle—o Ethelstone, I never heard you
in such good voice before !" and yet, the tones.of Mr.
F.thelstone's voice were so clear and sonorous, not
one Magistrate had come forward to say that he,
heard him tending the Riot Act, though it was
point that all of them would have been willing
-enough to prove had they been able to swear it,
bid anybody outside of the.honse here it read? No ;
for even, according to Mr. Ethelstone's own account,
it was read, at a time when the ringing of the horses
hoofs on the, pavement, and the clashing of the Yeo-
men's swords with one another, rendered all other
sounds quite inaudible. Mr. Stanley, who was in
the window of the room above that in which the Ma-
gistrates were, did not hear a word of the Riot Act
read, though he was paying the most earnest atten-
tion to everything that passed ; neither did Mr.
111‘Kinlay, who was on the steps below them, and
equally attentive to all that was going forward. His
Learned Fiend, in opening his case, had stated, that
there were fifty yards between the Magistrates' house
anti the crowd, and that the intervening space was
filled with special constalget. How, then, could the
crowd know of the reading of the Riot Act ? The
Jury were then left to infer that Mr. Silvester had
quitted the house to read it, and that he had been
prevented by having been knocked down, and
trampled upon. If such were the case, why had the
defendants not called Mr. Silvester, the best of all

witne-'es on that head, to prove it ? Instead of that,
they nad called upon a person who said that he
saw Mr. Silvester, the Magistrate, take up a card
en ‘alich the Riot Act was printed, leave the room
far a short time, and then return with a.clitty coat.—
It Mr. Silvester could have proved so material a fact
as hi, reading of the Riot Act, he would have done
it, for he was one of those who had signed the war-
rant. It was well known that Mr. Silvester had never
read it ; but in order to leave the Jury to infer that he
had, an individual had sworn as he had before de-
scribed. It was now worth while to see how the Riot'
Act was to be read according to the provisions of the
Statute. The Learned Counsel here read the Statute
to the Jury. He then contended that the reading
of the Riot Act, as the Reverend Mr. Ethelstone
bad done, was no justification of the killing, maim-
ing, and wounding, that afterwards ensued. He
then reviewed-the evidence, and said that it was
clear from it that Birley, Withington, Oliver, and
Meagher were all of them upon the field, aiding and
abetting each other in the attack on he plaintiff.
The Learned Gentleman next alluded to what had
been said by Mr. Serjeant Hullcck in his opening
speech—that all the witnesses for the plaintiff largely
entered into the feelings of the prosecution, or had a
latent interest in Parliamentary Reform. Surely his
Learned Friend could not have known the descrip-
tion of the witnesses which he himself intended to I
call, when he made such an attack on the witnesses I
on the other side; for the Jury, if they examined the
fifty-one witnesses -for the defence, would find that
thei e was not one of them who had proved any es-
sential point in their favour, who was not either a
Magistrate or special oonstable. The Learned Coun-
sel then adverted to the conduct of the Yeomanry,
and maintained that they had no right to seize a
single flag. They went into the Meeting not to
" have at their flags," but to take into custody cer-
taiu persons named in a warrant. But he would say
that the warrant, on the face of it, contained no de-
signation of the offence, and did not justify the ulte-
rior proceedings of those individuals. The warrant
was simply to take up certain persons therein named,
at a quarter past one o'clock, and who were in the
cart at the hustings.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD said, that the warrant could
only affect the parties concerned in executing it under
the provisions of the Statute of George 11. which ex-
presses that no action shall be brought against a con-
stable, or others acting in aid of a constable, in exe-
cution of the warrant of a Magistrate or Magistrates,
if the proCeeding be illegal, unless the action be
brought within six months.
Mr. BLACKBURNE said; that if he mistook the law,
it could be argued hereafter. He cared not whether
the warrant was good or bad, but he could never toe
strongly impress upon them that the wound inflicted
upon the individual in this case occurred after the
execution of that warrant--after the parties had been
arrested or, the hustings. They had done all that
was required under the warrant; and having done
so, the parties in possession of that warrant had no
longer any power to act, and they were not justified
in using the sabre, or even an instrument much less
likely than a sabre to occasion death, having per-
formed the duty for which they were deputed to act.
But it was said resistance had been offered ; where
was the proof of that resistance? There were Messrs.
Andrew, Moore, and Nadin, they said that they went
up behind the Manchester Yeomanry to execute the
warrant—they saw no resistance offered, except the
statement of Nadin, that a man's arm had been
hurt by a blow of a stone. These people, there-
fore, furnished negative evidence of a most important
kind to establish the main fact, that no resistance
was offered before the cavalry reached the hustings.
It was not a little remarkable, that when so much
was said of the injury done to the Yeomanry, that
mot a single individual of the corps was brought for-I
ward to prove the assault. How easy it would have
been to have proved the fact, had it occurred as his
Learned Friend was instructed to represent. But
what said Lientetiant-Colonel Keymer, with antici-
pation of mischief, not from the people, but from the
cavalry. lie said, that the moment he saw the latter
coming on the ground, he ordered the woolen and
children to get away, because, said he, " I then
dreaded wischief." There was nothing, then, accord-
ing to that witness's evidence, to excite apprehensions
in Ins mind, until the Yeomanry came; it was then
uniy that he warned the women and children to de-
pa; t, and it was thou only that he became sure of the-
oct:urrencc of mischief. This was at the period ctthe