Star.
London, England, 1820-05-16 00:00:00

selves to that part of the indictniknt upon tibich be
had been found guilty, or be twould take the li-
berty to Interrupt them. Punfshmeat !—lf to be .
a sincere advocate in the cause of Reform was it
crime, then he was guilty, and guilty be trusted he
should remain. Punishment ! In exercising the
right of a citizen, he had seen his fellow-subjects
struck dead before his face • he had seen women cut
down, mangled, and tramped upon ; he had him-
self been seized by the Military, pinioned down,
dragged along ; he had narrowly escaped having
his brains beaten out, and should not have escaped
but from his own presence of mind ; at the moment
when his arms were Pinioned to his sides, a Major-
General in the Army had. struck him from behind a
blow which had nearly felled him to the ground ;
that first blow had not been sufficientfor the purpose,
and his hat had been snatched off, that the blow
might be repeated with more effect. If the second.
blow had fallen upon his brad, he should not now
have been troubling the Court. He freely confessed-
that he owed his life upon that occasion to Nadia.—
•Nadin was the man who had again put,his hat upon
his head, exclaiming, that it was " a d—d shame
to treat any man in such a manner!" Ile had been
then dragged into the house where the Magistrates
were, and had been carried before Mr. Hulton, of
Hulton. He had been committed to prison on a
charge never substantiated—a charge of High Trea-
son he had been dragged fifty miles to Lancaster,
even while his bail were in the act of justifying; he
had been subjected to expense, to danger, to incon-
venience, and to insult ; and now they talked of pu-
nishment! He really thought that, at a fair compu-
tation, he had suffered, at least, punishment enough.
What a difference between the transactions of the 16th
of August at Manchester, and the late transactions
at Cadiz! At Cadiz, a Commission was sitting
even now, to do that justice which would never
be done in England. He knew it would be said,
why did be not prosecute these Magistrates ?
Why did he not prosecute this Major-General ?—,
Where should he find the means? The expenses of
the present prosecution had drained him of a sum
equal to two years of his income. It bad been said
that Courts of Law were open to the rich as well as
to the poor. So was the Crown and Anchor tavern,
and in the same way—for the rich man was sure to
be well attended to, and the poor man was sure to
be kicked out. He (Mr. Hunt) could not descend to
sue in forma paoperis. There were individuals—be
would not mention names—but there were indivi-
duals whom be should like to prosecute at York for
perjury. But such a measure would cost him 1,500/.
besides, he must go there to an additional expense;
he must employ Counsel; he must employ Mr. Scar-
•lctt, and he had no doubt that Mr. Scarlett would
do his duty. Ile could not afford to do himself jus-
tice. There was one more ground upon which be felt
inclined to make a few observations, although he
believed it would rather be applicable to a proceed.
ing by writ of error, than the present stage of his
case. This was the conduct of the Jury. His trial,
which lasted eleven days, had afforded a magnificent
specimen of British jurisprudence; and in no respect,
did he mean to impeach the conduct of the Judge;
greater moderation he had never witnessed.
Mr. Justice Balmer—l have, on a former occa-
sion, Mr. Hunt, requested you would not speak of
me. It is scarcely delicate to speak of a person who is
present-4 hope I did my duty.
Mr. Hunt must be allowed at present to take his
own course. He believed that the Learned Judge
hia most impartially done his duty, both by the
Crown and by the defendants. What be alluded to
with respect to the Jury was this, nine of !hem were
themselves Magistrates. He had not been tried by
his peers. It was ppssible that the Magistrates who
had formed his Jury had found him guilty in order
to protect their brother Magistrates from prosecu-
tion. Certainly, be could not now bring his action
against the Manchester MagistFates, even if he had
the pecuniary means.
1 he Cuuar was of opinion that Mr. Hunt was now
going
.into matter which could not properly be urged
in mitigation of punishment. -
Mr. Hunt was not pleading in mitigation of punish-
=rent. He anticipated no punishment ; but all the
punishment which that Court could inflict upon the
persons of the defendants would never wipe from
their minds the recollectidn of the perjuries which bad
been committed at York, or of the blood which had
been spilled by the Magistrates of Manchester ! He
knew that the Court had a great duty to perform ;
but he was certain they would not be influenced by
any feeling as to persons.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE trusted not.
Mr. Hunt remembered the exactions which in the
reign of Charles I. had been levied upon those who
had spoken in the cause of truth. Posterity remem-
bered the men by whom those extortions had been
committed. To what had those extortions and those
punishments led ? To the death of the Monarch, to
the banishment of his race, and to the placing of the
present Family upon the Throne of England. The
infliction of such punishment was an ominous com-
mencement for the present reign. He declared that
the defendants had only been prosecuted in order to
cover the atrocities which had been committed at
Manchester.—Mr. Hunt then went, at considerable
length, into a detail of same circumstances which oc-
curred at the trial. He complained that Mr. Scarlett
had been opposed to him merely because they bad
formerly met, and be (Mr. Hunt) had then beaten
Mr. Scarlett upon his own tactics. He then com-
plained of Mr. Scarlett's conduct in saying that he
would unmask him (the defendant), and expose his
hypocritical defence, merely because he had, perhaps,
in the great exertion of body and mind to which he
had been subjected, shed a tear. He then went into
proof to stew that he had no friendship or connec-
den with Mr. Carlile.
Mr. Hunt then continued.—He was happy to see
that the defendant Knight was not present, because
he argued from thence that the individual was to re-
ceive no further punishment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the case of
Knight was not before the Court.
Mr. Hunt was glad to hear it. Once more, he re-
quested the Court to observe, that he was not shrink-
ing from any punishment hich they might choose
to inflict. Whatever that punishment might be, be
should bear it with fortitude. He asked for no fa-
vour; but he once again firmly submitted, that if
against the trifling offence hp bad committed the
Court were to set the punishment he had *Wadi Cu-,

dared, they mould find that a eery lute balante in
the way of damages was coming to him. He thanked
their Lordships for the attention they had shewn to
his observations; and trusted that the Counsel for the
Crown would not attempt to justify the conduct of
the military at Manchester, by calling for any further
infliction upon the defendants.
Johnston recited his defence from a paper. It was
ill written, worse read, and contained no matter of
interest.

Healy alio read his defence, which, if ndt very im-
portant, was at least very entertaining. It was with
difficulty that those-in Court preserved their gravity.
Bamford understood that the principal ground of
charge against him had been the inscription " Unity
and Strength" upon one of the flags employed at the
Meeting. By the word " Unity" had been meant,
that unity was fit and becoming among thetnselves ;
and the " Strength" was the moral strength arising
from good order and government. Their Lordships
would- find, upon the evidence in the cause, that his
great effort had been to preserve peace and regularity.
He had exhorted the multitude to be quiet in their
demeanour, and rather to put up with an insult than
'to return it ; but he could assure the Court, that he
' would never again inculcate the patience which he
had inculcated upon that day—never, at least, until
complete justice had been done for the horrible crimes
which had then been committed in his view. The
regular marching to the Meeting was exactly what
he had wi:-hed for. The Reformers had been so often
vilified and called rabble, that he was anxious to shew
the country that they could go to a Meeeting, not like
hogs to a trough, but like men, who had serious busi-
ness to discuss. He was unpopular, he doubted not,
for he had spoken freely. He had been decidedly
against the measure adopted at Middleton, of making
the shopkeepers Special Constables. Ile, for instance,
was a poor man, and his neighbour was a shopkeeper.
Well, his neighbour became a Special Constable, and
took up a truncheon. He could not stir out ter-
wards but his neighbour's truncheon was exhibited
before him: All such petty distinctions were calcu-
lated to produce ill blood and quarrels among the
People. Bamford then alluded to certain unlawful
proposals which had been made to him, and which
be had rejected, the.nature of which he did not dis-
tinoly explain. It was not, he said, until after he
had rejected these proposals, that he had been ap-
prehended upon the present charge. Let it not be
supposed that he was appealing to the humanity of
the Court—he spoke only to their honour and to their
justice. GOD forbid that he should so far debase
himself as to ask the pity of any man, however ex-
alted his station. He had always followed the doc-
trines of Reform, and would follow them as far as
he fairly could ; but hat-red to measures did not ne-
cessarily imply hatred to men. He was no advocate
for blood. Ile knew that he had made himself ob-
noxious to the Provincial Authorities, whom he had
rather glory in as enemies than court as friends.—
Once more, he called upon their Lordships, not for
mercy, but for justice !
The A-rroaNey-GENsaaL thought, that if any per-
son unacquainted with the previous proceedings in
the present case had entered the Court, and heard
the address of the various defendants, he would have
imagined that they had performed some meritorious
service, for which exertion they were demanding their
reward. How astonished would such a person be to
hear that these men had been convicted of a crime
just short of the highest crime recognized by the
laws of their country, and that they were standing to
receive the sentence due to their offences. The first
defendant has most properly desired the Court to ap-
ply their minds entirely tothat evidence which regard-
ed the charge upon which he had been found guilty ;
for he (the Attorney-General) would say, that there
was not one particle of evidence in the case, long as
it was, which did not apply to that charge. That de-
fendant had complained of the Jury before whom he
had been tried. Had that defendant forgotten, or
would the Court forget, that he- had been tried in the
county of his own election? The affidavits which
had been put in by the defendants were an aggrava-
tion of the crime of which they stood convicted.—
Four hundred persons, according to the affidavit of
Whitworth, had been killed or wounded upon the
16th of August. How happened it that none of these
wounded persons had made affidavits now, or had
been produced as witnesses upon file trial ?
Mr. Hunt said, that many witnesses of that de-
SCI ipiion were present.
- Mr. Justice BATLEY.—Very early in the trial evi-
dence df that description was offered.
The ATTORNEY-GENERA L—Then why had not
such persons now made a/Way its ? Where were the
relations of these murdered people? and how hap- "
pened it that they did not supply Mr. Hunt with the
means of bringing the offenders to justice? The
fact was, that proceedings had been instituted against
the supposed-vffenders, and a Grand Jury of. the
country had refused to entertain them. To look -at
the circumstances of the case—ln July a Meeting
was held at Smithfield, at which resolutions border-
ing very closely upon High Treason, were put by
Mr. Hunt; and that gentleman is then invited to
preside at a Meeting at Manchester, not, as he had
said, at a Meeting for Reform, but at a Meeting for
the Election of a Legislatorial Attorney.
Mr. Hunt asserted that there was rib evidence that
he knew the object of the Meeting previous to his
arrival in Manchester.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Let it be SO taken.—
At least, when Mr. Hunt did arrive, he knew the ob-
ject •tf the Meeting to be illegal ; but what was his
conduct ? He ridiculed the caution of postponing
the Meeting, and declared that it was a lawful Meet-
ing. That conduct amounted to a confession, that
he would have presided at such a Meeting if it had
not been postponed ? Notice was then given of ano-
ther Meeting, at which Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr.
Carlile were invited to attend. But what passed in
the meal' time ? The Court had in evidence the dril-
jag at White Moss, the maltreatment of Murray,
and the subsequent hissing opposite to Murray's
house, which proves', at least, that the persons who
formed part of Mr. Hunt's Meeting knew what had
passed at White Moss with respect to that indivi-
' dual, if not that some of them had bee* present at
,the time.

Mr. Justice BAYLRY observed, that it was evident
that the persons who attended that Meeting had been
drilled spmewhere.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then alluded to the
flags, and to the iipciiptions. which he ciglexecl tv

be most important evidence. The dope:ndarts 11:;.1
adverted to acts of Parliament recently 'passed (hr tl,-
prevention of Seditious Meetings. They wett'wofully
mistaken if they thought that, as regarded 'such 'Meet-
ings as that of the 16th of August, those Acts hall
made any difference in the laW. The present i ict-
had been preferred against Mi. 1-luia long be-
fore those Acts-came into existence ; that indictment
was not founded upon an particular Sitat ute ; it n•rita
founded upon the common law. An aflidavit bad
been produced him twelVe'persons who had sine]
the 'Requisition for the Meeting of the 16th of Au=to t.
Mr. Hunt bad sworn in his aEdavit, that be did P. 4-1
mean to propose at that Meeting any Resolutions like
those passed at tha Smithfield Meeling ; but neither
he, nor any of these regnisitionisti, had ventured to
state what Resolutions were intended to be passed.--:
He .(the Attorney-General) did not believe that the'
persons who composed that Meeting had not beets`
aware what Resolutions were to he proposeti.
was the verdict of the Jury for the Court to look to:
and if the Jury bad been in ignorance of the Reso-
lutions which were actually to have been proposod,
and if the Court was still in ignorance upon that
point, the ignorance was, produced by the conduct ef
the defendants, in not producing evidence upon tl.e
Subject. The only topics which appeared to him
(the Attorney-General) fairly urged in mitigation,
' were the supposed hardships which the defcildan:s
had endured during their confinement. One of those
alleged instances of hardfhip had been the commit-
tal for High Treason ; hut he (the Atto:nev-General)
declared, as a lawyer, that the offence of the defend-
ants bordered so nearly upon High Treason, that a
Magistrate might well pause before he decided whe-
ther a commitment in such a case should be for High
Treason or not. Whatever difference of shade there
might have been hr the case of- the various elaond-
ants, it had been entirely done away by their co,
duct upon the present occasion. Ile (the Attorney--
General) felt satisfied, that the sentence of the Coni,
would be such as to prevent other persons from t;
commission of the misdemeanours for w filch the de-
fendants were now on the point of receiving judgment.
Mr.Sce.ni.Err vindicated himself from the person-
alities of Mr. Hunt, and disclaimed any resentment
or personal ill-will against that defendant.
Mr. Serjeant CROSS followed en the same side.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in protwuncing the judgment
of the Court, went at great length into the detail of
the case. From the great number of persons, the
Learned Judge observed, who attended the Meeting
of the 16th August, that Meeting could scarcely be
considered a deliberative assembly. The probability
was, that, in a Meeting of such n;aguitude,
duals would ratl-er be taught their grievances by the
person who presided, than'state the grievances which
they actually endured, and that the remedies resolved
upon would be provided in the same manner. rs
Lordship then adverted to the question as to the lie-
solutions. If the Resoluthms to be passed at t!:!.
Manchester Meeting were the Smithfield Ilesolutkw,
no one could entertain any doubt of the effect which
such proposals were calculated to produce upon such
an assembly. If it was intended to pass different lie-
solutions, it bad been .competent to the defendants to
strew, by evidence or by affidavits, what those nese-
lutions were. The Learned Judge concluded his
address by observing, that the Court had not been
inattentive to the affidavits of the defendants, and
proceeded to pass sentence.
The sentence of the Court was, that Mr. Hunt
should be imprisoned in Ilchester Jail for the term
of Two Years and Six Months. At the expiration ef
that time to find sureties for his good behaviour du-
ring a farther term of five years, himself in
and two other persons in £5OO each.--Jelinsc::,
Healy, and Bamford, to be imprisoned in Lincoln
jail for the period of One Year, and, at the expirations
of that time, each to enter into sureties for his gc,l
behaviour during five years, himself in £2OO, and
two other persons in £lOO each.
Mr. Hunt wished to know whether his confinement
was to be solitary confinement ?
Mr. Justice BAYLEY replied, that the Court made
nd such order. Ile had no dotibt that every proper
attention would be paid to the convenience of the
defendants; and, if cause for complaint should arise,
that complaint would be attended to.

THE KING V. WOLSELEY AND HARRISON.
Judgment was also pronounced upon these defen-
dants. Sir Charles Wolseley was sentenced to Eigh-
teen Months' imprisonment in Abingdon jail ; at the
expiration of that time to enter into sureties for his
good behaviour, himself in £l,OOO, and two other
persons in £5OO each.' Mr. Harrison to be impri-
soned for a term of Eighteen Months (computing
from the expiration of his present imprisonrrieno in
the Castle of Chester; and, at the expiration of his
imprisonment, to enter into securkies for his good
behaviour during five years, himself in ie2CO, and
two other persons in £lOO each.

The servant of Captain Davis, who, as cmixefigers
may recollect, enabled his master to escape from
Giltspur-street Compter, was yesterday tried at the
London Sessions, and sentenced to six months im-
prisonment. - The Jury were extremely reluctant to
find a verdict against him, but without violating their
oaths, they could not acquit him. As he passed front
Guildhall to the place of confinement, he was thee: e 1
by the populace.
Saturday se'nnight, a weaver in Dunse, of the name
of Hilson, was climbing trees at Marchmont, fcr
crows nests, when the branch on which he was stand-
ing gave way, and losing his hold, he fell to t!,e
ground, and was killed on the spot. He has left a
widow and two children to lament his loss.
BETTING AT TATTERSALL'S YESTERDAY.
1111111 r.
17 to 1 apt the Doke
20 to 1 agst Arbutua
20 to 1 apt Lockslei
20 to 1 apt Cat
30 to 1 apt Hoopoe.
OA[ll.
110 to 1-agst Marianne
12 to 1 apt Plain.

9 to 4 agst Pindaree
S to 1 agst the Selim filly
5 to 1 agst Sailor
14 to 1 agst Antigallican
10 to 1 apt Abjer

7 to 4 agst Emmeline
t to I agst Prudence
6 to 1 apt the Bride

At Calcutta, on the 19th November last, Captain H. A. F.
Hervey, of the 7th Regiment of Bombay Native Infantry, c.)
Miss Barnfleld, formerly of Pentonville.

.... _
DIED.
Ye*erday morning, it the Admiralty, Spenser, the enly sca
of Mr. and Mrs. Croker.

Crtult7--eitrani.vd.puT_b,Usbc-i;ele-d.i
joby Lt vi. 3 rtfik•'.l`