Star.
London, England, 1820-05-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 5.
After some cursory motions had been disposed of,
and the whole Bench assembled,

Mr. Justice BAYLEY resumed the reading of the
evidencefor the defence, in the case of " Hunt and
others," as postponed from yesterday, and in recapi-
tulating the evidence of Robert Gundry, the Learned
Judge took occasion to recur to a question put upon
the trial by Mr. Hunt, when this man was gking
his evidence. It was a question suppositiously put,
" whether, if certain expressions (so and so) were
used, what would then be the feeling of the multi-
tude?" The words were supposed to have been used
in Parliament by one of the Counsel for the Crown,
then on the trial. There was some objection made;
to putting the question, and that objection was dis-
cussed; when he (Mr. Justice Bayley) said he was of,
opinion there could be no objection to put the ques-
tion, if it was pressed; but he, at the same time, bad
expressed his idea that it could be of no service to the
defendant's case, if put; and Mr. Hunt did not ptit it.
When Mr. Justice BAYLEY came to read the evi-
dence of William Binns, the person 'who had been
employed to paint the flag of the Bury party, who
had marched into Manchester on the 16th August,
Mr. Hunt begged to call the recollection of his
Lordship to the testimony of that witness, compared
with the evidence df others upon the same point.—
It was stated by some of the Counsel for the Crown,
that the flag-staff of that division was surmounted
by a bloody dagger ; and this witness was called in
the defence, in order to shew that the thing was not
meant for a bloody dagger, nor to represent a dagger,
and to shew the reason why it was painted red ; and
the man proved the thing was meant to represent a
dear-de-lis ; that he was ordered to paint it yellow,
but that having no yellow paint left on the Saturday
night, he painted it red, and left it so, because he did
not choose to work the nest day, which was Sunder.
Mr. SCA RLETT said, he could not be quite positive
in speaking from general recollection ; but he thought
it was clearly proved on the trial that there was a
bloody dagger on the flag-staf.
Mr. Hunt contended, there was no such evidence
on the trial.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY recurred to the evidence on
that point, and said, it stated the thing to be a fleur-
de-lis with the centre part projecting beyond the sides.
The Learned JUDGE having concluded the reading
of evidence, recurred to the notice for convening the
Meeting, of which he had no copy on his notes ; but
In substance it had stated the object of the Meeting
to be to consider of the most eligible and effectual
means to obtain a Reform in Parliament; and it an-
nounced Henry Hunt in the Chair.
Mr. Hunt reminded his Lordship, that there were
also a great number of other names signed to the
paper, with their addresses annexed ; and it might
have been very easily ascertained, upon the least in-
quiry, whether or not these names were annexed with
the consent of the owners.

The Learned JUDGE then recapitulated, as nearly
as he could from recollection, the substance of what
he had said to the Jury, on summing up the evidence
for their consideration. He had stated to them that
the Meeting might be very legal as to the bulk of the
people assembled, though illegal as to the bulk, ge-
nerally ; and it might be legal as to all those who at-
tended the Meeting, provided their object was not il-
legal, and that their numbers, and other accompany-
ing circumstances, did not tend to excite any alarm
in the neighbourhood. He told them that the avowed
purpose of the Meeting did not appear to him to be
an illegal purpose ; and he then left the question to
the Jury, as to its general illegality, and whether
they thought it was calculated to produce apprehen-
sions of terror in ordinary minds.of the inhabitants,
or to excite alarm in persons better disposed ? Ile
then directed them to find against all those of the
defendants who attended the Meeting with such views
to alarm and disturbance, provided it should appear
to them that they previously knew of the circum-
stance : and he told them, that if they believed the
Meeting was calculated to produce alarm and danger,
even at a distant period, then they must find their
verdict as to the special danger distant ; and he thought
this was a right point to he submitted to the Jury ;--
because if tne party against whom a verdict should
be found on that point should feel aggrieved, he
might have the benefit of appeal to a Court of Error.
—He also told the Jury, that although there was
no proof thin the Meeting had any object immedi-
ately dangerous, still it might be rendered illegal by
parties who went there with views of their own, of
an illegal nature; and that if any went there for the
purpose of raising disaffection and discontent in the
minds of his Majesty's subjects, or to excite hatred
and contempt for his Majesty's Government, they
went there illegally, and such Meeting would be ille-
gal as to them. He then referred them to the pro-
ceedings and Resolutions of the Meeting at Smith-
field, to the banners exhibited by the Saddleworth
and Middleton divisions, and told them, that if they
believed the objects of this Meeting were in unison
with those to which be referred, the Meeting was il-
legal, as to all persons joining. in those principles.—
lie had also called their attention to the fact of drill:,
ing; and he had said, that if the persons were drilled
merely for the purpose of going in an orderly manner
to the Meeting, there could be nothing illegal in
drilling for such a purpose; kut if they were.of opi-

nion that those people were.di ;lied in order to give
the appearance of organized strength to their num-
bers, and to induce the people to listen to seditious
speeches with more effect, or to lend themselves
to seditious purposes, then, to any persons attend-
big the Meeting for such purpose, and who knew
the drilling was instituted with that view, it
.was to such persons an illegal 'Meeting. He
had then referred to the inscriptions on the ban-.
ners, which appeared to be directed to all who could
read ; and he represented to them, that every person
who made use of seditious language in this way, or
carried seditious standards so inscribed for the pur-
pose of being read, were acting ille.g,lly ; and all
persons who went to the Meeting with such views,
were there illegally attending. He had then ennt-
mented very strongly on the conduct of Mr. Hunt,
as to the Smithfield Resolutions, and heliad desired
the Jury to look at the Smithfield Resolutions, and
to consider whether they were calculated to produce
hatred and contempt to his Majesty's Government?
and he had said, if such Resolutions were to'he pro-
posed at the Meeting at Manchester, and the Jury
should be of opinion that such was the intent and
purpose of them, then the Meeting would be illegal ;
and he left it to them to judge, whether such Reso-
lutions were intended to be proposed at the Manches-
ter Meeting or not ? He had al as referred them to
the circumstance of hooting and hissing at the time
Mr. Hunt's carriage was passing the house of a man
named Murray, who had seen the drillings at White-
moss, and was severely maltreated by the parties
there assembled, and desired them to consider whether
Mr. Hunt took any part or interference in that hi s-
ing? and that they would take into consideration,
whether or not this hissing was calculated to excite
tumultuous violence against that man, for whom it
appeared the mob had conceived an implacable hatred?
And with regard to the flag carried by the party
from Saddleworth, and its inscription, he had left it
for the Jury to consider, whether or not that was
calculated to excite disaffection in the people towards
his Majesty's Government ? and be had also directed
their attention to the flag which had been borne by
Bamford. He had at first called the attention of the
Jury to several counts, charging the defendants with
assembling with inflammatory flags, and he stated
the specific terms of the inscriptions proved; but he
had afterwards withdrawn this part of the charge,
and directed their attention chiefly to the fourth and,
fifth counts, which charged the defendants with at-.
tempting to bring his Mejes.ty's Government into
hatred and contempt; and with assembling for the
purpose of creating discontent and disturbance among
his Majesty's subjects ; and the Jury, after. retiring
for some considerable time, hid
.found the present
defendant guilty on the fourth count, which was the
former of the last two mentioned.

- -
Mr. SCARLRTT asked their Lordships permission
(not being in Court when that part of the evidence vas read) to
state, that it was shewn en the trial that the Resolutions of the
Smithfield Meeting were proved to have been published In The
Afenchester Observer, on the same day wi:h the aw ttacement
for the illegal Meeting at Blanchester on the 9th, only that the
word " debt," near the word " national," had been omitted.
The Paper was produced before his Lordship on the trial, and
Shawcros sprayed that it appeared previous to the Meetings both
of the 9th and 16th. He submitted, therefore, that the Smith-
field Resolutions, and the Summons for this Meeting, both ap-
pearing In the same Paper, must have had a strong influence
upon the views of the intended Meeting. The circumstance
was calculated for the very purpose, and the Paper was put in
to prove that fact.
Mr. Hunt submitted to his Lordship, that the Paper was not
put in for any such purpose. It was put in merely to prove the
proposition for the Meeting on the 9th, which was relinquished,
as the proposal included an illegal object, which was withdrawn
from the announcement for the Meeting of the 16th, and the
Smithfield Resolutions had nothing to do with the question.
Mr. Justice lityLay said, the Paper was put in certainly, and
proved; but he did not know for what other purpose it was
put in, except to prove the point stated by Mr. Scarlett.
Mr. Hunt—l say it was put in to prove the Meeting of the
9th, and for nothing else.
Mr. Scaatsvx—l afral the contrary.
Mr. Justice Baxter—l cut them out myself when the Smith-
field Resolutions were read, in order to be compared with the
Manchester Observer.

Mr. Sea,'Lerr—l said your Lordship could compare them,
and see in what they varied.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Shawcross was examined after Michael
Fitzpatrick, and he proved.
Mr. liunt—l objected to tbercading of the printed copy, and
said it could not be read, as there was a manuscript original in
existence, and I said these was no notice served to produce the
written Resolutions.

Mr. Scaaterr--The paper was proved, beyond doubt.
Mr. Justice Raster—The intention of the Meeting for the
9th, was proved by the production of the Manchester Paper, and
the Smithfield Resolutions were pointed out in the same Paper.
Mr. Hunt—The Manchester Paper was certainly produced.
but not to prove the Resolutions of the Smithfield Meeting,
which bad nothing on earth to do with the business under trial.
If I had understood it was produced to. such a purpose, I should
have objected to the production, on the ground of the case of
the " King v. Perry.' It was introduced, merely to prove the
intended Meeting of the 9th, and I submit to your Lordship
particularly, if that paper bad been produced for anything else
tn of the intended Meeting at Manchester on the 9th, your
LoMthip would have sent it to the Jury without any correction?
I deny that the paper was produced with any avowed purpose
to thew that the Resolutions of Smithfield were put in the Man-
chester Paper fee the purpose of producing any influence on the
' Meeting at Manchester.
The Cuter JUSTICE said, he thought the Court should con-
sider of the propriety of the Learned Judge's admitting the
Smithfield Resolutions, as if they had nut been there, (in the
Manchester Ofistruer).
Mr. Hum then addressed the Court in support of his motion
for a Rule to skew cause why the verdict in this case should not
be set aside, and a new trial granted. Ile professed to feel that
he rose on his occasion under great difficulty ; but he felt also,
that when he was addressing four wise and just dispensers of the
law of his country, he had ground for confidence in their deci-
sion. He should not urge many technical points, but state what
he laid to say as shortly as possible. He felt that he was ap:
pealing against the decision of the Learned Judge who tried this
case; but he had, in the course of attendance on this and other
law Courts, heard enough to see frequently the Counsel at the
Bar felt great difficulty in persuading any Learned Judge that
he was in error; and though be felt this difficulty hi his own
case would be an impediment *his way, yet he coat quite sure
that if, since the trial, the Learned Judge who presided, felt.
as reflection that he had decided improperly, he would himself
be tbkfirsr to correct his error. He then applied Lis objections,
seriatim, to the' different points on which be founded his mo-
tion ; and, first, with respect to the cutting and maiming by the
Military at Manchester; It was charged that the People re-
sisted the Military ; but if it was right to admit evidence to
shew the People bad given any residenee to the Military, it
was also lawful evidence for admission 'to skew what the Mili-
tary had done to justify that resistance, and that proof tr,4glit
have been allowed of the peaceable conduct: 9f the People, to
shew bow far their resistance was justifiable. Mr. Ihdtutt•o as
allowed to swear to the raising of sticks and stones and brickbats
against the-military; and if thatlnan's evidencewas admissible
to prove such assertions, since contradicted by hundreds of must
respectable stitnesees, it was surely legal evidence for the dcfen-
, dams to prove the people were justified ice any resistance they
eaatle,by previoutprovocatiou and outrage? The testimony of
Mr. Hulton.was put down by a whole host of most respectable
evidenEe ; and though perhaps his Lordship was bound to send
thistnan's evidence to the Jury " with ell itsimpet fections on its
head," yet it was sent to thii Jury 'witiout any pte mutton us to
wheiber Mr. 111.1 ton was ruistabt:n or not ; and, aterefore, Ire

was entitled to bring evidence to ;hew bow the people were war.
ranted in the resistance they were forced to make in their owl
I defence, though he was refused that right on trial. woad
rut the case of a conspiracy to break open hi. horse, Tooloos
rob and murder himself, and that he knocked eiceve the first men
who entered, that man might swe-r an assauls aesinst ; and
possibly some of the very consoirators might ferns the Greed
Jury, might find the bill, and seed him to mitt for tbs: assentt •
but would be not be allowed to prove in his defeece the act of
burglary, which justified the assault? area must he not brirg
this man to trial ? Suppose he had put such a person to deeds
on entering his house, for the law requires a man to retreat to
the very last extremity before he is warranted to take the life of
another, he ntii In have a bill foond against him for murder
by a Jury composed of some of the very accomplices of the
deceased, and must he not be allowed to bring evidence in his
defence. for a jt: tifialsce homicide ? So, in the case of a man
presenting a Mach and robbing him on :be highway, he wrests
the pistol from hint, and knocks bins dawn with it, the robber
may silage hint with assault sod robbery, and must be net
bring his servant, who accompanied him, ES evidence for his
defence? Suopose he hears the shrieks of a wcman in a ficll by
the highway, through the violence of some villein committing a
nameless crime, would he not be warranted to flee to her eid,
and strike the villain to the earth, without the liability of beirg
prosecuted for the assaulty and being refused liberty to addeee
evidence in his justification? Similar was the case of the Van-
chester attack on the people. Rut he woo not allowed to give
evidence in the jusAtication, while (he Jury were exposed te
the false and injurious impressions made on them by execs-era:id
arol false statements, in Parliamentary speeches and pattirt
Newspapers, which were circumstances, be teas sure, that had
'scat influence on the minds of the Jury who tried the case.—
It was sworn by some of the witnesses for the Crown, that Ise
(Mr. Hunt) lied said to the people, pointing out the soldiery,
" There are your enemies; if they molest you, put them door,
and keep themolown." Now it was proved, over and over again,
that the addle: y did molest the people, and that the people did
not attempt to put them down and keep them down; and, there-
fore, any such direction as he was falsely sworn to have uttered
was at least Ineffectual But a host of respectable witnesses
proved that no such words lied ever Leen uttesed by him, or any
one else at the %,:cetioe. Mr. Ilunt then came to another pare
of his argument, name!r, that as the Resolutions :at the Smith-
field Meet Me, were irrelevar t to the issue between the Clown alai
defendant; they ought not to have been received in evidence. No
previoes canoe( tion was proved between hint and any of ',h: de-
fendants before the fish Aug. when he came to ISullock Siotithey.
—ln the next place, the best evidence of These Resolutioas, ac-
cording to rules of law, had not been given; for a copy only of
them had been produced, wheieso a notice should nave been
served upon bins to produce the originals, and it could be oely
in default of doing so, that the copy caulai be received. Even it
was not a con ect copy put, for the witness Mr. Fitzpatrick said
some of them heel nut been passed when Me. Hunt put theist
into his hand. Toe Learned Judge Was nest warranted, in the
absence of preof of the fact, in presureino that he meant to pro-
pose like Resolutions at Asoci.ester ; on the contrary, he shonld
suppose that he had no stech intentions. his Lordship had de-
clared, that a Meeting celled for )reform was not an illegel
Meeting e thew: was uo evi.let.ce to show that those assisting at
it had any other than the pi 0.-essed object hi view, and ,he tutus
of
.shev.ine that they had, lay with the Crown, who ki:settle
name and aeleitess of every man who stgnad the Requisition, and
might have called them to declare what the real objects of the
Meeting were. By the law of England every man was innocent
until he was proved to be rellty. Why, then, is the absence of
steelo they be presumed to have one object in view and
frosts another? It was not in evidence that they nieeet to
pr :puse airy Itesolutioos at.all ; indeed, the witness liareosSire
e.eore he saw no papers at all upon the hustings. The very na-
ture of Public Meetings did not requico that Resolutions should
have been prepared hetOrehand, for a Meeting was a deliberative
Assembly. He said, he now held in his hand the affidavits of
the first ten persons who signed the Requisition ailing the
Meeting, to spew the purposes for which it was
• Mr. Justice litrsee said, they could not receive the affidavits
of persons who might have been examined as witnesses.
sir.. Hunt said he was taken by surprise at the trial. Mr.
Scarlett, in his opening speech, did not say a word about Reso-
lutions or the Meeting.
kit. Justice BATLEY said that Mr. Scarlett had mentioned the
Resolutions.

Mr. Hunt said Mr. Scarlett began by charging them with a
design to follow up the election of a Member of Parliament,
which had been begun at Birningham; but then, not finding
that ground tenable, he turned round and said their object was to
propose the same Reiolutions at Manchester as were passed at
Smithfield. To meet the first charge be was prepared with evi-
dence; but by the second, as it only came out in the course of the
trial, he was taken entirely by surprise.
The Cuter JUST/Cll thought he could not have been taken so
entirely by surprise, for the charge against him was; that he con-
spired with others to excite hatred and contempt of the Govan.
meet, and of the nature of the charge he was apprised before ha
came into Court.
Mr. Hunt came next to the training, ppon which be submit-
ted improper evidence had been received, improper becau...e no
one of the defendants was connected with the training, neither
bad the Crown shown that the Meeting at Whitemoss was Lie-
ge'. Their marching regularly to the Meeting was no evidence
of their having been trained at Whiten:on. It was in evidence
even from a military man that they might have been equally or-
derly, though they bad never been drilled. The hissing before
Murray's house old not prove that they who hissed had been
present at Whitemoss, for the fact of
..alurray's having been
abused at Whitemon was known all over the country. Mona).
was an unpopular character, and his having been abused at.
IVhitemoss was no evidence that the Meeting was illegal these,
The nianner in which be was treated might have arisen from
the spleen of an individual. lii Con sequence of the publication
of the evidence at the trial to which, however he did not now
mean to object—
Mr. Justice Barter observed, that if it occurred to him at
.the time, he.certainiy would have torbid the publication of the
proceedUrgs at the trial at York.

Mr. Hunt said, in Lensequence of wiring the evidence re.
garding this training, ;:nd the objects of it, a Gentkinan from
Bolton, who was honsarf c..nnecttd with the Police, wrote a
letter to Mr. l'earsun, oft.ring to come forward and depc*
the real objects of .the trahting at Whitesuoss, but he disco-
vered afterwards that this Laier had beat detained five days its
the Post-office.

• Mr. Justice BATLICY said, that if it had net been for the pub-
lksition of the evidence, he would nut have had the opportunity
of finding out this witness. •
Mr. hunt witia rtgard to himself, he had no reason
to rtgret the publication a the proceedinp, but lie me,•.-
tinned the circumstance, btcatue the Learned Judge, in sum-
ming up to the Jury, observtil that no evidence Waw CAW by
the defendants to shtw the real purposes of the naming
Whitemoss.

Mr. Justice Bastes said he had not laid much stress epos
the training in his charge to the Jury. . •
Mr. Hunt litre added, that it was entirely for the prosecutors
to spew that that training was for illegal purposes. It was
ytite inipessible for him to call evidence, for it any one CAD.,
it.to the box who had been there, he would immediately he
made a subject of prosecution oy the Attorney or Solicitor-
(ieneral. He then adverted to another part of his case,
namely, that supposing the Bags were evidette, still the best
evidence of them, accordiug to rules of hew ~bad mot been
given, which was possible ; when the flags themselves coaled
be had, co written copies of them should be admitted. The
defendants should have been noticed to produce them and if
they did not, then the best copies which could be had nigh
be admitted., Ile then- ade et d to the inconsistent it sit-
many of the witnesses in swearing to the instriptions ten the
Sags, one swe.ering that:a 114 bore—a Lib.irty or Death," ith
groaner, that it" here—" I.qtal Representation or Death."—
,They•all omitted to titer:rim, a flag which was carried before
the carriage, and on which were inscribed the words ,4 Ureter,
Older.'.' was also chitty:4We, that She witnesses ter -the
Crown invariably swore ter the most excepeioaabk of the liags,,
and emitted those that were cot:knit:dory. This showed how us-
certain this oral testilootty was, and that the Sags themselves
should have been prodaced.
'The Came J...s.Fxe :tow said, that as the other Judges were
waiting for them,- they would Lear Mr. Menu on acuts..er
. Their•Lordsliips :lice kit the Coon.
Mr. Hum held in his liaael a paper, front which be :cad the
beads of the .erguicenis which he audresred to the este.

• BIRTH.
• At Edinburgh. on the 29th hitimo, the Lady of Dods' Fa-
seobou, 'evertor of llovlt.ah, of a dm:4)mm
- -
LONDON ; Primed and r.ulillsbcd Lynx kw% tykes.
"'lace. Temple-Dar