Star.
London, England, 1821-08-01 00:00:00

AGAINST SAMUEL. WALLER.

This was an indictment against Samuel Waller, a
lay-preacher amongst the (primitive) Methodists;
and the indictment charged, that he, the said Sa-
muel Waller, on or about the 17th of June last, in
a certain public street and King's highway, in the
parish of Ashton-under-Lyne, did unlawfully and
injuriously cause and procure a great number of per-
sons, to the number of two hundred or mare, to as-
semble together, and did for a long time obstruct
the said public street, to the great damage and com-
mon nuisance of the liege subjects of our Lord the
King, and against the peace, &c.
Tne second count charged the defendant, with
divers other persons, with making a great noise, riot,
tumult, and disturbance.
The third count charged the like riot, &c. to be
by shouting and singing, and wholly choaking up and
obstructing the street and highway.
Mr. STA eele. stated the case to the Jury, and
gave the substance of the indictment as above. The
defendant, an 1 persons of his class, had been in the
lhabit for some time past of visiting Ashton-under-
Lyne, and there holding forth in the public streets, to
the great annoyance of the inhabitants of the town.
On the day mentioned in the indictment, Air. New-
ton, the Constable of Ashton, finding the defendant
(who was what was called a Ratite') roaring and
making a great noise within twenty yards of the
church-door, approached him, cautioned him of the
illegality of his proceedings, and ordered him to de-
sist. This he refused, saying Cuetsr and his dis-
ciples did so, and he had a right to do it : that he
was a licensed preacher, and considered it his duty
to continue the -ervice. T:e defendant, in conse-
quence of his obstinate perwverance, was summoned
to appear at Oldham, where he accordingly attended
before the Magistrates, on Thursday, the 21st, and
when bound over to take his trial at the present Ses-
.-ions, he refused to pay the expense of the recogni-
zances. The defendant in the present case stood
neon his right; but he hoped the verdict of the Jury
would be such as to convince him, that neither he,
nor any other pers:n—not even a Minister of the
Church of England, if' it were allowable to conceive
that a Clergyman could ever sn far forget his duty—
had
a right to obstruct the public highway, ranting
and roaring, to the common nuisance of his Majesty's
subjects, on pretence that he thought it his duty.
Samuel Nea ton is Deputy Constable of Ashton.—
On Sunday, the 17th of Jane, went into the street;
saw Samuel Waller standing on Jonathan Whisker's
steps; there were other persons with him, he sup-
poses two hundred -or more. They were about '2O
yards from the gate of the church-yard. Whilst they
were there a hearse came from Droylsden with a
funeral ; the hearse came to the church a different
way with the corpse from what it usually would
have done. Went to Waller, and told him his orders
were from the Constables and Churchwardens to
make him desist. Wailer refused to do so. Got a
summons for him to appear at Oldham on the 21st,
when Waller said what he was doing was lawful.—
They sung and made a great noise. The tunes were
common song tunes, such as are sung by factory
lads in the glee. Before the Magistrate Waller said
he would persist. The practice had been continued
every Sunday since. Waller has not been there ;
they come for opposition it appears ; they are more
hen twice as numerous now as when Waller preached.
Mr. Waller said he was a licensed preacher.
Examined by MT.COURTNEY.—Witness is a Church-
man—never was a Methodist ; has often gone to Me-
thodist Chapels, but never was a member of their
society ; was not then a Constable; now he is a man
in office, thinks it his duty to go to the Church of
England. Samuel Waller stood in the public high-
way ; was in fact on the steps of a door, Jonathan
Whisker's. Information was brought to him of the
meeting; a Gentleman said, if it were not stopped,
he would remove. Witness heard nothing offensive
or wrong. They were singing to merry tunes; song
tunes. Knows, in point of fact, they were singing
psalms. The words were given out by defendant.
The Ranters have come in a double body since de-
fendant was taken before the Magistrates. Defendant
has never been at the meetings since. Mr. France,
the Curate of Ashton, and the Churchwardens, di-
rected him to give notice to the defendant, that if he
did not remove he would be taken up. Was sent for
by the ostler of one of the Inns to a Gentleman,
about getting the defendant away. There is a public-
house opposite where defendant stood ; the Gentle-
man was not a publican. The hearse from Droyls-
den did not come the usual road : witness supposed
on account of the preaching.
Re-examined by Mr. STanete.—The hearse did
come an indirect road. The noise was to the great
disturbance of those who I:ad to perform the cere-
mony of the interment ; was sure it must be.
Mr. COURTNEY objected to this as new matter.
_ _

James Ogden, excimilicd by Mr. STA a KlE.—Lives
at Middleton ; is not in any business. Remembers
Sunday, the l'ith of June ; was in the street on that
day ; saw Samuel Waller preaching at Jonathan
Whisker's door. There was much noise and rabble;
about two or three hundred people assembled. Wal-
ler was preaching and singing. There was a great
deal of laughing—they sung merry tunes—sung like
ballad-singers down the street ; the street was
crowded up; when the hearse came Walter preached
louder; witness thowt it reailicr liawkind. It was a
great nuisance.
The CHAIRMAN said it surely was not intended to
deny that this was a nuisance.
Mr. COURTNEY observed, he certainly was pre-
pared to deny it.
Cross•examaud by Dr. Bnowx.—Witness is out of
employ. Does not know Samuel Waller ; did not
hear his words distinctly ; he made no more noise
than people could hear ; made too much noise for
witness. Remembers no other carriage passing but
the hearse; if any carriage or horse had coms.they
might have made an opening. Heard them singing
like lads in factories.
Mr. SranKat:.—That is my case.
Mr. COURTNEY addressed the Court and the Jury,
on behalf of the defendant, with considerable zeal
and ability. After quoting the well-known case of
Penn, and arguing on the insufficietc.y of the evi-

denee to support the allegation of the indictment, he
said this was a prosecution at common law. It was
admitted on all hands that there was no statute, no
positive law, which his client had infringed. The
common law was the unwritten law of sense. It
combined the purest reason with the purest justice.
He had the authority of Chief Justice Hale, one of
the first lawyers and best Judges that ever adorned
the bench, for saying, that Christianity was part and
parcel of the common law. He called upon the Jury,
therefore, to pause, and investigate how that which
our SAVIOUR did, and instructed his Apostles to do,
could be a nuisance—to pause and consider how con-
duct which was sanctioned by his example, and en-
forced by his commands, could be a nuisance at
common law. The common law being that whereof
the memory of man runnel not to the contrary, it
followed that a nuisance at common law could be no
new nuisance; it must have been such always, at all
times, and under all circumstances. But he con-
tended, that notwithstanding the great increase of
field preaching within the last century, there was no
instance of an indictment such as the present for the
last 150 years. It followed, therefore, and he had a
right to conclude, that in the eye of the law such
preaching constituted no nuisance. With respect to
the obstruction of the highway—admitting, but only
for the sake of argument, that it had been proved—
he would ask, whether assembling in the streets was
at all times and on all occasions to be deemed a pub-
lic nuisance? By way of illustration, he would state
a case : on Thursday last the King's highway was
obstructed, not by hundreds, but by thousands, or
tens of thousands; the passage of numerous carriages
was, not supposedly, but actually prevented, and
that for a great length of time. There was shouting
and singing ; and on that occasion the Magistrates
on the bench were present, and in those obstructions
they bore a part. But who could doubt that if these
Magistrates had been indicted for a nuisance in cele-
brating the day of the Coronation, the Jury would
have expressed their abhorrence and detestation at
it? And would they say, that for Christians to as-
semble to praise GOD, under that canopy of Heaven
which GOD himself had spread, was a nuisance?
Could they say that it was no nuisance to celebrate
the Coronation of George the Fourth, but was one to
celebrate the praises of their MAKER? Attend to the
practice of our SAVIOUR. Mr. Courtney here quoted
Matthew, chapter x. verse Tr.—tali. 9.—Mark ii. 2.
—xvi. 15.—Luke ix. 5. And what construction, he
would ask, could be put upon these passages, but
that of preaching to people in the highways? He
asked them as Christians, upon their oaths, and it
was only as Christians that even their oaths were
binding, was that a nuisance? Did our SAVIOUR en-
courage and promote nuisances? He hoped that the
worthy and Rev. Chairman would not be offended
with him for having called his opinion rash: bethought
he had now proved that it was so. But who was the in-
visible prosecutor? Why did lie not cone forward?
—The Jury had seen Newton's flippancy ; they had
witnessed the manner in which he gave his evidence;
and he asked them whether it was possible to doubt
that he had given a colour to his testimony to suit
his own views? He said the ostler had come to him
from a Gentleman, to request him to interfere. That
was the only symptom of grace he had witnessed
about the indictment, that the prosecutor was ashamed
to shew his face. He (the prosecutor) well knew that
there was no riot, tumult, or disturbance ; that no
person was alarmed or terrified. He (Mr. Courtney)
repeated, that the prosecution was hypocritical. There
was no law to prevent meetings of those whom they
chose to call Ranters and Roarers ; that there was no
prosecutor proved it. The indictment attempted a
juggle on the understandings and consciences of the
Jury, which he hoped they would have spirit to resist.
Ile called upon them to separate what was preyed
from what was alleged. Lke discerning men, they
would distinguish between what was substantiated by
evidence, and what was charged in the indictment.
If the Jury considered it necessary for the question
to be raised, in order that it might be fully discussed,
they would give a special verdict ; find only the facts,
and not be entrapped to bring in a lumping verdict
of guilty. Why a question so important to the rights
of Protestant Dissenters should have been brought to
trial in that Court, he was at a loss to conjecture. He
suspected, however, that the invisible prosecutor,
judging of others by his own baseness, thought to
succeed at the Quarter Sessions, when in a higher
Court he would have had no chance. He could con-
ceive that a man so base as the wicked and hypocri-
tical prosecutor in that odious case, might have spe-
culated on the composition of the Tribunal, might
have considered that the Learned and Reverend Gen-
tleman in the Chair, brought up in the Universities
of Orthodoxy, possibly would pollute the seat of Jus-
tice by prejudices imbibed elsewhere. His client
might have removed the case; but relying on the
impartiality of the Chairman, he had full confidence
in the Jury. In their hands were the rights of Pro-
testant Dissenters ; at their hands he looked to receive
protection ; he should scorn to attain his end by idle
I flattery; he hoped, and trusted, and believed, they
were all honest and impartial men ; but if there was
one amongst them who felt that respect which a
Christian ought to feel for the precepts of his Sas. l-
OUR, that man would die rather than find the defen-
dant guilty—rather than give a verdict so inimical
to the Gospel, and the Savroun who preached it.—
The conduct of his client was no common law nui-
Isance, for it was impossible to pronounce that a'
i nuisance which their very religion enjoined. With
respect to obstruction, no evidence of that had been
given—no one had said he meant to go that way,
I and could not. The indictment charged the defen-
dant with having caused and procured persons to
stand in the highway—that meant, commanding
them to do so ; but he had no power to command
them. Ile was not in the highway himself; he was
standing on the premises of a private individual ; the
people who were in the street might be amenable, if
I any nuisance were committed, but not his client, who
did not commit the nuisance, and had no controul
over those who did. It was true, a bookseller was
responsible if his servant sold libels ; but there was
a case in which a man was indicted for causing the
distribution of band-bills in the street, which was
I quashed by the King's Bench, on the ground that it
was the person who actually distributed the hind-
' bills that should have been indicted, and not the man
who set hitt) there. He was, therefore, entitled to an
i
acquittal upon evidence. But he asked their verdict
' upon higher giounds—he asked it frour them as

Christians, in favour of who had done only what
had been done by that SAVIOUR to whom we owe
eve! ything which makes us better than the rest of
mankind. He relied with perfect confidence in theig
honesty and firmness.
Mr. COURTNEY called no witnesses.

The Rev. W. R. HAY, the Chairman, in address-
ing the Jury, said, that a case not in itself important,
had been made so by the manner in which it had been
mixed up with other matters. The righti of Dis-
senters Were not in any way at issue. The Jury had
only to ask themselves, whether the assembling of
200 or 300 persons in public day, and in the public
streets. was or was not a nuisnance ? They had
nothing to do with the horrid case (that of Penn and
Mead) which had been cited by Mr. Courtney ; but,
perhaps, it might be in some degree owing to that,
amongst other things, that a law was subsequently
passed, according to which, by the simple registra-
tion of a place, persons might be permitted to preach
there, provided it were done with decency and pro-
priety. Every person might assemble in a private
decent manner, either to preach or to hear other s.
But he put it to the Jury to say, whether two or three
hundred persons standing in the public street, was or
was not a nuisance ?

The Jury; having deliberated about fifty minutes,
returned a verdict of Guilty of obstructing the King's
highway, in the Parish of Ashton-under-Lyne, that
being, in fact, a general verdict of guilty on the first
count of the indictment.

Tile CHAIRMAN inquired whether, after the ver-
dict which had been given, as he took it for granted
that the prosecution was not instituted with a view
to a vindictive punishn:ent, any compromise could
take place, by the defendant entering into sureties
not again to offend in like manner ?
Mr. COURTNEY said, that the conduct of his client
had been guided by what he conceived to be his duty,
and as his view of that was not altered by the verdict
which had been given, I.e (Mr. Courtney) was in-
structed not to apply for any mitigation of the sentence
which the Court might think proper to pronounce.
Mr. STARKIE said, he hoped the Court would pass
such a judgment as would put a stop to the outrages
they had witnessed to-day; that they would remem-
ber the ungracious and unchristian attack which had
been made on the prosecution, and prevent for the
future the nuisances they had seen that day.
Mr. Waller wished to explain, that in asking for
no mitigation, he acted according to what he thought
his duty, and that it was not his wish personally to
offend the Court; to which the Chair man assented.
Mr. STARKIE hoped the sentence of the Court
would be such,• as to convince the prisoner that ire
had no right to interrupt a Christian congregation in
one of its most solemn services.
The defendant denied that he had done this.

The Magistrates then retired for a few mitlutes.
On their return, the Chairman, the Rev. W. It. HAY,
ordeied that the defendant should be put to the Bar,
and addressed him to the following effect Sa-
muel Waller, you have been convicted of the offence
charged in the indictment against you, by a Jury
who have taken no ordinary pains, and have done
themselves great honour by their attention and dis-
cernment. The prosecution has been mixed up with
other matters quite unconnected with it ; but the
simple question is, whether you or any other person
' have a tight to be a nuisance ? The interests of Dis-
senters have no more to do with the evidence than
high treason has. A great deal has been said about
an invisible prosecutor ; but it is evident the prose-
cution has been ordered by the Churchwardens for
the protection of the parish, and you were not sum-
moned before the Magistrates until pains had been
taken to make you desist. You speak of your ditty;
but when any one continues to hold their own opi-
nion against a Jury and the law, it looks like obsti-
nacy. The sentence which we are about to pass
upon you is not meant to be vindictive, but to shew
that individual opinion is not to be set up against the
law. The sentence of the Court is—that you be im-
prisoned in this House of Correction for the space of
three months; and that you give security, yourself
in £5O, and two sureties in 4.:25 each, to keep the
peace towards all his Majesty's subjects, and be of
good behaviour for two years, to be computed from
the expiration of your imprisonment; and that you
be further imprisoned until these securities be given."

We have been favoured with the following extract
of a letter, dated Valparaiso, March 12, 1821 :
" Arrived here, the Edward Ellice, HEATH; the Lord
Suffield, BROWN ; and the Indian, CROZIER ; on the
Ist inst. prizes to Lord COCHRANE, for attempting
to enter Callao. The Indian on her passage to this
fell in with a whale boat, in which were two men
and a boy, who had been 89 days in her when the
Indian picked them up ; they belongei to the North
American brig Essex, Captain POLLARD, a whaler.
The cause of their taking to the boats was a very singu-
lar one; an immense sperm-whale struck the ship on the
starboard bow, and before they had recovered ft om the
consternation into which they were thrown, the whale
struck her a second time, and so effectually, as to com-
pletely stave her, and she filled fast ; in this situation
they had recourse to their boats; the unfortunate crew
consisted of 20, and divided thems,c,lves in three boats.
That which was brought here separated from their
companions in a squall, and had six hands in her
when she left the ship; one had been left on a barren
at.his'own request, and two had died before
the Indian SaW them; the first they threw overboard,
but the second they were obliged to eat; they are re-
covering fast, and want for nothing, as very liberal
subscriptions have been made for them. Captain
LAUGHTON, I am happy to say, is considerably bet-
ter; he is now able to come on shore. The 31acedo-
aian United States' frigate, Captain DOWNS (the same
that was taken from tlre English during the last war,
arrived here from Lima on the 4th instant. Trade
is not so good here as it was twelve month;, since, as
the markets are overstocked with English, Amer ican,
French, and India goods, and speculation is sus-
pended, waiting for the fall of Lima."
CORN EXCIIIANGIS, MARK-LAPS, AUGUST :The price of rl::tr
being advanced 3s. per sack, at nearly the cbtse of .iferd.ria
mar ket, occasioned 2 brick cicreand ft.r detctiptimls of 11 ht .t,
which could not be gut efi in the early part of the day; and
having no fresh arrivals this monitor, what remained untold on
Monday, from Essex, Kent, and Suffolk, found buyers on toll
.as good terms as on that day. The arrivals of Oats, three M.-,u.
day, have been considerable, and the demand was tolerably
i brisk, but not at higher prices. La Liu ley, Deana, :tut' I't4s,
there it nu alteration.

,