Star.
London, England, 1820-03-29 00:00:00

TIIE KING V. JOHN CAIWAC.

This was an information *filed by the Attorney-
General against the defendant, a pamphlet seller,'
residing in Blackman-street, in the Borough, fir
publishing, on the 3d of September last,' a seditious
libel contained in No. 2 of the Republican, in the
form of a letter, addressed to his Majesty when
Prince Regent, concerning the transactions at Man-
chester on the 16th of- August, reflecting tipon his.
Majesty, and on the Constitution of the country as
by law established.

Mr. Serjeant Orrstow, in stating the case, adverted
to the excuse which had been pleaded by the defen-
dant in the last case, for publishing the libel, namely,
his poverty ; and said, that it was just as good an

excuse as that of Romeo's ApotLecary, for sellir
poison—that " his povery, and not his will, eon -
:sented The Learned Serjeant, speaking of the
Meeting at Manchester, said, that no man, however
strong his political feelings, bad ever yet been se
hardy as to contend that that was a legal Meeting.
George-Oddy pr-lred that he had purchased the.
pamphlet in question at the defendiint's shop, on the.
-.5d of September last.-
Cross-examined.—The defendant is a bookseller,
in the general way,in 131atkman-street, in the I'o-
rough.—The libel being read by the" Officer i t the.
Court, the case on the part of the Crown was closed.
The defendant then read a Written defence to the,
Jury, in which he urged his innocence of 'any inten-.
tion to publish the libel as charged' in the 4eclaraCon.
He had merely sold the paMphlet in qnestion it the'
general way of his business as a bookseller, without.
ever having read it. Asa hociltAler he sold pim--
phlets zn all questions, whetler oppose,' to or fa votir,-
able to Government. lie conlpla,ned Ova he shonik.b,
have been selected -for prosecution as the mere yen--
der of the libel, when the author of it was known,-
and had gone unpunished ; and instanced the cases.
of• Mr. Hobhouse and Sir Frafeis Burdett, in both of
which the publishers of the alleged libels were net
prosecuted. In the one Mr. Stodait, the bc•ek-
seller, was discharged by the flou se of Commons, and
in the other, Mr. Brooks, who had sent the libellons
letter for which Sir Francis was prosecuted, to the
Newspapers, was a witness for the prosecution. Pro-
fessing himself hostile to the principles contained in
the alleged libel, he threw himself on the considera-
tion of the Jure.
The Cater i3AnoN charged the Jury that the libel
was a most atrocious one, and, .under his Lordship's
direction they found the deferdant Gniky.

•- - .
lance.s which would be vSholly for the consideration
el the Jury. He would wiw.proceed to the very vo-
luminous evidence offered for the defendants ; but, as
Lc had said to the Jary onSatui day, he would put it
the parties whether it was necessary to go through
Cie evidence of each witness. Ile did not think that
the Jury would find it neessary.; and.the less so, as
it was probable that, by-and-bye, they would be of
tvinion that the facts to which these witnesses were
called were satisfactorily established.
Mr. Hunt.—My Lord, we leave it entirely to your'
Lordships discretion.
Mr. Justice BAYLEV.-1 only wish that every thing
should bz.• fairly done, and so considered.
Mr. Ilunt.—lf your Lo-,l,hip should happen to
leave out any particalar poi:lt of evidence, will you
allow us to call it to your Lordship'S recollection'?
Mr. Justice Bavt.uv.-7'. I will not only allow it,
:it I desire it may be dime , and I hope these con-
.,awned for the Cro‘..:n will also do the same, if I
:.hould omit any pokt of evidence making for the
asc.' His Lordship then went on to recapitulate
leading points of the o.:•:'ace, as it bore oa the de-
i'endants generally. As to :Saxton, the Crown had
ve;-y prov.erly given up the ease against him. To
him it appeared, if the evidence of the several wit-
ne,ses to be believed, that the conduct of the
Meetin:2: wai peaceable; and if those who attended
it were inn:-.ceat io thei: inten ions in going to the
they committed no offence in so doing.—
it alai .l:eJ the evidence of a number of wit-
nes,e; (tvh,ni his Lor.islip enumerated) that the
people went peaceably alcn^,—that there were women
cl;ildren mixed up with them—and it would be
12r the Jury to consider how far their intentions
!-r i ,t have been peaceable, when many of them thus
their wive.; rind daughters with theta. As,
cliceied on the field, or at the ap-
yo.n...:ce of the soldiers, they had a perfect right to
and unless the cheers were those of defiance,
shvy vile innocent. Several of the witnesses
,!ete.tc-1, indeed all of them who spoke of
clie:•r,, looked upon thcin not as cheers of de-
l; ~,rocceding from a consciousness of in-
of the persons, even the women,
C.e.; ti-,e looke.l upon their ap-
:is iu ::0 it anGer hostile to their
11:s L,:r.lship, in summing up the evidence
oi came to that. part 'AIM' mentioned the
!! ;no Police-ce, _ _

t!..::. iii LOY la!! p «oull recol•
lcc:. nei:her he nor .;311:1,t)ii had given any di.
or enc,:tiva7ernzi,t to the i)cuple to his•.
I ilia: he was .'.'.out to stx:e that
;..)

goee. throuelt the eeidenee ef several
e leleseee '.is -Loreship agaia called the ileum-
tioe t:f tie .:Gey o) the pc:weenie conduct of the
Meetieg on the lieth, and the fact that no peesoo had
been celled to prove that any act of vielence had been
coeernit.ed be e the Cavalry came. There were
new toe lee,tiote, which he should put for the consi-
,:eeelee. o: the Jure. Toe first was, whether the
2'4 • wes illegal in its nature, or in its manner?
and the seceod, how aey, and which of the defen-
ela.eo, were criminal in joining it? If the Meeting
evere :'c:-tectly legal, some of those who were present
miiht have acted illegally, if the Jury believed that
it was their intention to give the Meeting a wrong
ilireceion. If any of the defendants should, in the
opinion of the duty, have so acted, then they would
be guilty of the crime of having met for an illegal
Purpose, though the great bulk of the Meeting might
have been perfectly innocent in their intentions. If
the object of the Meeting was to discuss or to peti-
tion far. Reform, in a:peaceable manner, that would
be strictly a legal Meeting, unless there appeared
something in the manner of assembling to create
terror in the minds of the people of Manchester. If
such terror were excited su as to produce alarm to
tie town of Manchester, then the Meeting would be
iilega', and all those who concurred in it would be
•guiity of an illegal act. If the Jury believed that
t..e alarm excited was not produced by a fear of pre-
'at, bat of a future danger, if the Meeting had coe-
:nucel together, they would give a special verdict to
that effect. They would recollect that there was no
ieterruption of business on that day, and this would
7neerially influence them in the judgment they should
teem, whether immediate or remote danger was to
Le feared. On the part of the Crown it was sag-1
Feted—and it might possibly have been so—that an
i:nrnediete disturbance was nut the object of the par.e
t:es accused, but that they !coked to the future power'
of some mischief. It would he for the consideration.i,
of the Jury to inquire how far this was proved by
tee evidence ? The next question was, whether the
Meeting was unlawful as to the intentions of any, and
v-.eich of the defendants ? In looking at the case in.
tees view, it was necessary to examine the actions of
t:e several pa: tie;. The Meeting was admitted on all
ea:Lis to have been very large, and one of the charges
e..--ainA the defendants was, that. they had attempted
• excite, in the minds of those present, disaffeceion
eed di-,conteet, and to produce a hatred and con-
tempt for the Government of the Country, as by law
eeablished. Let the Jury look at the facts. It was.
sae!, that this Keeting was called by seven hundred
hooekeepers. However, not one of those persons had
c:11::!ti to prove that fact; and as to the manner
inch it really was called, or by whom the notice
• given, the Court and the Jury we: e left in the
ti".• k. Mr. llunt, it appeared, had recently before
lien at a Meeting at Smithfield, where certain
iteeluti(ais had been agreed to. From thence, or at
eoet soon after, he was found in the neighbourhood
:,ianclieeer. He was there before fhe time at
.Lh the Meeting of the 9th was to have taken
1,1:e. Now, if Mr. Hunt had intended to propose
i:':ellotions at the M.eninct•of the lath, sihrilar t:,
• se ..vhich he had proposed at the Smithfield Meet-
it v.-inld be for the Jury to say how far they
be likely to excite dk.content and disaffection
stud, those wan sere itsensbled. Ile would
ec tins pair. of the question entirely to them, with
• • e tins observatioo—tlen if Mr. Hunt had such
and that the Itoolutiors were c4ltulated to
cee di ,zearent, then quoad Mr. Hunt, the Meeting
e °old be illegal ; and it he communicated such in-
to :toy others, and they Approved of them,
tee.: there would 'oe a conspiracy ; and if any three
e: them went to the Meeting with such invent, the
:,teezine, e (Arid, as far as they were concerned, be il-
ei,el ; .for the law said, three or more persons."
:.e Court and the Je: y went; not only on what was
roved, bet what might be'proved, and nu evidence

G.

Lad been-offerea that it wits intended to submit any
other Resolutions to the Court. . With respect.to the
flags Which Were carried, it was important for the
Jury to look at the inscriptions which were on them.
If any of those inscriptions were illegal, or calculated
to excie disaffection and discontent, then he who
bore such flag, and ;Li t!,,)se who were arranged under
tt, were guilty of an illegahact, and, as far as they
were concerned, the Meeting was illegal._ Jn look-
ing to the inscriptions, it might also be necessary to
see how far they corresponded with the Resolutions
:which had been agreed to at Smithfield. There were
Universal Suffrage"—" Annual Parliaments"—and
" Vote by Ballot." " No Corn Laws." Now, if the
words " no Corn Laivs," meant only that the laws on
the importation of corn should be repealed, nothing
was more harmless than the inscription. The
crirni-
nality of the motto would be in wishing to have them
so repealed by threat or force. Neither was there any
harm in the words " Unite and be free," unless the
Jury believed that there was a bad intention in calling
for such union. The next inscription was, "
m Taxa-
Ita without Representation is unjust and tyrannical:'
llf by this was meant that it would be unjust and
tyrannical to tax any min who had not a_ vote for
a Member of Perliament, it would be unlawful, and
calculated to excite disaffection in the minds of those
who were present, a great body of whom had not
votes. But it was quite an error to supeose that any
man in the country was unrepreiented. Every Mere-
her of Parliament not only represented the particular
place for which he Was chosen, but also the whole of
the kingdom, and it was his duty to attend to the in-
teresoof the country at large. Ile would, therefore,
he (Tea to the iaoruction and advice of every man.
The Jury were well aware that it was not merely the
working clases which were excluded from the right
of voting ; there were men who had copyhold pro-
perty, to the amount of thousands a year, who had
no right to vote. A man might have a lease for 999
years, of very large propel ty, without a right of
voting, and so it mast be ; but would any man say
that these men were not repre•ented, or that their in-
terests were not consulted, merely because they them-
selves did not vote? In dies: observations the Jury
would only go along with hint as far as they coin-
cided s ith their own opinions.-,-Another banner, had
the inscription-s, Labour is the source of wealth."
So it w:ts, and so he hoped it would long continue to
be, and that those who acquired wealth by their his-
nest labour should enjoy it, and transmit is down to
their posterity. The next flog had the inscription—
" iset us die like men,' and not be sold as slaves."
Surely, there were no slaves in this country ; and if
the inscription meant to convey that any portion of
the people were sold as slaves, such a meaning. would
be calculated to excite discontent. The banner of
Bamford's party bore " Pailiemerits Annual," and
" Suffrage Universal," " Unity and Strength." If any
of Close banners were meant to convey to the eye,
what, in such a .fleeting, no voice could convey to
the ear—if they meant that the people should be
disaffected or discontented till they had obtained those
objects—then the plaice who bore the flags, and
those who marched with them, would be guilty of
as illegid act, and the Meeting, as far as they were
concerned, would be illegal.—He would now come
to another part of the evidence—to the training and
driring ; and he should tell them, that if the object'
of both was to produce greater order and regularity
in those who attended the Meeting of the 16th, it
was perfectly harmless: but if it was intended, by
giving this regularity, to give a greater degree of
strength to the party, and thereby to overawe the
Government, or to gain confidence to any seditious
opinions, to procure a legal object by motives of fear,
then it would have been illegal, and the Meeting at
which they assembled,. after such training, would
be illegal also. It would be criminal as to all those
who were concerned in training for such an object,
though there might be thousands of others attending
it whq knew nothing of such motives, and whose
purpose was quite legal. Now, as to the part which
each individual took in the Meeting :—First, Mr.
Hunt came to the neighbourhood of Manchester; he
was met at Bullock-Smithy by Moorhouse, and he
went to Blanchester on the 9th, where he addressed
the people, certainly not in a manner respectful to
the Magistrates. He remains in the neighbourhood
till chi. 16th, and nobody knew how he spent his
time till then ; at least it was not in evidence, any
farther than that he was at Johnson's. It was a
question for the consideration of the Jury, whether,
he• intended to propose the Resolutions carries at
Smithfield ? At all events, he had offered no evis
deuce to shew that he had any others. Mr. Hunt and
Johnson were both present when the _people hissed
at Murray's and at the Police-office; but it did not ap-
pear that either of them had advised or encouraged it.
Johnson was on the hustings, and proposed Mr.
Hunt as Chairman ; and it would be for the Jury to
say, how far he was likely to know the Resolutions
which were intended to be proposed? This would
entirely depend on their opinion of his intentions.—
He next came to Moorhouse, and certainly he ap-
peared to haVe had less participation in what had
passed than all the others. l'he Jury would look at
his case, and judging by his acts, would see how
far he was connected with what had taken place.—
Conjecture would not be sufficient against him, and
if only such existed, he was entitled to an acquittal.
The Jury would next look at the case of Swift, and
see how far he was connected with -any previous
motives. It appeared from the evidence of Mr.
Henry Orton, a Repo: ter, that Swift was present, and
exhorted the Meetihg to be peaceable ; but then this
was on the testiindny of a witness whose recollection
as to other points was at least questionable. •Ile
(Mr. Justice Bayley) had before told the Jury, that
• evidence of words from recollection of this kind
ought to be looked at with caution. He did not
mean to say that Mr. Orton told anything which be
(Orton) did not believe, but the Jury. would do well
to consider whether his recollection of what passed
was the most accurate. He next came to Healey;
and if the Jury believed that he meant to impress on
the minds of the people that they should have any
change in the representation by means of force or;
threats, he would be guilty. As toohe words " No
Corn Laws," as he had before said, that was a point
on which much difference of saoinion existed in the
country, and a wish to Ifave them repealed could not
be criaanal. , But the words "'Taxation without
Representation is unjust and tyrannical," were, if
. they bore the meaning he hail before said, caltuliited
to esciee disaffection, and would, in that case, be il-

• .
lege). Bamford, it appeared, headed a party; butt
if the banners which were borne by that party were
not calculated to excite disairecti,oli, there was nothing
in the manner Or conduct 'ef the people tá tl:c:te
alarm. As to Wyldt-, aims at the held of another
party, but the banners rivhich they bore were not
specified, and therefore, it could not bn knowit
titer they were of a dangerous teniency or
Jones was proved to have been on the hustings, bt7t
it would be for the Jury to say whether it was for
the purpose of constructing them or not. It ap-
peared he had used the word "enemies" in one or
his speeches to the people. Ile (Mr. Justice 13ayley)
%Vas sorry for it. That word should not be applied
by any one set of men in this country to another
where all ought tube united in one common band of
amity and union. Tire Learned Judge was then
once more about to revert to the Smithfield Reso-
lutions, when

Mr. I-lont said—l hope your Lordship-will excuse
me. Your Lordship, in adverting to the Smithfield
Meeting, has said that I proposed the Resolutions.
My Lord, it is the custom for whoever is Chairman
at such Meetings to put the Resolutions, and they are
handed to him for that purpose. I did put them,
and I gave a copy to the Gentlemen connected with
the Press, who attended. As to the lesolutions in-
tended to be proposed at Manchester, they were
seiied on the hustings when:the Meeting was dis-
persed, and, though we have given the prosecutors,
notice to produce them, they have not done so. I
hope your Lordship will excuse my interruption.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Certainly, NIL Hunt ;,and I
feel obliged for reminding nee of anything which
may be material to the case. I hare put the case
fairly for yon, and fairly against yon, to the Jury ;
and if it were to •be the last moment of m)- life,
I would gi7e the same to the Jury that I have
nom done.

Mr. Hunt bowed, and appeared perfectly satisfied
with what his Lordship had done. •
The Learned JUT:GE then proceeded to refer to the
evidence, and to enforce upon the minds of the Jury,
that the main question they had to try was, whether
the Meeting was or was not, according twits manner,
calculated to produce terror, either in the manner in
which it was formed, or in the circumstances that
ensued before its dispersion ? If they thought it was
so constituted or conducted, then the parties, with
that view attending it, were criminal, and the Jury,
would especially record the species. of criminality
they attributed to them. The Learned.Jceoe con-
eluded thus :—" You, I have no doubt, have •:onsi-
dere& throughout this arduous trial, and with patieat
attention weighed the evidence on both sides. Bel
tween the defendants and the Public, I know you will
impartially and justly judge, laying aside, ai I im-
plore you to do, all considerations of party or prejudice
which may prevail elsewhere, and give your verdict,
as you upon your solemn oaths are bound to do, upon
the evidence alone.. I have- only one observation
more, and I peremptorily require attention to it out
of respect to the Court, and out of deference to the
laws; when your verdict is given, be it Guilty or Not
Guilty, !require that no symptom of approbation or
disapprobation shall be uttered within these walls ;1
any such demonstration of feeling is a high contempt 'I
of this Ccurt, and calculated to subvert the princi•
pies on which Juries should always act. If a Judge
or Jury should ever act can the popular effect which
any particular decision may create, or travel out of
the evidence before them to form their opinion, their
conduct would not only be highly erroneous, but
most criminal. Find no defendant guilty, Gebtlemen,
whose guilt is not in your minds clearly established
by the evidence—find no defendant innocent, if you
think the evidence estabiishes his guilt ; wherever a
doubt arises, the defendant ought to have the be-'
nefit of

At a quarter past twelve o'clock the Learned JurinE
closed his Charge, and the Jury retired.
• Shortlybefore eve o'clock the Jury returned into
the box. Ile Foreman• held a paper in his hand,
and said the Jury had agreed upon their verdict,
which he read as-follows:
" I‘loorhouse, Jones, Wylde, Swift, Saxton—Nor GUILTY.
Henry Hunt, Josepll Johnson, John Kuight, Josvph Healey,
and Samel Bamford, GUILTY of assembling, with unlawfulban-
tiers, an unlawful assembly, for the pLerpose of moving aryl in-
citing the liege subjects of our Sovereign Lord the King into
contempt and hatred of the Government aad Constitution of the
realm, as by law established, and attending at the same."
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Do you mean that they themselves in-
tended to inci:e ?

The FoKev.Ax.—Yes.
Nr. LITTLZDALL—This verdict must be taken on the fourth
court.

Mr. Justice BAT! rr.—Let the verdict he so recorded. You
fird, Centlczner, ca such counts as the words of your verdict
ire aprlicable to. Y.) tin not mean to fird that they treated ter-
ror, or incited it in the minds of the liege subjects of the King.
The FORF.X.II.4.—We sriesut, my Lord, to find on the first
count, omitting a few words. _ _

The Learned Jeans: then requested they would retire and look
over the counts of the indictment again, and say to which count
they meant io apply their verdict. '
The JURY withdrew for a few minutes, and returned with a
verdict of Guilty, generally, on the fouith count, and Not Guilty
upon the remaining counts.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-4 take it for granted, the defendants
are still under recognizance.
Mr. Ilunt—We are, my Lord.
Mr. Justice 141 Lay—Then let theM new additionally, In
Court, enter into their own recognizance* to keep the peace and
good behaviour for SIT. Months, Mr: Hunt in the suns of Two
Thousand Pounds, Mr. Johnson of One Thousand, and Bamford
and Healey Five Hundred Pounds each.
The parties then immediately entered into their several re-
.
cognizances.
Mr. ll:lnt—What Is meant by good behaviour?—My Lord,
it is a very indefinite 'term.
Mr. Jarstioe BAYLEY—The law defines it, Sir.
Mr. Ihnt—l always, ray Lord, wish to chew good behaviour
to the law.

Mr. Justice 13.trtzr —Then you have only to contiaue to
skew to it the gaud beluviour you ,sbserved in Cowl during
this trial. _ _ _

Mr. Ilunt—T hope I shall always do so, my Lord. In any
thing that fell from me, it was far front my intention to give
any offence to the Court.
Mr. Justice MI-Lev—You gave me no offence, Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Iltint—l never will, I hope. My lord, I have to thank
Smile Lordship much, for your patience during this long trial.
Mr. Justice Ilstal.art—You owe me no thanks for doing that
which was my duty ; nor in what I say to you do I do more
' than state a fact—l do not mean 'a civil expression.
Mr. llunt.—lf l move the Court of King's Beech for a new
trial, I suppose, my Lotd, the defendants who are acquitted
need not attend. though the indictment charges a conspiracy. -
Mr. Jtistice DAVLIY:"-I can't advise; but therewas a case in
Surrey-- I forget the name--I'll replkect it directly.
His Lordship then turned round to the .tur3i, and
they bad.iiis best thinks 'for thepatittittatten-
tion they had bestowed upon this arduous trial. Ile

v.-as very obliged to them.—Then facing the
bodrofth* Court, his Lordship addeere• I very much •
approve of the ((induct of the Court itt the time the
verdict was gii-en In ;" alluding, we pristitne, to ;he
universal silence which prevailed at the time.
It was nearly six o'clock hcfore the Court broke nv.
Mr. HUNT was cheered a he home to his lodg-
ing,: lie maintained, to the last, his wonted compo-
sure, and there was a calniruiss and respectful deco
rum his manner, at the close of the trial, ,v7hich
excited much sympathy foi his s;tuation.

E