Star.
London, England, 1820-04-13 00:00:00

&ear in mind, that such was the reason given by the
author why those Meetings Were dangerous to society.
From Mr. Harrison's expression that it was as absurd
to petition the House of Commons as for a Gentle-
man to petition his groom for his horse, it was mani-
fest that the object was not to petition Parliament or
to obtain a Reform by legitimate means. That a
barrier, said to exist, was to be removed by force
from Heaveh or Hell, was. the opinion of Mr; Harr
son, a dissenting clergyman. The object for which
the barrier was to be removed by force from Heaves
or Hell, was to see whether the throne was occupied
by a pig or a. man. It would be a waste of time, it
would be quite useless, to point out to them that the
object of such language must be to bring the Go-
vernment into contempt. The opinion that it was
useless to petition the Lords, it would also be useless
to say was of the same import. From the evidence
of Thomas Welsh it appeared, that Sir Chas.Wolseley
had put on the cap of liberty.
Mr. Para( appealed to Mr. Serjeant Marshall's
rotes, that it was not in evidence that Sir Charles
Wolseley had put on the cap.
Mr. S:;rj?.ant MARSHALL read his note, which did
11 of bear that Sir Charles had put on the cap.
The CUXEF JU,TICR proceeded.—lt was not cer-
tain, then, whose hand had put on the cap, but the
flag was lowered when Sir Charles came, and the cap
of liberty vv.s put on. Sir Charles, then, was present
when it was done. After reading Welsh's evidence
respecting the allusion to the Bastile,' his Lordship
saisl, that it had been most truly and forcibly stated
by the Attorney-General, that there was no Bastile
in this country. He left is to them to judge, whether
the only meanin,, that could be put upon the words,
in justice and fairness to the defendant, was not the
meaning put upon them by the Attorney-General?
• The destruction of the Bastile in France was followed
by the destruction of the Crown, of the Nobility, of
the Clergy, of all that was virtuous and wise in the
land. He left it then to them, therefore, whether
they were not bound to take the meaning put on the
words by the Attorney-General? Sir CharlesWolse-
ley said, that if all their hearts were as firm as his.
they would soon put an end to the present tyranny
and corruption. Did these words require explana-
tion ? It sedition ware to be illustrated by the strong-
est instances, could a more forcible instance be found ?
This was addressed to a multitude of five thousand.
from different parts, armed with sticks, peeled, cut
from trees, and having large knots. This evidence
was entirely uncontradicted. The defendant could
have disproved it with ease if he had not used the
words. His Lordship here read the evidence, that
It when the cap of liberty was brought forward there
was a demur, and Sir Charles turned round." What
Sir Charles said, the witness of course could not hear.
• Although it did not appear then, as he had originally
taken it, that Sir Charles had put on the cap with
his own hand, it was in evidence that Sir Charles
turned round, ;and did not object. It had been at-
tempted to persuade them, That Sir Charles came to
the Meeting by accident. Did Sir Charles, a Baro-
net, a man of rank, a man of fortune, come from a
di itant county by accident? This was a-Blin; with
the most ordinary understanding. Did Sir Charles
come from Staffordshire? Did Fitton, Willan, Har-
'• rison, come by accident? It was a disgrace to any
• understanding to suppose
Mr. Harrison rese to call his Lordship's attention
here to the contradiction between the witness John-
son, whose evidence his Lordship now read, and a
forme: witne,s.respecting him. One swore that no-
thing had been said before Sii• Charles Wolseley came.
The other swore that he (Mr. Harrison) had, before
Sir Charles came, said something about rebellion
being a duty. Ilis memory was fallacious, and he
could not repeat the precise word; in evidence, but
he Legged hi; Lordship to mark the coutrafiction.
The Cri ter -Jusrtcr, without any observation upon
the interruption and' suggestion, proceeded to read
the evidence of the expression, " That in a few. weeks
t::e. great struggle would be made." What great
struggle? He left it to them to consider who the
parties were whom Sir Charles thought would be en-
gaged in this strtiggle. F..= a former part of the
speech,. where Sir Charles Wolseley. had talked of
putting down trianny and corruption, it was clear
that the struggle was to be with tyranny and corru,)-
tion. Who were the tyrants and corrupt ? They had
heard of a barrier to be removed, in order to see-
whether the throne was filled- by a pig or a man;
and they now found Sir Charles Wolseley exciting
five thousand persons to be as firm of heart as he.—
The struggle then was to be made by these five thou-
sand, and others who would join them. Were the
words words of peace ?—were they words of conci-
liation ?—were they calcuLated to recommend Re-
form? If, for Reform, they substituted Revolution,
the words were perfectly intelligible; but short of
that there was no meaning in the words as appeared
to l.im ; but that was for them to consider. He only
chewed the Jury his view ; it was not to bind their
judgment. He was only desirous of assisting them.
The place was sacred ground, sanctified by Bagueley,
Johnston, and Drummond ! His Lordship then read
the.evidence, as to the words used by Harrison—
"
that if there were ten thousand walls between
the throne and the people. they should all be blown
up to Heaven or Hell." This speech had been re-
ceived with acclamations !
Mr. Harrison.—Another of the witnesses said, that
it was received with derision.
The CHIEF-JUSTICE.--It is not right to interrupt
me in my summing up upon such trifling objections.
It would not be difficult to shew, that there may be
such a shout of acclamation as would amount to the
most marked demonstration of derision. But let the
delndants have the benefit of it. One of the wit-
nesses does say " derision." His Lordship then read
several expressions given in evidence ; and upon the
expression, "da pig or a man upon the throne," he
remarked, that no witnesses had been called to con-
tradict these words.
Mr..Partic.—l beg pardon, my Lord ; but wit-1
nesses were called who contradicted those words.
'fire CHIEF-JUbTiCE.—That was at the latter part
of the trial, and I shall come to that evidence pre-'
sant] y. This is, I admit, a case of great importance;
but I oaght not to be interrupted. In consequence
of what the Learned Counsel had said, he would
then, his Lordship continued, state to the Jury, that
witnesses ha.l been called as to that point for the de-
fence ; but that those witnesses had only proved that
what other persons had heard they did not hear.—