Star.
London, England, 1820-03-27 00:00:00

•
Did you see in the 3,..!ancliester,Obseerer an account of the Re-
solutions passed at Smithfield?-.L•No; I don't read it.
Suppose o,Resolution was proposed like this :---,, That lives
and taxes ought not, in conscience, to be obligatory upon those
who had no voice in making them : Tint it is expedient, after
the Ist January, MO, not to submit to any taxes, except im-
posed by those who are filly and fairly delegated by the mass
of the people, and chosen by all the voices in the State."—(This
also is a Resolution passed at .the..aanne Meeting at Smithfield.)
Would that inflame or produde dY.dger at such a Meeting?—l
do not know the lower classes enough to give art opinion. A
tart
great deal would d on the way in which they bon their
-sufferings ; I was , aware of what was to be done there. I
do not know tha • tfous publicationa had been circulated at
Manchester for some time preceding.
If such were, would it make you think they would be dan-
gerous ?—I think them improper; but it would depend on the
degree of irritation they would produce.
Did the appearance of the people seem to be the result of a
previous arrangement?—l think so.
By the Comet—Do you think they could come in that way
without a previous arrangement?—l do not.
By Air. SeAaLrrr.—Am I to understand you to say, that
people coming together in such numbers would net create
alarm ?--I think where there are greater numbers, thera is
greater danger, hut the character of the Meeting appeared to be
perfectly peaceable. I never said such a Meeting ought to be
dispersed. I don't know Carlil.:.
By Mr. Hunt.—l read in the Papers of the Meeting in Smith-
field. If these Resolutions had passed in Smithfield and had no
bad effect, would you think they would he worse at Nianches-
ter?—l do not think they would, except that from the general
feeling amongst the lower classes, they might think themselves
more interested here than in London.
Suppose the.people in London had met and passed such a Re-
solution without any bad effect, is there any reason why it
would produce a differenCeffect at Manchester?—l sec no ri her
reason, than because the people in our neighbourhood sittre.more
.interested.
Did you hear that the Resolutions at London produced any
bad effect?—No.

What reasons have you to think that it would be worse at
Manchester than at London ?—No other than the condition of
the manufacturing claases.
If such a speech as that about black cattle h'd been spoken
at Wigan without any bad efrect, do you shirk it would be worse
here ?—I do not; Wigan is a manufacturing town.
Suppose any one, and he a man'of great sense, talent, and
legal knowledge, used sucha speech as this to a multitude—" As
a Lawyer I would say the first Meeting was illegal."
Mr. Serjeant CROSS rose to object to reading the speech of a
Member of l'arliament.
Mr. Hunt—Oh, Mr. Cross, you need not say anything. Never
fear, we never eiall have your speech in Parliament !
[This epeeeh, which !t was about to read, was Mr. Scarlett's
upon the late new Bills.] •
' Mr. Hunt read—" As a Lawyer, I would declare the first
Meeting illegal. The object was then changed. The '1;001
took place; and what followed? Orator Hunt was arrested,
and the people were cut down by the Yeomanry." Now, what
would be the effect of such a speech as that to a multitude?
Mr. Seaman (warmly)—My Lord, as a Member of the
House of Commons, I must protest against having read hers
what was spoken there.
Mr. Hunt—The Learned Counsel is a little warm. I never
said it was his speech.
Mr. Justice atetay—f must insist that there be no more in-
terruptions. Mr. Scarlett is now arguing, and when be has done,
I will hear you in reply.
Mr. Scans:7-4 put a speech to the witness, which had
been actually spoken by one of the defendants et a Public Meet-
ing, and I asked him what lie thought would be the effect of
such a speech addressed to the Meeting at Manchester? It was
as a means of knowing his opinion as to its capability of excite-
ment that I put it; but does it, therefore, follow, that he can
riu.ke use of a speech that never was spoken to a multitude, and
which I recollect to be Dlr. I)earre.ll s speech in the House of
Commons, and ask the witness's opinion of it? It would be
quite competent for him, as I have asked wb the effect of an
inflammatory speech would be, to ask what would be the pro-
bable effect of a moderate one, under the like circumstances?
but certainly not a speech in Parliament.
Mr. JILLItiCe BATLIEYI will not suffer you, Mr. SCaliett, to
go upon these grounds! When a little while ago, I permitted
you to read a speech from a Paper, it was not because it was
Mr. runt's or any other, but merely al a. supposition of your
own, and I thought you were at liberty to put any number of
sentences together, and ask the witness what he thought would
be the effect, if no and so were spoken."
Mr. SC/12111 r—My object is to know, whether or not, the de-
fendantf have conspired to excite discontent? 171 prove, that
this speech had, in. fact, been circulated previously, with that
view. Ido not charge the defendants with a
os riot.
Mr. Scrjeant Cans--liefore the trial is over; we will prove,
that this speech was madeby one of the defendants.
Mr. Hunt—My Lord, may I be allowed to speak a word? '
(M:. &arlett was rising at the same time.) .
Mr- Justice liaraxv—Am I to be respected?
Mr. Hunt--My Lord—
Mt. Justice Revere—When the Counsel for the Crown have
*done, I will then hear you.
Mr. Hart (with a profoeni bow)—Most certainly, my Lord.
Mr. Justice Bacacs—Then don't bow in words, and contra-
dict it by your actions.
Mr. Hunt then apologised, but, at the Fame time took occa-
sion to complain, that, however kind the Court was to him, he
was net often enough allowed to reply to the observations of
Counsel. 'He contended, that the speech was not proved to be
his, and that though the Paper in which it was, was put in evi-
dence. merely on account of an advertisement—yet, from the
case of the King r Perry; it was laid dowa, that a detached part
of a Newspaper could not be given in evidence, unless it was
proved by itself.
Mr. Seaeurr repeated, that no one was at liberty to use the
speech of a Member of Parliament: If be had published that
speech with hrs name, he could be indicted for it ; but as it could
not be printed without a breach of privilege, it never could be
given in evidence. and, therefore, ought net to be alluded to here.
Mr. Justice Bavt.rr.—" The situation I am placed in is ra-
ther a delicate one. If the question had been, wheth.ir the
speech of a Member of Parliament was to be given in evidence,
as a lawyer I could hive no hesitation in disposing of it; but
that is not the question no ov. The question is for the witness to
say, whether he thought such and such a speech (I &en% care
where it was got) would have any, or what effect upon a multi-
tude in the temper that he has described that of Manchester.
I look upon them as naked specimens of speeches, which might
as %veil be made in Court, and propounded to the witness. It
was precisely for this reason that I permitted Mr. Scarlett to
use the other speech, not as one of any of the defendants, but as
an unconnected and disembodied piece of compositior. As Mr.
Scarlett then thought proper to use a certain set of words, I can
see r.o objection to Mr. Hunt's using another; but I don't care
whether they have been spoken by a man hi Parliament or out
of it. I think, therefore, he may put them purely as his own
supposition to the witness, and get an opinion upon th;)r proba-
ble effect if they had been spoken. It gives me some pain to
make this decision, but as a lawyer I must do it."

Mr. SCAILLETT.-1 now waive my objection.
Mr. Ilunt.—Yes, when you can no longer make any lilt of it.
Mr. Justice Bartsr.—l would rather the question had not
been put.
Mr. &rata-Dr.-I%ly Lord, I am now anxious it should.
Mr. ilunt.—Niy Lord, I don't desire it should. Your Lord-
ship has said, it cost you some pain to decide in my favour, and
though I see the advantage of putting it, yet I will refrain from
doing so, not from any regard to the feainp of Mr. Scarlett at
the awkward situation that I would put him in, but simply
from what has fallen from ror Lirdship, that you did not wish
Lit should. I therefore decline asking the question.—(A stifled
buzz of applause in the Court followed this declaration.) •
Thomas ltnthwell, James Schofield, Isaac
.Wood, and Sa-
muel Slack, deposed as to the peaceable character of the Meet-
ing, and its non-resistance of the military.
John Molireux gave evidence to the same effect, and was
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Caoss--Ilad been at the for-
• [The following is the extract from Mr. Scarlett's speech
upon which arose the argument :—" The people meet to petition.
The magistrates issue a warrant to arrest certain individuals;,
and that beins executed, the Yeomanry disperse the crowd at
the edge of the sabre. Three days afterwards, the thanks of the
Prince Regent were given both to the Civil and Military Au-
thorities; and what was the unavoidable inference,. but that
opinions, however absurd or preposterous, were to be put down
by the bayonet, and that Ministers intended to act on a system of•
military coercion? Did sot this demand inquiry? laid not
this call upon the whole nation to insist that inquiry should be
instituted