The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

those rneetings but what you believed to be constitutional
and legal. I have heard you say in conversation that you
wished to keep the people within the pale of the law. I
knew you personally, and should have noticed anything
wrong done by you at public meetings. Ido not remember
seeing you at any other meeting but that of the 23d April.
My report given to the Guardian, which occupies only about
twenty lines, contains the strongest expressions you made
use of at the meeting. The words purporting to be an ab-
stract of your speech appear to be similar in substance to the
report I furnished.
Cross-examined by Mr. B. O'Brien.—lf a reporter prac-
tises for twenty years, he may still be improved. I deny
distinctly that Mr. Protheroe, of Halifax, complained to me
of my reporting. I reported a speech of a gentleman,
in which I made a mistake of a word-in place of " Knicker-
bocker." Mr. Harland is the senior reporter of the Guar-
dian. Both of us are employed at large meetings, but the
meetings in question were not thought of sufficient impor-
tance. I have said that I dissent from'socialism. I consi-
der socialists infidels, and lam the reverse. It is very likely
that you are very unpopular with the parties called Whigs.
In reporting such meetings I inserted those passages only
which 1 thought the most interesting. I never stated to a
reporter that it was our practice to alter reports so as to suit
our readers. Your arguments on property were, that no anan
had a right to the- soil unless to cultivate its fruits, but that
if it were improved in value the value of such improvement
belonged to the people. You also said that the spontaneous
fruits belonged to the people, and that all raised beyond it
belonged to the cultivator. You said no one had a right to
take any land without giving the full market price, or some-
thing like it. You divided the land into three classes of
value :—first, the original value; secondly, the additional
value given by improvements; and thirdly, the contingent
and improvable value. You may have said that what God
created belonged to all men alike ; but that what human skill
created was the subject of private property. You admitted
that compensation would be but just in all cases, except such
as grants to the Duke of Wellington. (Here witness was re-
quired to read a passage from his report. in which the de-
fendant said that he had found the people of Leigh were arm-
ing themselves, but that you did not advise the people to do
anything against the law. Some one alluded to Lord John
Russell's letters to lord-lieuthnants and magistrates, stating
that the people should unite as volunteers, for the protection
of life and property, and that he would Supply them with
arms at the public expense. You might have said this. (Mr.
O'Brien here recited a long portion of his speech, referring
to political eve its in Ancient Rome and Sparta.) The wit-
ness did not remember. I cannot swear that you said they
could have no chance of success unless they rigidly adhered
to the law and the constitution. At Halifax I was a reporter,
and assisted in the shop. I was not a penny-a-liner. I had
a regular salary. I don't remember seeing in the Guardian
an article in which Mr. O'Connor and you were called " two
prowling Irishmen." I was once present at the Common
Council when an item was read of money paid to a reporter.
Mr. Potter is Mayor of Manchester. I was not in some in-
stances reporting for half the time; because I did not think
it necessary.
By Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.—The notes 1 took were
fairly taken, so far as they went. I saw a reporter named
Templeton at the meeting on the 23d April. There were from
eight to twelve persons on the platform, and several reporters.
By Mr. o'l3l:aux.—What you said of the House of Lords
was, that if the people had their own 1-louse of Commons,
the lords would not last a -week.
Joshua Stringfellow Howell.—l am clerk to the commis-
sioners of police at Chorlton-upon-Medlock. I attended a
meeting in Boardman-square. There were between 800 and
900 present. 1 saw Butterworth there. A man named Davis
was chairman. 1 took no notes then, but afterwards.—
David Roberts made the first motion—" That this meeting
view with disgust the base, abominable, and blood-thirsty
means used to stop their meetings. Sympathising with the
people of Birmingham we pledge ourselves, should rioters
intrrupt us, we will oppose force to force." Roberts said
that while all England was quiet, Birmingham, patriotic Bir-
mingham, had burst into flames. He could tell them that
an order had been sent for 300 pikes, and that they would be
sent on the following day ; that out of 70 policemen in a
house that was burning only eight had escaped. Butterworth
said they were determined to show that they were the wealth
of the country. Lord John knew they were the wealth of
the countay or he would not have sent down spies amongst
ahem to see what they thought of him. He would advise
them to arm. They should get each a gun with a bayonet,
or a brace of pistols and a pike. Government thought they
were safe with a rocket brigade ; but a bit of tow dipped in
pitch, was as good as any of them. The people had got a
holyjay to see the Duke of Wellington open the railway.
Would thy _do so ndw ? No : They would terminate the
existence of one of the most blood-thirsty villains in the
kingdom.
Cross-examined by Mr. WORTLEY.—I am clerk to the
commissioners. I wrote the facts down, but I remember
what I have stated without the notes. Butterworth said
they should get a gun with a bayonet at the end of it, and a
pike or a brace of pistols "to protect themselves." I forgot
the latter words before. I picked out the passages I thought
most treasonable. There were women and children at the
meeting. These was no alarm there I know of. That was
one of the greatest meetings I ever saw.
Cross-examined by, Mr. RICHARDSON.—I cannot remem-
ber to have seen you at the meeting.
Joseph Saunders, a witness, was called but did not appear.
Mr. WORTLEr addressed the jury for the -two defendants,
'Jackson and Butterworth, in a strain of much eloquence ;
but regret that the lateness of the hour on the eve of our pub-
licatiion precludes us from giving even an outline of his
speech.
Mr. J. B. O'Brien said, if he were here to defend his own
liberty, he should have left his defence to some gentleman of
the bar ; but he had to defend his own character, which had
been attacked by almost all the newspapers. He had not
proposed or called any of the meetings, but attended them
by accident : he did not know that a shot was fired at one of
them, giving it an illegal complexion, until yesterday. He
was not aware that any of these meetings were illegal, their
object being merely to forward petitions and representations
to the parliament. As to the speeches, those attributed to
me, are no more like mine than the grinning skeleton to the
living form. He had written much, but had not been pro-
secuted, because that it was found that such a step would
have been abortive. He had always consulted obedience to
the law, not that he respected it, for he did not ; but for the
sake of the people, he had been tried three times for sedition.
At Newcastle, he had attended a meeting, his speech at
which was garbled and misrepresented by the reporters, and
he was accused of urging the people to illegal and seditious
practices, when what he said had a directly opposite tendency.
In fact, it was he ..ho moderated the meeting and prevented
it, by advising ,an obedience to the law, until a demonstra-
tion of the public mind in.favour of a change should become
so general, that there would be no illegality in seeking re-
dress of grievances, or amendments of the laws. He had
never counselled spoliation of property, though almost all
the leading parties had at one time or another maintained
opinions involving spoliation. Even Sir James Graham had
proposed a reduction of the interest of the national debt,
thus robbing the fundholder of one-seventh of his property.
He (Mr. O'Brien) had -also opposed the abolition of the
corn-laws, unless it were accompanied by other measures ;
because, by so doing, thousands would be ruined, while the
national creditors and others would have their incomes dou-
bled. He had also opposed a petition because it held a threat
over the heads of the government, if they did not grant its
prayer. At Birmingham he also opposed the introduction
of arms into public meetings. Had his advice, indeed, been
taken, none of the tumults and disturbances which had re-
cently occurred, and which had greatly injured their cause,
would have arisen. He had also opposed meetings being
held in the Bull-ring at Birmingham, because the mayor had
forbidden it, and many shopkeepers and others were greatly
incommoded by their being held there. He succeeded. One
of the ulterior measures was to discontinue the payment of
rents, rates, taxes, &c. ; and this he opposed. He got that
resolution rescinded. He defied his enemies to prove that
on any occasion he had advised any contravention of the
law. Sir Robert Peel had stated it broadly, that if the
majority went on, the minority ought to rise up and put
them down; and he (the right hon. Bart.) quoted a passage
from Sir Walter Scott, showing that the aristocracy ought to
rise to a man, as in former days, and man every hill and
glen, and fortress to put them down. Here was a pink of
the aristocracy advising a rebellious rising of the minority to
put down the majority, though the former had no just ground
of saying they were oppressed, inasmuch as they were
amenable only to the same laws with which the majority
were ruled. lie contended that the people had a right to
meet peaceably and discuss their grievances and wants, a
right not to be oppressively arrested, a right to habeas
corpus, and above all, a right to the trial by jury. Poor
men were not now tried by their equals. They were not
tried by people of their own class. The statute law had
done away with many of the constitutional privileges and
rights which they enjoyed under the ancient common law.
He also urged the right of the subject to be armed in self-
defence. The Sun newspaper said, why not allow the people
to have arms, seeing that the serfs of the landowners are
armed. They had fowling pieceS given them, and they were
enrolled in the yeomanry. He had read an extract from a
letter, written by a clergyman of the Church of England,
and addressed to his bishop, in which he states that the es-
states of the Duke of Bedford, which had belonged to Ca-
tholics, were positively stolen by the Russell's. He con-
tended that the reporter of the Manchester Guardian was
not a disinterested witness. He had his employers to please,
and if he were sincere in his politics, he would be the more
likely to misrepresent him and to garble his speech. He then
said, that as high and dignified authorities had, as it had been
shown, used violent language, surely great allowances
ought to be madefor the poor chartists in theexpression of their
opinions and grievances. If the chartist found language far
more seditious and rebellious from those who called them-
selves their superiors, and find it pass unnoticed, surely he
may be excused for a warmth of language, which, if illegal,
was not known to be so by him. He (Mr. O'Brien) had
ever advocated the cause of virtue and humanity, and had
ever upheld a respect for the law. He had opposed a system
of proceedings recommended by Dr. Taylor, because he con-
ceived it would lead to a contravention of the law. Organi-
zation, private or public, had also been proposed ; but he had
stated that he would have nothing to do with it. All he
wished was, at public meetings, to obtain the sense of the
people, and to act accordingly. He here read an extract
from a speech of Lord John Russell at Liverpool, asserting
the right to meet in public, so that, if they had grievances,
they might be known and redressed, and, adding that, if they
had no grievances, such meetings would die away of them-
selves, He could state that there was recently a strong dis-
position to form numerous secret societies. This he strenu-
ously opposed on many grounds as-impolitic and dangerous.
Secrecy argued guilt; and the cause of liberty had never
gained anything by secrecy. He had approved of nothing
but a demonstration in open day. He read a long article
from No. 2 of the Northern Star, setting forth these opinions.
He had always advocated peaceable proceedings, and had
deprecated physical force, except in so far as it was justified
and upheld by Blackstone and other celebrated writers. There
were abundance of reasons for the disaffection of the people,
without reference to him. The magistrates had required
excessive bail from the men who had been arrested. Even
his own case, several respectable men had refused to be bail
for him, on the ground that they would become marked men
by the government and be seriously injured in their business—
the bail required seven years ago from a reverend bishop
for a capital and a most odious and revolting offence. The
great provocation, however, was given at Birmingham. He
here read an account of the assault made 'by the military
and police upon the people assembled in the Bull Ring, while
peaceably listening to a poor man reading a newspaper. Even
women and children were indiscriminately struck and some
wounded. Many innocent persons were beaten and put in
gaol. The reading the catalogue of aggressions by the police
in particular occupied some time. The outrages were com-
mitted by an exasperated body of armed London police.
The language uttered by the chartists, and even by himself
was, he admitted, wrong ; but the excitement and ferment of
the public mind was very great. No man had a right to use
stronger language of the government than he, for he was
ruined by them. He had wished to start a newspaper, and
four months elapsed before he could get sureties. Eighteen
out of twenty-two individuals refused, saying—The govern-
ment is determined to crush you. They will be glad if you
write a libel, and will pounce upon you, and come upon us
too. Finally, they refused to receive three out of the four as
sureties. The police officers in several towns even tore my
bills from the walls. The bills announcing my lectures were
even torn down before my face, and when he asked them
why they did so, the only reply was, "It is our orders." A
verdict might be got against him, but that would be a mean
triumph. It would be a triumph over a man of half-broken
constitution, and he regretted to say, of broken fortune.
But it would be no triumph over the cause which he es-
poused. That would flourish when they. were dead and rot-
ten, and when their memory stunk in the nostrils of the
people, even as their recreant bodies. He then noticed the
principal causes of the discontent—the appropriation by the
rich from the poor of what they never earned. The weavers