The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-10 00:00:00

at it would be absurd for a government to attempt

to lay down rules for the guidance of a functionary
exercising his duties at so great a distance; and that
the superintendent himself, residing upon the spot,
was the best judge of the policy to be pursued to en-
sure the object of his mission. We admit freely and
fully the latter part of the plea, but certainly not its
application as an apology for Lord Palmerston. The
superintendent was, or ought to have been, the best
judge of the policy to be pursued in the various details
of his arduous duty ; but, then, he had no powers.
He urges upon the government the necessity of grant-
ing him powers, and his repeated applications and
remonstrances—the remonstrances of the superinten-
dent, "residing upon the spot, and best able to judge
of the policy to be pursued"—are thrown aside and
disregarded ! He tells the governinent that unless he is
invested with the necessary powers—the same powers,
too, which had been enjoyed by officers occupying a
position similar to his own, under the East India Com-
pany—the suspension of our entire commerce with
China must be the result; yet he is denied that power,
or it is neglected to be furnished. And when the
Chinese, stung by repeated violations of their, laws,
threaten measures of retaliation, he warns repeatedly
and emphatically the goVernment at home .of the cri-
tical posture of the immense interests under his charge,
and urges the importance of providing an imposing
force to repel any aggressions which may be made
upon them. Yet when those aggressions are made,
when the hour of conflict arrives, the superintendent
—the representative of the British monarch—has only
a pinnace, a cutter, and a few small craft at his dis-
posal; and, after a fire of almost half an hour against
three war junks, is compelled (we use his own words)
"to haul off" from failure of his ammunition ! As
the next- step a blockade was declared—still without
the necessary power to enforce it, and without a previ-
ous declaration of war; but, upon a remonstrance
being made by the American merchants, the blockade,
although declared in the presence of the Chinese by
the officer in command, was hastily abandoned, with-
out producing any other result than an impression
that insolence and cowardice were the characteristics
of •the British character.
Will it be denied, we ask, that the gross errors
which we have detailed—errors which 'are scarcely
attempted to be denied by the ministerial faction—
furnish strong and undeniable grounds for the cen-
sure directed against government by the motion of Sir
James Graham ? The weak and negligent policy of
the Foreign-office has certainly precipitated, if _not
originated, the present embroilment of our commer-
cial relations with China ; and it will require all
the caution, wisdom, and firmness which can be
brought to the task, to reinstate us in our for-
mer advantageous position. Whether this can best
be effected by open hostilities or by peaceful ne7
gociations, or, as is most likely to be the case, by a
combination of the two, we have not now to enquire.
Whether the people of England will regard a war with
China as a just or an unjust war is not the question
we have to discuss. Our position, and the po-sition
of the conservative party, upon the motion of the
right hon. baronet, is one of aggression upon the, past
policy of the foreign office. We argue that sheer in-
competency, added to gross neglect of precaution and
blind obstinacy, has shut out our commerce and our
manufactures from one of the largest and most im-
portant markets of the world—has brought into peril
our immense pastern possessions—and has degraded
our national character in the eyes of a people who
hitherto have looked up to us with respect; and we
contend by implication that the ministry whose ill-
directed councils have produced this unhappy state of
things, are not possessed of the honesty, the energy,
or the capacity which may be required to provide a
remedy for the evil.

We understand that at the meeting of the Dock
Committee yesterday the motion for rescinding that
for the admission of Reporters was carried by 11 votes
to •6. For the admission of Reporters—Messrs. T.
Holt, Holmes, Horsfall, Gladstone, Hornby and
Yates : Against—Messrs. Leathom, Benn, Mellor,
Smith, Booth, Bulley, Segar, Tobin, Ripley, Martin,
and G. Holt.

ROBBING OF CIIILDREN.—The robbery of children in the
streets of any loose article about them, whether of dress, or-
nament, or toy, has of late years been frequent, and the im
mediate actors have generally been children themselves, tu-
tored by unprincipled parents. On Tuesday last a flagitious
case of this species of theft was disclosed at the Police Court.
A woman, named Alice Irvine, who had an infant in her
arms, and her daughter (a mere girl), were brought up,
charged with robbing a little girl of a link of coral beads from
her neck. It appeared that the mother had watched the
child, who was going to school, and after witnessing the rob-
bery, had received the beads into her own hand. The mo-
ther of the robbed child seized the younger delinquent; and
the other was soon afterwards apprehended. Mr. Rushton
stated that the elder female was well known as having trained
her children to such practices, and committed her for trial.

GALE'S WHITBY NEW LIFE-BOAT.—A fine life-boat on
an improved principle has recently been completed by Mr. C.
Gale, of Whitby, for the Liverpool Steam Tug Company.
The builder is 4 gentleman of great ingenuity ; his merits
have been much appreciated on the eastern coast of this our
" tight little island," where he is well known, and we trust
he will become not less celebrated in the west. As it may
gratify some of our friends connected with shipping, we sup-
ply a brief description of this new boat for the preservation
of life on occasions of danger :—Her length aloft is twenty-
eight feet, and her breadth ten feet two inches, she has ten
grunmetted oars, with iron thouls, and two steering oars,
which will be worked on iron swivels. Through her bottom
are six lead tubes, by which, should she fill, the water, it is
calculated, would escape in 20 seconds. in her bottom amid-
ships, she has a well or tank capable of holding about 14 cwt.
of water, as ballast, which can be filled or discharged in three
or four minutes if required. Should she upset, which, owing
to her great beam, is not very probable, there is a large cop-
per tube, by which, on her righting, the water will be carried
off; there is also, in case of such accident, a number of cir-
cular stretchers, secured by ropes to the timber heads, for
the support of the crew. She has portable wash boards at
the bow and stern, and is fitted with horizontal air boxes.
Her keel and sternplates are of iron. When fully manned,
say with ,12 hands, and 14 cwt. of water ballast, she draws
only from 15 to 16 inches of water, and when completely filled
with water her draught will not exceed 21 inches. We
heartily wish her and her builder the greatest success, not
forgetting the spirited and enterprising company for whom
she has been constructed, and whose meritorious exertions
in the preservation of life from shipwreck, not only in the
memorable gale of last year, but during the present winter,
are yet too fresh on the public mind, to require the slightest
commendation.

The attention of our readers is directed to the following
communication addressed to Messrs. Rowland and Son, 20,
Hatton-garden, London (whose advertisement appears in
another column).—Canterbury, Kent, Feb. 20.—Gentlemen,
—I write this as a convincing proof of the efficacy of your
Macassar oil. For nearly three years my head was quite bald ;
during that time I tried several advertised preparations, but
to no purpose. Your oil being in high estimation in this
place, induced me to try it, and in a short time was wonder-
fully recovered, and I have the pleasure to assert, the oil con.
tams those virtues which you express in your bills and essay;
in short, my hair never was so comfortable, is free from dan-
driff, feels extremely pleasant, possesses a strong curl and is
very thick. I shall make it my study to recommend it, and
you have my free will to publish this note.—Your obedient
humble servant, CHARLES EDWARD COLMAN.

SOUTH LA.NCASIIIRE SPRING ASSIZES,

CROWN COURT.----TusnAv,
TRIALS 01, CHARTISTS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL directed that William Vickers
Jackson, George Henry Smith, Christopher Doyle, and John
Kaye should be called.
Mr. HOPKINS again rose, and said that the traverses of
these parties had not been entered.
His LORDSHIP said it was impossible to conceive that this
continued delay had arisen from any thing less than inten-
tional disrespect to the court. He should order the recog-
nisances to be estreated.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY detailed the circumstances o 7
the case to the jury ; but as his speech was principally a re-
capitulation of the evidence, it is unnecessary to follow the
learned counsel in his remarks. He observed that Jackson
had been a minister of the Wesleyan Methodists, a body of
Christians of whom it was impossible to speak with too high
respect.
Walter Smythe, a police-officer, of Manchester, deposed,
that on the 25th July last lie attended a public meeting at
Hulme. He saw Jackson, Doyle, and Smith there. He did
not know who was in the chair. After the chairman, Smith
was the first person who had addressed the meeting. He
spoke at considerable length. Witness had made notes of
the sayings, which he produced. Smith, after holding forth
against the church, said he was armed, and he advised every-
body to be the same. Unless the charter were granted within
a limited period, he would tell Mr. Spy that it would be ob-
tained by means that would for ever destroy his employment.
The crowd gave three groans for the police spies. A man
named Quin was pointed out as a person in disguise belong-
ing to the old police force. Smith announced two other meet-
ings for Wednesday and Thursday, in Travis-street, Man-
chester. Doyle spoke at the meeting about the poor-law, and
followed Smith in his remarks on the necessity for arming.
He alluded to the approaching national holiday, and said,
perhaps many would ask him how they were to live without
work ? They must live as lie had done, by a pointed argu-
ment. Smith said he had to attend another meeting that
evening, where more would be done than police spies could
prevent. Jackson presented himself, and was received with
applause. He said he set the authorities at defiance, and did
not care for the bloody police. He spoke of the necessity
for arming ; but witness did not recollect his precise words.
On the 25th July witness attended a meeting in Travis-
street, at which Smith and Doyle were present. Smith, at
that meeting, moved a resolution, to the effect that the meet-
ing pledged itself to carry into effect a system of exclusive
dealing, as a means of forcing the middle classes to join or
contribute to the charter. The question worked well in
Hulme, and before long it would be established from the
Land's-end to John o'Groat's. He then spoke of the eco-
nomy of her Majesty's government, in having granted seven
thousand pounds for the erection of her Majesty's stables.
Mr. BRANDT put it over and over to the witness, whether,
it was £7OOO.
The defendant Smith—lt was £70,000. (Laughter.)
Witness—He did not blame the Queen—it was not her
fault—he did not blame Lord Melbourne, nor Lord John
Russell—but he blamed John Taylor, of the Manchester
Guardian I (Loud laughter.) It was him and such as him!
(Renewed laughter.) He said, he did not care for pig-meal
(not pigmy) Jack. Witness understood Lord John Russell
to be called pigmeal Jack. (Laughter.) Taylor had insulted
the body of chartists, for he had said that the meeting of
the preceding day consisted of only about five hundred
people, of whom about fifty were boys ; but that meeting
would lead to no child's play, for there were at least 4000
people at it. After what had taken place at Birmingham, he
would never attend another meeting without coming prepared
for the worst, as he then Was. He would not tell them to
do it, but he would tell them what he did in the case of being
laid hold of by any of the Potters in the quiet discussion of
his own affair%, Mr. Potter was the mayor of Manchester.
As for little Jailk, if he applied to him for a character, he
would give him such an one as would prevent him ever get-
ting employment for the futufe. If force were used against
him, he must resist it. He advised that person who was a
spy to begone. A man, who stood behind witness said, the
first person who laid a hand upon him he woutd lay him dead
at his feet. The speaker proceeded, that if any of the police
interfered, they should have such a reception as Manchester
had never seen before. How had the Americans got their
independence? By physical force. Then, why should they
not do the same ? Witness spoke of another meeting at
which a person named Linney was in the chair. There was
a banner held up at that meeting, on which was an inscrip-
tion to the effect, that every man had a right to one vote for
his representative in right of his existence, and the title deed
was in his person. Jackson advised that they should be
armed. It was useless to leave their arms on the mantel-
piece ; they were to bring their arms concealed, and if they
were Peterlooed, England should be in flames from one end
of the country to the other, and the soil should teem with
blood. On the 31st July, there was another meeting at
which Kaye was in the chair. lie detailed a conversation
which he had had with' Colonel Wemyss, in which th'e latter
had asked him what they could do against thesoldiery. He
replied that they had destructive instruments to throw
amongst the cavalry to disable the horses, which would fall,
and then the soldiery would be at the mercy of the thqu-
sands. Smith addressed the assembly is " fellow-country-
men and fellow-slaves." He said they should be prepared
with muskets. If a soldier were to be knocked down; they
could take his musket and sword from him. He told them
to meet next Sunday at the collegiate church gates, and
make as good an appearance as possible, as they might as
well sit on the soft cushions as the factory lords. When
they had filled the church, they were to go to Jackson's
room in Oxford-road. Witness deposed to another meeting
held on the following week, at which Jackson spoke.
Mr. Murphy cross-examined at considerable length.
James Macdonald, an inspector of police at Manchester.
He had attended the meeting at Hulme on the 23d July.
Smith was there, and he spoke very violently of Government,
and said it would be necessary for every man to be prepared
as he was. The people shouted, "we are also prepared."
He said he was going to attend another meeting that night,
at which something of importance would be done, and no
spies would be admitted. Christopher Doyle was there. He
spoke generally of the weight of taxation throughout the
country, and of the national debt, the interest of which, he
said, was twenty millions. He spoke of the inutility of sup-
porting kings and queens at such an enormous expense. All
should be prepared with arms against the coming sacred
month. Physical force was the only means of putting a stop
to these abuses. It would be necessary to be provided with
arms, and if an outbreak should take place, he would be one
of the very first to pull a trigger in defence of the charter.
Some one, as the meeting broke up, fired a pistol.
J. S. Howell, clerk in the Borough Police-office of Man-
chester, stated that, on the 24th July last he attended a
meeting' in Travis-street. There was a tri-coloured flag
elevated, on which was the inscription, " The Rights of
Man." This witness, as well as 'William Robinson, Thos.
Taylor, Percival Jefferson, Joseph Saddler, and Mr. Bes-
wick, the chief officer of the Manchester new police, gave
testimony in support of the charges against the defendants.
Mr. Saddler, who is the head-constable of Stockport, on the
sth August last searched the house of Mr. Thompson' gun-
maker, of Stockport. He found there a letter,-which was
read to the Court. It was an order for six guns, and con-
tained an assertion, that the writer (the defendant Smith)
could dispose of some hundreds.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
fendants. He contended, generally, that the testimony of
police-officers, who trusted to memory, and did not write
their notes till some time' after the words were uttered, was
unworthy of serious attention. The learned gentleman spoke
at considerable length, and with much energy and eloquence.
Mr. Serjeant ATcHERLEY replied.
His LORDSHIP commented minutely upon the evidence,
separating the points, which indicated that the meetings and
speeches had a seditious tendency from those which merely
exhibited notions which the defendants, in common with all
others, have a right to entertain. His Lordship thought the
evidence of conspiracy against Kaye was but very slight, how-
ever, it was for the Jury to judge whether he had not had a
common object with the others in attended the 'meeting, at
which he presided as chairman.
The jury, after consulting a few moments in the box, re-
tired at half past three o'clock. They returned at a quarter
past four and 'found Jackson, Smith, and Doyle, guilty on
all the counts, and Kaye, of being at a seditious meeting.
THE QUEEN V. BARKEU. AND DAVIDSON.
William Barker and Frederick Davidson were charged
with seditious conspiracy and riot, at Manchester, on the
12th August last. The defendants had traversed since last
assizes.
Counsel for the prosecution as in the last case, Mr. Wilkins
defended.
Richard Beswick stated that on the 12th August last, the
day when the national bolyday was to be celebrated, 'he re-
ceived, early in the morning, intelligence of a riot at Mr.
Marsden's mill. He went there, and found the two defend-
ants at the gate Of the works, at the head of a great mob,
whom they appeared to be directing and controlling. They
were kicking furiously at the gate, calling to those within to
turn out the hands, and to the mob to come on. The two
prisoners were captured. He received a dagger from a con-
stable, called Booth. [_This weapon, a very formidable in-
strument, was produced.]
Joseph Holmes stated that, on the 12th August last, he
was engineer at Mr. Chappell's mill, which was not far from
Manchester. About half-past five o'clock in the morning, a
mob of two hundred people entered the yard, and made them
stop the engine, This put a stop to the working of the fac-
tory, and the hands were turned out. He saw them go to
another factory and act in a similar manner. On cross-exa-
rnination, the witness said a great part of the mob consisted
women and children.
Thomas Lomas, an inspector of the Manchester police,
deposed to having seen the crowd, with the two defendants
amongst them, go to several mills and attempt to get the
works stopped.
The manager of Mr. Marsden's mill stated, that the walls
about the mill and the gates were covered by people when
Mr. Beswick and the police came up. Archibald M`Mullen
stated, that Barker threatened to stab him, and produced
the dagger above mentioned, which was taken from him by
him and Booth.
The jury found both prisoners guilty, and the Attorney-
General moved that they stood committed.
His LORDSHIP said, he did not wish to interfere, but he
wished to know if it were intended to proceed with all these
cases.
Mr. MURPHY said, perhaps it might be conceived that,
now a sufficient example had been made to answer the ends
of public justice, and he was ready to undertake, on behalf
of the other defendants to give bail for future good behaviour,
and that they should appear at the, bar if they offended again.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL intimated that he should pro-
ceed. He could nut do otherwise ; he had a public duty en-
trusted to him, and it was in some measure an anxious one,
as his lordship knew.
THE QUEEN V. LEECH.
James Leech was charged with a seditious conspiracy and
unlawful possession of arms at Manchester.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, at the outset of the case,
that if the prisoner would express his sorrow in any way for
what he had done, he would accept the defendant's own re-
cognisance to appear and receive judgment when called upon.
His LORDSHIP explained to the defendant, after his plea
of guilty had been recorded, that he would be liable to be
called up immediately to receive judgment if ever he attended
any more of these meetings.
The defendant was then set at liberty on his own recogni-
sance of £2OO to appear to receive judgment when called
upon, and to keep the peace for two years.
It was stated that, in accordance with the Attorney-Gene-
ral's motion for the commitment of the convicted defendants,
James Bronterre O'Brien, Wm. Vickers Jackson, Reginald
John Richardson, Wm. Butterworth, and those convicted to-
day, were now in custody of the gaoler.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
GAY V. MARTIN.
This was a special jury case, appointed to come on this
morning. The action was brought by Mr. Gay, a travelling
jeweller, against Mr. Martin, the proprietor of the Saddle
Inn, Dale-street, to recover the value of a large amount of
jewellery, which, as our readers will remember, was stolen
from the Saddle Inn, some few monthi ago, without, how-
ever, any impuation on the servants of the establishment.
When his Lordship had taken his seat,
Mr. WJGHTMAI4, on the part of the plaintiff, intimated to
his Lordship, that an arrangement had been made by the
parties, by which his Lordship and the Jury would be re-
leased from trying the case. Mr. Gay, though a loser to
large amount, nearly £1,700 by the abstraction of a quan-
tity of jewellery from the house of the defendant, under cir-
cumstances, however, which excited no reflection on the de-
fendant, was quite well aware of the hardship of forcing Mr.
Martin to pay the value of the missing property, although
that gentleman was legally liable. He (the plaintiff) had
therefore undertaker► to enter into such arrangements as
was satisfactory to the defendant, although Mr. Gay would
be a loser to the extent of two-thirds of the value of his
property.

Mr. UnrAtiwntt, who hat been engaged for the deface,
said, he was gait," well aware that. the landlord, unless he had
teid the plaintiff that he would not take care of hia pro--
perty, was anawerable for the loss. He (the learned coun-
sel) had intimated to his client, that the law was against him,
though the facts might be in his favour. Mr. Martin had,
therefore, consented that the Jury should give a verdict for
the plaintiff for .E5OO.
Verdict accordingly.
ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.--WORSLEY V. SMITH

AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Henry Worsley, a gentle-
man residing at Worsley-lodge, at West Leigh, against James
Smith, Wni. Taylor, and Thomas Darwell, for assaulting,
handcuffing, and imprisoning him.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Addison appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for Smith and Darwell;
and Mr. Wilkins for Taylor.
Mr._CRESSWEI: stated the case for the plaintiff. He said,

that Mr. Worsley was a person having some landed property,
on which he resided, in the township of West Leigh, in this
county, The attack which had been made upon him by the
defendants was one of a most grievous description ; they as-
saulted him, put handcuffs upon him, shut him up in a
dungeon, and on the next day took him before the magistrates.
The circumstances were of a most unusual kind, showing a
very great disregard of the law on the part of those who ought
to have known much better. The first defendant, Mr. Jas.
Smith, was an attorney, residing at Pennington, near West
Leigh, and acting as clerk to the magistrates at Chowbent. It
appeared, that on the 10th of September last, the plaintiff
was at the. White Horse public-house ; he had apparently
been making merry in the course of the evening, and from
there he went to another public-house, the Royal Oak. Tay-
lor, who was the sexton of the parish, was a man extremely
fond of drink, and when he came in contact with any one
making merry, clung to him for the purpose of getting a glass
or two. On the evening in question Taylor saw theplaintiff,
and followed him to the Royal Oak. After having sat there
awhile, it was proposed that Mr. Smith should be sent for to
join them ; and according Taylor went to the house of Mr.
Smith, and invited him to the White Horse, in the name of
Mr. Worsley. Mr. Smith went, and joined the company. .
The conversation turned on various matters, amongst others,
he understood, on a vacancy in the church, and a difference

arose as to who was the fit person to fill the office. Mr.

Smith, for the purpose of showing that he was a person in
the confidence of people in a higher sphere, produced a let-
ter, and said vauntingly to the company, " Read that." It
was a letter from Lord Normanby, concerning the police of
the district, and had been written by his lordship on the oc-
casion of some disturbances, or anticipated disturbances.
Mr. Worsley took the letter; but, not considering it of the
same importance as Mr. Smith evidently did, did not think
it worth his while to read it. Mr. Smith, seeing this, said
again, " Read that letter." " Oh, no," replied the plaintiff;
" Rome was not built in a day ; I can't read it now," and
put it into his pocket. Mr. Smith, too proud of the valu-
able document to trust it in the possession of another person,
demanded it back ; but Mr. Worsley refused, on which Mr.
Smith and Taylor made an onslaught upon him, and took it
from him by force. Mr. Smith declared, that during this
struggle the plaintiff had struck him, and thereupon said,
"Go for the constable." Darwell, the constable, came ; put
handcuffs on the plaintiff, and took him to the dungeon, a
narrow, filthy, vile place, scarcely tit for the basest of man-
kind, and there shut him up on a night in September. The
next morning, the attorney, perhaps thinking that he had
done wrong, endeavoured to free himself from responsibility,
and coolly said, that if Mr. Worsley would make an apology,
he would not take him before the magistrates. " No," said
the plaintiff ; " I have done no wrong, and ought myself to
demand an apology." He was then taken before the magis-
trates at Chowbent. After this, Mr. Worsley directed his
attorney to write to the party on the subject, suggesting an
arrangement, so as to stop further proceedings. This was
an opening for Mr. Smith ; but no—he expressed his surprise
at the letter, saying that he was not the aggressor, and that
certainly he would not make any reparation of any kind
whatever. Now, in the first place, the defendants had no
right to imprison the plaintiff at all, for if there had been an

not n
assault—and it was ot pretended on the record that there
had been, a simple denial having been pleaded—the constable
should have witnessed it before he locked up a person in a
dungeon. .
_..

Evidence in support of his statement having been heard,
Mr. WiLicirrs put it to his lordship, whether there had
been any case made out against Taylor.
The JUDGE.—yes ; not a very strong case, but quite suf-
ficient to go to the jury.
Mr. ALEXANDER then referred to the act 3d and 4th Wil-
liam IV, c. 90, and contended that under the 60th section
Darwell, the constable, was protected from action for any-
thing done in his capacity of constable, unless 21 days' notice
thereof were given to the inspector. Here no notice had
been given ; the township had adopted the act in question,
and the constable was therefore entitled to the protection of
that clause, and to his acquittal.
Mr. WIGHTMAN followed up by observing, that if the act
protected the constable, it would also protect the other de-
fendants, who had merely aided and assisted him.
Mr. CRESSWELL maintained that there was no power in
the 'act to'appoint constables, and that Darwell was no con-
stable under the act. The 3d and 4th William IV. related

to lighting and watching, and did not at all interfere with the
appointment of constables properly so called, but merely en-
abled inspectors to appoint watchmen, and to give to them
, the same authority as constables, during the time that they
were on duty. It was to enable those whe were vigilant
guardians of the night to apprehend people in a summary
manner, when disturbing the peace, &c. ; but it would be
monstrous to suppose that that applied to constable§olnd to
say that, under all circumstances, they might apprehead men
on a charge of assault, without having seen the affair. That
would he giving them an authority at variance with the" law
of the land. The act cited was to establish a force in the
nature of a police force, and quite independent of the ancient
office of constable, recognised by the common law. Their
powers were limited to the hours when on service ; they were
to do certain specific acts in accordance with certain specific
rules laid down in the act. Now, it had been proved that
Darwell was not on Aervice at the time—that, in fact, he was
-roused up from his bed. .
Mr. ALEXANDER said he could prove that Darwell had
been appointed under the act.
Mr. CRESSWELL would rather it had been given at the
proper time. He apprehended that Darwell was totally be-
side the protection of the act. And how could it be made
out-that Mr, Smith was a disorderly person under the mean-
ing of the act?
Mr. ALEXANDER could not see the distinction drawn by
Mr. Cresswell between the constable for the country and the
force appointed by the act. He recited the Clause giving
power to apprehend in case of disturbance, to imprison,. and
to take before the magistrate with all covenient speed. That,
he contended, was all that had been done, and was what the
act impowered Darwell to do. The objection that the act did
not extend its protection to Darwell because he happened to
be in bed was, in his opinion, incorrect, because the duty of
the constable commenced at the moment he was summoned.
His LORDSHIP said that it did not appear to him that
Darwell was under the protection of the act, because the pro-
tection was only to persons in respect of any thing done in
pursuance, or under the authority or colour of the act. It ap-
peared to him that the defendant was not acting under colour
of the statute, because the 42d section gave authority to swear
in persons as watchmen, sergeants, &c ; and they were only
invested with the like powers and authorities of constables as
watchmen. -Therefore,' as watchmen, they had only the privi-
leges of constables, and a constable was not allowed to take up
a person merely because he was charged with having commit-
ted a breach of the 'peace by an assualt. Unless the watch-
man had seen the assault he had no right to apprehend. To
show that a constable acted under colour of this statute, it
must be proved that he was in the position described by sec-
tion 41 • it must be shown that he was on duty, not only as a
constable, but as one of the watchmen, sergeants, or patrols
appointed by the act ; but it appeared from the evidence,
that he was not, and that it was not his duty to: be on any
beat. Darwell was, therefore, not acting as a watchman: Nor
did he pretend that he was acting as a watchman, but as a
constable, and he was entitled to all the protection and
all the privileges of a constable, but to nothing more. In
apprehending the plaintiff, therefore, he had stepped beyond
his duty. .
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury on behalf of his two
clients. He hinted at the outset that, by the decision of his
lordship, and the rules of pleading, he had been deprived of
the opportunity of bringing witnesses to give a further ac-
count of the affair which had been submitted to the jury.;
and, though he bowed with deference to the opinion of his
lordship, he intimated that the objection which had been
raised by him would be tried before a higher court. Rely-
ing, however, on the story already given, he contended that
it formed a justification of the defendants' conduct. It had
been admitted that the plaintiff had been drinking in the
course of the evening; that he left one public-house to go
to another ; that, apparently with the most perfect friend-
ship, he sent for Mr. Smith to join him ; that this gentleman
produced a letter on an interesting local subject, which was
then probably the subject of conversation ; that he handed it
to the plaintiff, who put it into his pocket, and pertinaciously
refused to deliver it, although Mr. Smith stated that he was
tired, and wished to go home ; and there could be no doubt
that this shabby retention of an important letter, belonging
to another person, produced a warm feeling between the
parties. In the scuffle which ensued, and the origin of
which was to be attributed solely to the plaintiff, it had been
admitted that Mr. Smith had received a blow ; and the fact
of Mr. Worsley having been bound over to keep the peace
by the magistrates, was a proof that they considered him to
blame.
Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury on behalf of his
client, maintaining that such an insignificant individual as
Taylor, who had been described as " Drunken Billy," as
sexton, bellman, and tombstone engraver, had not been
brought there under the expectation of extracting damages
from him, but for the purpose of shutting out his testimony'
which was feared.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £2O against
Smith and Darwell, and for the defendant Taylor.
His LORDSHIP, on the application of Mr. Cresswell, cer-
tified that there was probable cause for making Taylor a
party in the action.
RUNNING DOWN OF A VESSEL.—ROBINSON V. ROBSON.
This action (in which Mr. William Robinson was the
Plaintiff, and Mr. James Robson, sen.; and-Mr. James Rob-
son, jun., were the defendants) was brought to recover cow-
nensation for a vessel belonging to the plaintiff, alleged to
have been run down and destroyed, on the evening of the
6th of January, 1839, while at anchor in Yarmouth-roada,
by a vessel belonging to the defendants, and through the
negligence of the person having the management. The
sum claimed was £750, the value of the vessel ; £25, the
value of the provisions on board; and £35, the freight
that she would have received ;—making altogether £BlO.
It appeared that on the eve of the memorable and destruc-
tive storm, whose ravages were so severely felt in Liver-
pool, the George and Henry, a brig belonging to the plain-
tiff, bound' from Stockton to Southampton with a cargo
of coals, put into the Yarmouth-roads, there being then
indications of an approaching storm. Later on the evening
the Wyndham, a vessel belonging to the defendants, fro,
Shields to Rye, coal laden, finding the wind gradually rising.
returned into the roads, where she had been lying from the
Ist until the morning of the 6th of January. The wind was
then pretty stiff, and the weather hazy ; mingled snow and
rain were falling. The Wyndham, in making for that part f
the harbour beyond that part of the harbour where the George
and Henry was lying at Anchor, came in contact with the
last-named brig, catching her on the starboard, and cutting
her down to the water's edge, so that the crew had itntoe.
diately to get on board of the Wyndham. She, however,
had sustained considerable damage from the collision; ,
was making water fast, and the crew took to the boat, &di'g.
with them the crew of the George and Henry. Two boor'
after they were picked up by another vessel, and all saved'
It was contended. on the part of the plaintiff, that the th'i
aster arose through unskilfulness on the part of the mate °
the Wyndham, (the captain had, in a fit of insanity,
com-
mitted suicide in the course of the voyage,) and by -, a
ALEXANDER, on the part of the defendants, that there s
been, as well as mutual loss, mutual negligence, inasmoc°;„
the vessel lying at anchor had no lights, and that, so suddenl
and unexpectedly did they come into proximity, that,:althona i:
all was done that could have been done to prevent corns!o_
it was unavoidable under the circumstances. The plaintTll.,l
witnesses said, that though the night was hazy, they CO
see to some distance, (a quarter of a mile,) whilst the wit-
nesses for the defence stated, that they could not see wiroi_e:,
than two or three ships' lengths before them. Evidence ,al!
also called, on the part of the defence, to show that
lost
Wyndham (the value of which, :and not that of the
bay'
ing could only be recovered) had been overrated, it
ing been sold, seven months previously, for :C6O ,
Tdo
that
ing suffered depreciation of 5 per cent. per annum.
co!c:,'
(the learned JUDGE observed, in his summing N
thiamicetetod besu tanddoefd.isil tfohre jfureriyofiot,untidle forva tnlere
fplaintiff,pt.l,deo2
tteatineerilainntdiffthweasatennottiltnitedoftothreecaocvcorru.ing freight, being

The jury found ter the ph:haler 1 clamegoe 400 lON,
ThEOPA2B.--OUITOHLEY 1(011E 10.1 D OTHURS.
Peter Critehley, of Go!borne, in this county, was the plain-
tiff; the defendants were Mr. Wm, Hope, sheriffs officer,
and two of his followers, Martin and Richardson ; and the
action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the value (about
£8) of certain articles of household furniture, alleged to be
his property, seized by the defendants under a distress wdr-
rant, directed against Thomas Critchley, the father of the
Plaintiff, for a debt due by him to one Mr. Rigby. Thomas
Critchley resided in a cottage, together with his wife, a daugh-
ter, and two sons, one of whom was the plaintiff. Evidence
was called to show that, at the time of a prior distraint for
rent on the goods of the father, Peter Critchley, the son,
Came forward, and was permitted to buy them up at a valua-
tion of £5, and that, in addition to those articles, there had
been seized by the defendants several others. It was also
stated in evidence that the son was in very good employment
in a factory, and that out of his earnings he assisted in sup-
Porting his father and other members of the family. The
father, it was said, had been out of employment for nearly
two years.
Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defence, contended that the
transference (attempted to be proved by members of the fa-
mily) was nothing but a juggle, got up to cheat Mr. Rigby
out of his claim, as. it was anticipated that an execution would
be brought against the father by him.
The jury found for the plaintiff; damages £5 4s.

CROWN CO URT. u - -7EDNESD AY.
(Before Mr. Justice CoLgnIDGE.)
His Lordship took his scat at nine o'clock.

QUEEN V. SCTT.
Samuel Scott was indicted for a seditious conspiracy, un-
lawful assemblage, seditious speeches, and unlawful posses-
sion of arms, at Manchester.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY (the attorney-general for the
county) Mr. KNOWLES, and Mr. WILSON. for the prosecu-
tion; Mr. MURPHY for the defence.
Boothby, an inspector of the Manchester police, stated
that on the 23rd July last, he attended an open air meeting
at Hulme. Saw Samuel Scott there. Attended another
meeting on the 25th, at which also was Samuel Scott. On
the 26th, attended a meeting of a similar character, at which,
also Scott, was present. Much inflammatory language was
used at both meetings.
William Robinson, a clerk in the police office, stated that
he attended the meeting on the 23rd July, and made notes
of some of the sayings cf the speakers. A delegate from
London said the Woburn family were the worst enemies of
the people ; one half of their property belonged to the poor,
and they must have it back again. One of the speakers ad-
vised the multitude to arm themselves. Two or three shots
were fired on the outskirts of the crowd. Notice was given
of two or three other meetings.
Thomas Pickering a police-officer of Manchester, had
been called at the commencement of the trial, but did not
answer. He caused some delay. On his arrival the Judge
asked him why he had not answered at first. He said, he
lodged with his brother at Edge-hill, and did not know it
was so late. His Lordship fined him forty shillings. This
had the effect of making the poor fellow very melancholy,
and it was not without difficulty he could be made to speak
loud enough to be heard: He deposed that he Saw Scott at
the two meetings above alluded to, and he carried a flag on
which were some letters. He knew Scott, and overheard
hire say to a person who stood near him, that he would blow
the police to the devil.
James M`Donnell deposed to having been present at the
Meeting of the 25th, at which Scott was. Persons named
Smith and Doule addressed the meeting. They used much
violent language in speaking of the national debt, and of the
enormous expense of kings and queens. They said all who
were in favour of the charter should be armed against the
12
12th of August. He said physical force was the only mode
getting rid of such abuses.
Other witnesses gave testimony generally to the violent
;tint inflammatory language used at the meetings at which the
defendant was present.
4th rehibald M'Mullen went to the prisoner's house on the
August, between five and six o'clock in the evening.
,eott descended the stairs without his coat. Witness asked
VII if a man had not lodged there, and left something behind
Zu. This witness said to him being
aspanxiou to get up stairs.
,i!l'tber officer said, " Yes, he has left air of pistols."
he Prisoner said, " I'll be damned if any one shall go up
"I:lestairs without a search warrant." He was seized upon,
n he struggled fiercely to get free, and called to the peo-
f,,ei outside to break the door open and come—now was the
.11,:!e or never. An officer named Wovenden went up stairs.
tree leaden bullets
.and some percussion caps were found in
twendefendant's pocket. On the floor up stairs were found
ern ball cartridges, and some tins for, melting lead. The
ba"Zu was so great outside, that they took him out at the
door,' through another house. He still called to the
;nob,
Btea and resisted to the utmost. The mob pelted them with
1,0%,e5, and they were compelled at last to take refuge in the
Wovenden, who went up stairs.in the prisoner's
tri2 stated that he found about seventy or eighty ball car-
etit "s, quantity of powder and bullets, a quantity of paper,
on P for making cartridges, and a card with a memorandum
he 71. Boothby found a gun in the
.clock.case. Scott said
Iveread, Purchased it on the preceding Friday. His hands
re stained with powder. Mr. Beswick proved that he had
heciff.ived
68 ball-cartridges (produced), 168 leaden bullets,
per...a Pound of gunpowder, and a fowling-piece, also some
'4BlOO caps, and tins in which lead had been melted.
Vine. card produced was a ticket of the Manchester. Political
roue fon, and a list of what was termed " The. visiting bad
41.bera committee."
evict's LORDSHIP, in putting the case to nth jury, said the
the enee of conspiracy was very slight, as ough he was at
spe ,_neetings, it did not appear that he was a leader or a
illidas,er, and there was a great difference between. the leaders
1-ine led, and between the misleaders arid the misled.
ing:te jury found theprisoner guilty of attending illegal meet-
ted Land.of having unlawful possession of arms, but acquit-
-7,'.1r0 of conspiracy.
and Llie ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that he be committed,
" lie was taken into custody.
OF CHARTISTS UNDER RECOGNIZANCES.
4114ne ATTORNEY-GENERAL ordered the following defen-
-11 ts and 'prisoners ta be called and placed at the bar :-
14 ornas Hart William Tillman, William Simpson, James
Thenller, Benjamin Fitton, Joseph Stowell, John Durham,
13„",42,As Bird, Richard Walker,. Thomas Swires, William
"'nebi, Ed% d Coar, Richard Rankin, Thomas Rawson,
and John _ u var
Q
ljue ATTORN EY-GENERA L hoped his lordship and the pub-
e'es- would not think he was abandoning his duty in taking the
Phecialready taken place, he hoped, would be sufficient exam-
ror the future preservation of the public peace. The lead-
-1,-,4 of the multitude had already been there convicted, and it
Ivabs not the wish of her Majesty's government that those
His had been guided by them should be hardly dealt with.
learned friends who defended the prisoners had intimated
trOul that the prisoners had expressed such a degree of con-
eon for their offences as would warrant him in treating
:la with leniency, in the hope that they would not offend
taeln• Therefore, if they pleaded, guilty, be would suffer
-41 to go at large on their own recognizances, that they
s'yti°4l.l appear and receive judgment if called upon, and two
I,leties that they should keep the peace for two years.
r he prisoners all leaded truilty though some of them did
tslo with aPparen't relupctance, 'and w'ith the qualification that
leY did not admit that they had behaved as alleged in the
eprcl against them. However, they acceded, under the ad-
It of counsel.
"is LORDSHIP said it was his opinion that the Attorney-
theneral had acted very properly and with great leniency. He
i"ciuglit that by some of the prisoners it had been received
a
b proper spirit. These prosecutions had been instituted
Jervernment—not because the government was wounded-
-t because these persons had opposed them—hut because
11,,,,ras their duty to protect the sacred rights of property and
p-rs"al security. They had a sacred duty to perform in
tiri:teeting the rights of property and the personal security of
Peaceably disposed of the realm. The Attorney-
fatlike,ral had but one object, that of selecting the leaders, and
efr nig such an example of them as would have a wholesome
ect in future. They were to understand that the Attorney-
se,.ll,eral prayed him now to abstain from judgment so long
44-",ey behaved well. They would be allowed to go at large
Pen their own recognizances of £lOO each and would be re-
iclaired to give two securities of £25 each that they would
tI7P the peace for two years. If they behaved improperly in
vo's Manner in future, it they broke their recognizances, they
fed be brought up again to receive judgment.
e everal of the prisoners immediately gave bail, and were
`sulissed.
"8 Stowell, who could not give bail at the last
,‘, sizes, and has been in prison seven months, in want of bail,
43 allowed by the `e Attorney- to go free on his own
, 'ceognizances.
QUEEN V. WARDEN AND LLOYD.
tic,°l4 Warden and George Lloyd were charged with sedi.
444 conspiracy and riot at Great Bolton, on the 12th August
t.
o,,cuunsel for the prosecution as before. The defendants,
of whom (Warden) was a member of the Convention,
10-, fended themselves. Warden is a rather tall and common-
d;;;_uig man, tolerably well dressed ; Lloyd made a great
gh-11.4Y as he stood up taking notes. He had on anew white
hill, with the collar open a-la-Byron, and a blue coat with
irght brass buttons, thrown far open at the breast, so as to
NYi5,.11,,.1:Y his chest and shirt bosom. Warden desired that the
bses should go out of court.
rederiek Baker stated, that in August last be was a po-
k.ce-officer at Bolton. A placard was posted up by the
Ogistrates, warning the people against any assemblage on
inconsiderable
12th of August last. On that day the people assembled
The
numbers, and business. was entirely stopped.
th": constables assembled to be in readiness to disperse
were
,People, who in the evening paraded through the streets
,111 hands of music. On sawmg of the 12th August,
Witness
six o'clock, witness Lloyd addressing the mob.
the read some notes of inflammatory language used by
~!me defendant Lloyd, which notes he had made soon after the
tot, for the purpose of impressing the sayings on his memory.
Pe here said, in reply to a question from counsel, that he
..'44,1 been for a considerable time accustomed to report for
newspapers. He detailed some sayings of a seditious ten-
galley uttered by Warden. Several of the parties who
walked in the procession had bludgeons. Great terror was
created, and the police were hooted. Warden and Lloyd
Were both taken into custody, but 'Warden was rescued by
the crowd and recaptured. The mob were very violent.
Warden, in cross-examining Baker, asked him if lie were
'ware that the language he had just read, as uttered by him
(2/1 the 12th of August, was a literal transcript of language at-
tributed to him by the Bolton Chronicle.
The witness replied that he was not aware of that.
On cross-examination by Lloyd, Mr. Baker was asked to
raention some of the newspapers for which he had been a re-
!torter. He replied, for the Morning Herald. 'When asked
'bat were the nature of the subjects which he reported, he
i.44id, general intelligence. He was regularly employed as a
lepurter upon the Morning Herald, though an agent. The
"efendant put his questions very loudly and pompously. He
'4'B8-examined at tedious length, and to but little purpose.
5...
„ Baker, on re-examination, said, after the prisoners
were under arrest, some in the crowd called out—" Now
a ,
us, to our pikes."
fed eter Staton, reporter to the Bolton Chronicle, corrobo-
ern,tbe testimony of the last witness. He said he saw the
heard
in the Market-place on the 12th of August, and he
for
the defendant Warden tell them to fall in, and " march
°l' the second grand moral demonstration."
Pr• Saddler, of the Stockport police, proved that he found
-ter in the hand-writing of Lloyd in the house of Thomp-
%lllll, a gunmaker, of Birmingham. This letter, which was
oared by Lloyd, and contained his addreskin full, was an
Ther for goods of Thompson's manufacture.
"He informed.
them np,son that he could, in a few hours, sell hundreds of
, if he had them.
wirne of the questions put by Lloyd in cross-exnfining a
eialleBs was as follows—" Did you observe anystriking defi-
of l'eY in the smattering of females perceptible in the streets
holton on that occasion ?"
Warden held in his hand a written copy of his speech. Oc-
t:1%4)11411Y, when at a loss referrin.. to and reading from this,
4 e.,ddressed the jury at great len.th The greqter portion
•
eh, "le defendant's speech was an essay on the principles of
$414(.11641. lie quoted Shakespeare frequently, and Cowper
in the course of bis address.
bench
Loansrrig referred to some portions of the evidence
th,len, came out on cross-examination, which showed that
the defendants had endeavoured to appease the mob when
tea.?. showed a disposition to violence. He put it to the
made sergeant whether some arrangement could not be
t'izaawes
so as to set the prisoners at liberty under recog-
ATTORNEY-GENERAL after a brief conversation ac-
iat,a`u, but the prisoners refused to
,plead guilty or to enter
ureeognizances for their future good behaviour.
tlie addressed the jury. He told a very moving; tale of
tar 'istresses whiCh he had suffered subsequently to his cap-
pr e during the alleged riot. He said his wife had had a
haevlature accouchment from the fright occasioned by his
rat Iwg been apprehended. One of his children, when he
tared, he said he had found had gone mad, and it died in

his arms. Hs had to beg from his neighbours for money to
puruhaspF coffin.

The defendants called a witness to prove that on the day
when they were concerned in the movements of the people
there was no rioting, and but little difference in the appear-
ance and business of the town. They observed that they
had witnesses to character. His lordship told the defend-
ants that there was no impeachment of their characters.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY addressed the jury in reply,
commenting briefly upon the strong language used by the
defendants on the 12th of August, and exhorting the jury to
consider the objects of the defendants in being out on that
day, and using such language. He remarked upon the cir-
cumstance of a placard having been issued by the authorities
of Bolton, directing peace and good order to be kept on the
12th August, and also on the letter found in the possession
of the gun-maker.
The JUDGE summed up the evidence very minutely, and
The JURY, after a short consultation in the box, acquitted
the defendants.
His LORDSHIP addressed the defendants, and said that
what had passed to-day in the court would, at all events,
convince them that in a court of law they were dealt with
fairly; and without reference to party politics.
James Wheeler was called up. He pleaded guilty to a se-
ditious conspiracy, &c., at Manchester, and was enlarged on
entering into recognizances as the others had done.
The Court adjourned at seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.
MORRIS V. PERRY.

This was an action to recover the value of a bill of ex-
change for £69, alleged to have been drawn by Messrs. Wil-
hams and Thomas, on Mr. Thomas Perry, the defendant, in
favour of the plaintiff, Mr. James Morris. The plaintiff, it
appeared, is the owner of a colliery at Upholland, having in
Liverpool, an agent named Mr. George Fowler, and tne de-
fendant is a bricklayer in this town, having, it is said, some
connection with Messrs. Williams and Thomas, who are in
the coal trade.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the plaintiff and Mr.
Cresswell and Mr. Watson for the defendant.

Mr. ALEXANDER having stated the case, called
Mr. G. Fowler, who was examined by Mr. Cowling. He
said—l manage Mr. Morris's coal yard in Liverpool. 1 know
the firm of Williams, Thomas, and Co. I have supplied them
with coal and slack. About October last they owed Mr.
Morris upwards of £l7O. I saw one of the partners about
the debt, but could not get the money. , About the 20th of
October, 1 saw Mr. Williams and Thomas. Au arrangement
was made that they should give me their bill on Mr. Perry,
for £6O. On the 23d I saw Mr. Thomas at our office. He
brought a blank bill stamp, filled it up and gave it to me. I
copied it into my book, and desired him to call on Perry, the
acceptor. I afterwards went to Mr. Williams, and asked for the
bill ; he said that he had sent it to Mr. Perry, who had not
returned it.. I called upon Mr. Perry, and he said that he
had returned the bill. On going again to Mr. Williams, he
again said that Mr. Perry had not returned it." [The wit-
ness testified to some ineffectual endeavours on his part to
obtain possession, of the bill.] I afterwards called upon Mr.
Perry, who said that he himself would pay the bill to Mr.
Morris. He fixed the 7th of January for payment. I called
on the 7th of January ; but he said he had been disappointed
of some money, and that he would pay the bill on the 14th.
On the 14th he said that he had been disappointed again, and
fixed the 21st for payment. On the 21st he said that Wil-
liams and Thomas had been to say that he was not to pay
me. It was then appointed that I should meet them the
day afterwards, and I met them accordingly at Mr. Perry's
office. Neither of them attended. Two or three other times
were fixed for meeting. We met on the 28th. Mr. Perry,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Perry's clerk were
there. Mr. Perry said to Williams and Thomas, "As to the
bill, that is out of the question ; you know I tore itup before
your face," (meaning Williams and Thomas.) He said to
them again, " What objection had you that I must not pay
the bill? Did you not owe the money ?" " Yes, and more,"
they said, or a great deal more," Williams said that his ob-
jection was that they owed other people money. Mr. Perry
said that he would consult his attorneys, Messrs. Leigh and
Sanders. I said I was glad that he had such respectable at-
torneys, and that I should be glad to leave it to them,,and to
Mr. Leigh, the attorney for Mr. Morris. The witness pro-
duced his bill-book, in which was the entry of the bill he
deposed to having received from Mr. Thomas to copy. The
entry showed that the bill had been drawn on the 23d of
October, by Messrs. Williams and Thomas, that the acceptor
as Mr. Perry, that the amount was £6O. payable at three
mouths, to the plaintiff or his order.
Cross-examined by.,Mr. CRESSWELL.—Mr. Perry had
told me before that he had refused to receipt the bill, because
the debt due by him to Williams and Thomas would not be,
by the custom of the trade, payable before the bill became
due. He said that it was 0f..n0 consequence to him to whom
he paid the money, provided Williams and Thomas gave him
leave. He also said that if they would consent, he would
pay the bill to me. I will not swear that he did not say,
moreover, that he. would not pay Williams and Thomas, in
order that we might have every satisfaction if there had been
any fraud on us. He said something to that effect. He said
he saw plainly how
.it was, and that he would not pay any
one but us. He said that several times. Ido not know
how long it is since I swore that he said that he would pay
us, if Williams and Thomas would consent. He said that if
we would settle among ourselves, he would then pay the
money. Williams,lmPliloMas brought an action against
Mr. Perry for it. WilirAns and Thomas owe altogether to
the plaintiff £l7O. They have owed that since October. I
have brought no action to ,recover the debt. I would nut
bring an action ,because.they-have given up their establish-
ments and gone into listlgings. I think they could pay if
they would. lam afraid, however, that I should lose my
money if I brought an action. They might go to gaol per-
haps. I would not draw a bill upon them, because I would
not have been satisfied with their acceptance. I would ra-
ther have better security. I should not like to have their
draft unaccepted. I did not refuse to take the bill without
an acceptance. I told them it would negotiate much better
If it were accepted.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—That is my case.
Mr. CuEsswELL.,—What is the case?. _

The JUDGE.—The case for the bill on the record.
Mr. CRESSWELL:—But fbr what value ? They did not
even pay for thh'stairip, and was never accepted by Perry.
The JUDGE.—T%at is for die jury to say, on the evidence.
Mr. CRES§NELL, for the defence, then addressed the
jury, and, after designating the action as a most absurd one,
stated that the bill had never been accepted, and, as the
plaintiff had never paid for the stamp, the bill was only worth
the paper on which it was written. The value could scarcely
amouut to a farthing ; but, lest the jury should give that far-
thing, and throw the costs .of the case on the defendant,
which were very. heavy, he should call Mr. Thomas, who
would prove that he'himself had drawn the bill, and that Mr.
Perry had always refused to accept it. The plaintiff, there-
fore, tho' he had his right of action against Williams and
Thomas, had none against ..the present defendant. He,
however, had been sued because the plaintiff.knew that Wil-
liams and Thomas were not solvent, and they wished to ex-
tract this sum from Mr. Perry.
John Thomas was then called. ' He stated that he drew
the bill, and purchased and paid for the bill stamp. The bill
never went out of his hand till he deliveredit to Perry. He
never offered it to Fowler. He told Fowler that if Perry
would accept it he might:have it. Mr. Perry said, on being
applied to, that he would not ,aocept a bill for his father.
He did not accept it. He (withess) would take upon himself
to swear that Fowler did not copy fhebill into his bill-book,
in his (witness's) presence. He had not brought an action
against Mr. Perry. Mr. Williams had done so. They
(Williams and Thomas) had never been in partnership to-
gether, except in regard to a small coal-yard in Grafton-
street, and that had been given up. lit 'was not in partner-
ship with Mr.' Williams in October. According to the best
of his recollection, the bill was made payable to himself, and
it was not endorsed.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in reply, said that he had heard nothing
to convince him that there was not a proper claim on the de-
fendant, unless, indeed, the witness Fowler was to be con-
victed of perjury, and Thomas to be believed. He submit-
ted that in deciding.between the two, the preference should
be given to Fowler, inasmuch as his story was the more pro-
bable one, and was supported by the production of a written
book.

The Jury retired to consider their verdict at ten minutes
past three, and returned into court at ten minutes to five,
when they gave in a verdict for the defendant.

Two or three other cases were disposed of, but they were
of no general interest.

CROWN
COURT-YESTERDAY.
THE MURDER.CASE.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE took his seat on the bench at nine
o'clock, and the two unfortunate men, who had last week
been condemned to suffer the last penalty of the law, were
placed at the bar. They both appeared to be much agitated
and distressed in mind. His LORDSHIP addressing the
prisoners by name said—You are brought up here again after
the awful sentence which has been passed upon you in con-
sequence of an omission of mine when I was passing that sen-
tence ; and I have now to state in addition that, after death,
your bodies are to be buried within the precincts of the gaol
in which you will be confined. Costello, since you were last
before me I have had occasion to consider your case, and
there are circumstances connected with it which give me
great hopes that mercy may be extended towards you, and
that your life may be spared; but you must prepare
yourself for the next severest punishment of the law ; and I
sincerely hope that you will be grateful for this extension of
mercy—not to me, but to the law which is considerate of all
cases in which its rigours can be relaxed. If I were sure that
you have occupied yourself since the awful time when you
were warned to prepare for dissolution, I should feel the
greater hope that you will never forget the awful situation in
which you have been placed. Towards the close of this ad-
dress Costello appeared to rally a little from the agony of
mind by which he was overcome even to tears, and at its
close retired from the bar. The other, and more unfortunate
prisoner, a large stout man, stood as if stupified, or in ex-
pectation of some ray of mercy in his own behalf; but his
Lordship ceased to speak, and the prisoner, warned and
partly assisted by the officers, walked slowly and falteringly
from the bar, apparently in such a state of mind that pre-
cluded a perfect conception of the awful fate that awaited him.

CHARTIST RIOTS ("continued).
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY, addressing his Lordship, said
that he had, since he left the court on the previous day, been
endeavouring, so far as was consistent with public justice,
to abbreviate the remaining trials in which he was engaged as
prosecutor, and he had hopes of attaining his object by his
lenity to the greater portion of the prisoners yet in custody,
on condition of their acknowledging their offences.
Henry Green, Thomas Brown, Thomas Morris, James
Doodson, and William Bullow, were then placed at the bar,
and on being arraigned respectively pleaded guilty to a
charge of riot at Bolton, and, after an impressive address,
were discharged on their own recognizances.
Joseph Galley, and Jeremiah Doodson, were indicted for
a seditious conspiracy and riot at Hindley, and both pleaded
guilty.
Mr. lATILKINs stated in behalf of Doodson, that he had
already suffered six months' imprisonment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he should, on that
account be contented that he should be discharged on
his own recognizances. The other prisoner was required to
find two sureties in £2O each, before he was discharged.
The JUDGE said that the defendants ought to feel grateful
for the lenity shown to them. These prosecutions were not
instituted by private individuals, otherwise in all probability
no such chance would have been theirs. The government
prosecuted, and the government was not vindictive, though
it was obliged to secure the properties and the lives of
peaceable subjects. He hoped they would go home with a
proper sense of their offence, and not again be guilty of
breaches of the peace. He hoped, above all things that they
would no longer entertain the foolish notion that uneducated
persons such as they were, alter the laws and government of
the country. Such objects were beyond their reach, and the
attempt would only end in their own discomfiture and punish-
ment. The prisoners were discharged ott their own re-
cognizances. His Lordship addressed the other prisoners
before named in a similar manner.
John Deigan, for an unlawful assembly, and seditious
speeches, at Castletown, then pleaded guilty, and was bound
over in his own recognizances in the sum of £lOO. He stated,
in reply to his lordship, that he was a bookseller. He was
impressively admonished by his lordship.
Nathaniel Green was required, in addition to his own re-
cognizances, to find two sureties in £25 each.
A young man, named Walter Scott, was then brought for-
ward, and created some risibility in the court from his name
and blunt appearance. Walter, however, showed himself to
be no " magician." He scarcely appeared to be sensible of
the limits held out to him, and reluctantly promised, after
declaring himself to be a " chartist," to conduct himself bet-
terin future. He had been found in a riotous assembly with
stones in his pocket. His lordship strongly cautioned the
prisoner, and he was required to find two sureties- in £25
each, before being discharged.
Charles Morris stood indicted for a riot at Little Bolton.

Sergeant ATCRVtLEY said that there was a great riot in
August ; stones were thrown, damage was done to the Town-
hall, and the prisoner was active, and was seen destroying
part of the furniture in the Town hall.
This trial was of a nature similar to that which preceded
it, but of minor interest. After the examination of a few
witnesses, the prisoner was found guilty.
Daniel Ball was indicted for riot at the same place, and
attacking a person named Henderson, on the same day. The
case was proved, and the prisoner, who had been out on bail,
was placeti in custody.
Robert Ball, brother of the last prisoner, was then brought
forward, arms having been found in his house. lie expressed
his gratitude to the Attorney-General for his lenity in offering
to liberate him on finding sureties. His lordship addressed
the prisoner in a very impressive manner on discharging
him.

Peter Mundy was indicted for a riot and attack upon
Henderson, a constable, of Bolton. The Attorney-General
pressed for punishment in this case, the prisoner having been
one of the ringleaders. The prisoner showed great contrition,
and prayed to be liberated, as he had an old father to main-
tain. His master, a master-tailor, gave him a good character.
William Willoughby next appeared, Mr. Wilkins pleaded
guilty.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that pistols, powder, and
balls were found upon him ; but he had no proof that he had
previously been a chartist ; and was willing to believe that he
might have been led away.
John Wild, George Johnson, and William Alain then
appeared to a charge of conspiracy and tumultuous assem-
bling, and endeavouring to excite the people to arise against
the government, &c., at Ashton-under-Lyne.
. .

. • •
Altkin sharply cross-questioned the p'rincipal witnesses.
Wilde and Johnson also cross-questioned. It did not appear
from the evidence that there had been any serious disturbance
at all, connected with politics, in the place. The Attorney-
General for the county, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Brandt
were for the prosecution. The case occupied a considerable
time, but was not of peculiar interest Mr. Philips, a re-
porter, said he was present at the meeting at Ashton, and
saw a cap of liberty, a band of music, and a carriage. He
read a report of a large portion of the speeches delivered on
the occasion. It appeared by this that Wilde had called the
ministry a set of cowardly fellows, and called upon them to
act as well as speak. Johnson also spoke strongly against
the government, and moved a vote of confidence in the con-
vention. It appeared that there were cheers and firing of
pistols at the stronger sentences of the speakers, and at the
close of their respective speeches. One of the speakers called
upon the people to arm, and some more pistols being fired,
lie added, that they hoped the day would soon come when
these weapons would be directed to the proper quarter. The
same speaker made a ludicrous allusion to the fate of peti-
tions from the people presented to•the House of Commons.
The members presenting them were not allowed to say any-
thing, and they (the petitions) were received with yawning,
coughing, and other discordant sounds, including the crowing
of a cock! The petitions were, as the phrase went literally,
" bagged." A member recently asked the speaker, " Pray,
Sir, how many petitions have you bagged to-night ?" and the
reply was, " I have bagged 20 brace." (Laughter in the
court.) The witness was cross-questioned by the defendants
at some length, but nothing material was elicited.
This closed the case for the prosecution, and it being past
one o'clock, the jury were permitted to retire for a short
time.

Several placards were then read by the clerk of the crown.
One of these was a notice from the magistrates to the effect
that illegal asemblies had been held in the night, and warning
all persons to abstain from attending such meetings on pain
of being proceeded against by law. Several proclamations
from the government of a similar tenor were also read.
Mr. Aitken addressed the jury in his own behalf. He felt
the difficulty of his position in defending himself against the
combined efforts of the Attorney-General and the learned
gentlemen who were with him ; particularly as all the educa-
tion he had received, was gained by himself after hard work
in a cotton-mill. He went on to say that, so far from desir-
ing to destroy property or injure any of his fellow-beings,
he had saved the life of a policeman, amd had to the utmost
of his means assisted the poor people in distress in his local-
ity. He enquired why he was selected as a victim for prose-
cution when greater delinquents than he had been allowed to
escape ? It was well known that an individual high in the
confidence of the present government had uttered language
far more violent than he, and why did the government des-
cend from an olympus to a mole-hill. He could answer the
question. It was because they could not, by any means de-
spoil him of the twenty-six joints to his tail. He then went
on, in a bold and rather eloquent strain to contend for the
liberty of the subject, both in thought and in speech. Lord
John Russell himself, when he lately visited this town had
said, that the people had a right to meet land discuss their
grievances. But when they did meet to discuss them,
they were guilty of riot, and disturbance ; if they
spoke at such meetings, they were seditious ; and if they
carried arms for their protection, they were guilty of con-
spiracy forsooth. True, indiscreet speeches might be made,
and in these he might have taken part in the heat of discus-
sion ; but his language was not more violent, or less consti-
tutional, than persons of a higher class. He drew a strong
picture of the distresses of the people, particularly in the
manufacturing disticts. These were the consequences of
misgovernment, and the persecution of himself and others for
endeavouring to bring about such changes as would remove
these disgraceful and growing evils. The rights he espoused
were the inalienable rights of 'every British subject. The
pistols were fired, indiscreetly by boys, and disapproved of
by him. His sole intention was to ameliorate the condition
of his fellow-beings in his own neighbourhood, and, in con-
clusion, he trusted the jury would consider his motives, and
be guided thereby in deciding upon the case before them.
Wilde, also an energetic speaker, then spoke at considera-
ble length. He complained that they had not a fair trial, the
depositions not having been given them, so as to enable them
to prepare their defence. Mention had been made of moon-
light meetings ; but it was omitted to be stated no such
meetings ever were held within the parish of Ashton, and it
was not even stated that any of the defendants were present
at the places where they occurred. Even magistrates were
present at the meeting. And did they say that the meeting
was illegal and the law violated? No such thing. Had they
said so there would not have been a soul in the market-
place in ten minutes. On the contrary, they remained part
and parcel of that meeting until it broke up. Not even the
constable had given them the slightest intimation that there
was any illegality in the meeting, and he was therefore as
guilty as they. He might add that he did not believe that
they were prosecuted at the instance of the magistrates. The
main question was—was the meeting legal. He contended
that it was. The object was to obtain universal suffrage—a
national right which every man ought to enjoy. The defend-
ant here read a number of extracts from several celebrated
ancient authors, in support of his position. He denied that
he or those with them sought such rights by physical force.
He was charged with endeavouring to excite the people to
violence. This he denied. Indeed, he believed that those
who resorted to violence were themselves. It was not his
speeches that had excited the people. It was to be traced to
other causes. It was but recently that a poor-law commis-
sioner said in the House of Commons, that the working-men
had Gs. a week, and that that was quite sufficient for such
people, though he admitted that he himself, independent of
his salary, had 20s. a day for his travelling expenses. Such
expressions mind such things as these were the real causes of
the popular discontent. He had, moreover, ever considered
that the law should he equally administered ; and if it were
so, Daniel O'Connell would himself be before the court as a
defendant.

Jackson, a local preacher, then spoke. He said that he
knew they were not prosecuted for their attendance at the
meeting, but because their names afterwards appeared to a
report of that meeting. He contended that the meeting was
legal ; but if it were otherwise, they were not so well ac-
quainted with the law as those before them ; and if they
differed in many points of law, surely great allowances
ought to be made for them if they made a mistake. He
went on to avow his radical principles, and contended that
no charge of conspiracy could be made out against them
from the evidence. There had been no riot in Ashton since
the movement began. He complained of the case being
brought forward twelve months after the meeting took place.
The evidence did not show that business was interrupted on
that occasion, or any one was in the slightest degree hurt,
nor did the magistrates counsel them on the illegality of their
conduct. He trusted, that as they were pure and innocent,
so far as motives went; and pure, so far as action went on
that occasion, the jury wOuld return a verdict in their behalf.
His LORDSHIP, previous to summing up, congratulated
the jury that this was the last of these cases of riotous assem-
bly, the consideration of which had occupied their attention
so long and so painfully. Such of them as had been released
would, he trust, not be again found contravening the law ;
but he feared that, in others, in which it would be necessary
to inflict punishment, the parties were too firmly attached
to peculiar opinions, to have much hope that a change would
thereby be wrought in their minds. His lordship then
summed up the evidence. The motives of the defendants
might have been good, and the question was, was the meet-
ing a legal one ; and he did think, looking to the language of
111`Dowell, counselling force to effect a change in the consti-
tution of the country, that the .ineeting was not legal. His
lordship then urged upon them all the points that might pos-
sibly advantage the defendants. He reminded them that the
constable had stated, in cross-examination, that there were
present several master cotton-spinners. It had also been
said that magistrates were present, but if so, their conduct
should not be taken into their consideration, as their abstain-
ing to act might have been from apprehension of the greatness
of the meeting. The defendants however, might have thought
their legal•attendance stamped the meeting with a degree of
legality.
The jury then retired.
The convicted chartists were then brought up to receive
sentence. The whole were placed in the dock together, but,
as their offences were of various grades, they were, with few
exceptions separately addressed.
His LORDSHIP first addressed the four parties who were
tried on Monday last, natnelyL W. Butterworth, W. Vickers
Jackson, William Richardson, and James Bronterre O'Brien.
lie spoke nearly as follows :—You are now to receive the sen-
tence of the law, having been convicted of a seditious con-
spiracy, and unlawfully assembling, and of having, by sediti-
ous speeches exciting the people to provide themselves
with arms, and to use such arms so as to effect a
change in the government and institutions of this country.
Although you stand the first amongst a great many who have
been convicted of or have pleaded guilty to similar offences,
and some of the others were of a most serious character, the
case with reference to two of you in particular, is one which
derives considerable aggravation, for, being leaders of no in-
considerable influence, a great deal of the misery and suffer-
ing of parties and their families, which had been the result of
chartist agitation, had its origin, and may be justly attributed
to the course those of you to whom I allude, have so long
pursued. In considering the respective cases before me, I
find different degrees of responsibility, and though where
parties are implicated in illegal assemblies, all are equally
guilty in law, I shall apportion different degrees of punish-
ment. Many, so far as the hand goes, were greater actual
aggressors than you, but they are less responsible, inasmuch as
they instigated by those who guided that hand ,and whose moral
guilt was therefore greater. I do not intend to reason with you
as to the opinions you have embraced in politics. That is beyond
my province, even were it possible, was desirable to effect a
change in your mind. These opinions may be theoretically
right, or they may be wrong. That evils do exist, and it
may be great evils, and great distress amongst portions of the
community, is no doubt true, and deeply to be regretted ;
and it is the duty of every man 'to lend his abilities and his
means to redress and alleviate them ; but these endeavours
must be kept within the limits of the law. All I have to
look to is the breach of the law, and to consider what should
be the punishment which would be adequate to vindicate the
law. At the first meeting on the 23d of April all of you (named)
were present, and used violent and inflammatory language.
But on minutely examining the evidence, I found a consider-
able difference in the delinquency of the respective parties,
and though the law considered all equally amenable, I have
meted out the punishment of each with a regard to their re-
spective conduct. The case of you, Richardson, stands in
the most favourable position. I cannot, however, but ex-
press may regret that a person of such standing and respecta-
bility in life should have been led to say, that the savings'
banks were instituted only for the purpose of enabling the
government to exercise its tyranny over the people. No-
thing could be more preposterous. If he (Richardson)
believes this to be true, he was indeed deluded; and if
he knew it not to be true, he is assuredly very guilty.
You also used an expression with regard to the police which
was altogether unjustifiable. Is it, I would ask, right or
proper to excite popular odium against a body of men,
honestly, and usefully, though perhaps in some few instances
over-zealously, preserving the peace and the property of the
community, and that too, not on their own responsibility,
but under the direction and control of others ? is it right, I
would ask any man of correct feeling, to rouse large bodies
of the people against such men without the slightest cause,
and to denounce them as a bloody, base, and assassin po-
lice. I have stated, however, that taking all the eircum-

stances into account, your case requires the smallest amount
of ppunishment,
Here Mr. Richardson expressed a wish, before sentence
was pronounced, to hand in some papers, with reference to
a complaint under which he laboured, with a view to some
alteration or alleviation of his sentence. He wished that a
fine should be imposed, so that he might be released.
The Learned JUDGE said, he was aware of the fact alluded
to; that his complaint was one which could, he thought, be
as well dealt with in the gaol to which he could be consigned
as elsewhere ; but that, if it was found not fitting, some al-
teration might be made. He then said :—The sentence of
the court is, that, for the offence you have committed Lyon
be imprisoned in her Majesty's gaol of Lancaster Castle for
the space of nine months, at the expiration of which, he
should become bound, himself in £lOO, and two sureties in
£5O each, to keep the peace for three years ; and be further
.imprisoned until the said sureties shall be found.
William Butterworth was next placed in front. His Lord-
ship, in addressing him, by mistake imputed to him some
language employed by another chartist. The prisoner re-
spectfully disclaimed the imputation ; and his Lordship,
immediately on recurring to his voluminous notes, said to
the prisoner :—You are quite right as to the Scotch being
armed, and ready with their blue bonnets to come over the
border. That was uttered by another party. The language
you used was that the people should arm themselves with
guns, pikes, &c. The sentence of the Court was that he
should be imprisoned for nine months in Lancaster Castle.
Jackson was then brought forward, and the JUDGE said to
him :—You have been found guilty on two charges, and it is
a matter of deep regret that you, a person having a chapel
or meeting-room as a minister of our holy religion,
should have used language more likely to proceed fro,n
a follower of the camp from his infancy, than a mes-
senger of peace. You counselled the people, if a police-
man came, to give him a pike, and that if he asked
for a gun, they should give him the contents. You
also expressed your regret, when the mob tore the palisades
from a church in Birmingham, that they were " dissuaded
from using them against the brutal and bloody policemen of
London." I trust you have in your meeting-room used
language very different from this. The sentence of the
court is, that you be imprisoned 18 months in Lancaster
Castle; that you find three sureties, yourself in £2OO, and
two sureties in £l5O each, to keep the peace for three years ;
and that you be further imprisoned until these securities are
found.

Mr. O'Brien was then called to the front of the bar, and
addressing his Lordship, claiming an arrest of judgment, on
the grifund, it appeared from replies by him to questions of
the Judge, that he had been betrayed by the attorney of the
parties, who was employed for two of the parties tried with
him. Two witnesses whom he expected would have been
called for those parties, were not called, and they could have
disproved the report of the meeting upon which he had been
convicted.

The JUDGE.—I cannot deal with this now. You con-
ducted your own case, and if any witnesses were present to
have availed you, you might have called them. You have
shewn no cause for arrest of judgment. Should anything
transpire shewing that you have been precluded from the
fair means of defending yourself, that may form a ground of
application hereafter in the proper quarter.
Mr. O'Brien said that he cared not for the punishment
that might be inflicted upon him. All that he regarded was
his character; and he wished that his lordship, in place of
consigning him to prison in this country, would grant him
the favour of banishing him for life. He well knew that,
himself being imprisoned, his family would be left destitute
upon the country, as it would be beyond his power to assist
them.

The JUDGE.-Mr. O'Brien, you know very well that I
cannot accede to your request, and that it would be improper
if I could. You have been going round the country exciting
the people to revolt and violence.
Here Mr. O'Brien interrupted the Judge, by saying—that
such meetings he viewed latterly with disgust ; that he had
not attended them from any wish of his own, but in compli-
ance with the earnest entreaties of others. As God was
his judge, he had never advised any body of men to arm
themselves against the law. And he must add that he,
single-handed, had gone up to London to arrest the grand
holyday, which, had it taken place, would, he believed, have
deluged the country with blood, and involved a vast de-
struction of property. He was the only man who could have
averted such a calamity ; for not even the government could.
He considered it therefore atrocious, that, having saved blood-
shed and rapine, he should be brought there, and surreptiti-
ously found guilty of the offence imputed ,o him. In allusion to
the reporter's statement, that he had just come from Chow-
bent, Leigh, &c., and that he had there found all the people
armed—it was as false as hell. He knew not a single indi-
vidual in Chowbent, and but two in the other place.
The JUDGE said that the matter ,uttered was irrelevant.
Mr. O'Brien was a man of great ability and of great ac-
quirements, and it was to be lamented that he had not turned
them to better account. He had himself said, he had within
a short period addressed two millions of persons,and whatever
he had advanced as to the legality of other meetings at which
hehad been present, the particular one for his attendance at
which he was now convicted, was found to be of an illegal
character. his Lordship then recapitulated some of the
violent and exciting language used by the prisoner. He then
sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned in Lancaster Castle
for 18 calendar months ; at the expiration of which to find
sureties, himself in £5OO, and two sureties in £l5O each.
The prisoner requested of his lordship that, if he had the
power, he should banish him for life.

The Learned JUDGE said that he had no power to do so.
The prisoner then hoped that his lordship would order the
indulgence of pen, ink, and paper in the gaol.
His LORDSHIP said that similar applications had before
been made to him, and that his reply now, as then, was, that
he could not interfere with the internal regulations of the
gaols. The subject might, however, be made a matter of
application by prisoner to the Secretary of State.,