The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-12-24 00:00:00

.ments

THE BIRKENHEAD RIOT,

Yesterday the prisoners were again brought before the
magistrates at Chester. There were on the bench John
Deane Case, Wm. Hall, J. R. Shaw, J. S. Jackson, and
Wm. Jackson, Esqrs.
Mr. Conway was about calling the first witness, when
Sir George Stephen rose and said before they proceeded
with the examination of the witnesses, he had an applica-
tion to make on the part of the defendants. They ( the
defendants) had met with considerable difficulty in ob-
taining summonses for witnesses on the part of the de-
fence. Mr. Bretherton had been employed the whole of
Saturday in endeavouring to obtain summonses, but was
unsuccessful, and the application he had to make then
was, that summonses might be issued for the attendance of
witnesses on the part of the prisoners the next morning.
Mr. Conway said the magistrates had no power to grant
the application. Previous to the passing of the acts of
Sir John Jervis, the magistrates had no power to grant
summonses to compel witnesses to attend at all, and
those acts limited the power of compelling the attendance
of witnesses to those on behalf of the prosecution.
The clause in Jervis's act was then handed to Sir Geo.
Stephen, and after he had read it, he observed, that they
would have got summonses out of the Crown-office, in
London, but that proceeding would have been attended
with expense and loss of time.
Mr. Case enquired what the witnesses intended to be
summoned were to prove ?
Sir George Stephen said he should have the honour of
stating that when he opened his case on behalf of the pri-
soners; as a general question, he might observe that they
would materially contradict the evidence given on the
part of the prosecution ; and, as regarded the magistrates
themselves, he might as well state boldly, though he had
no intention of giving offence, that the evidence he should
adduce would throw the whole responsibiiity on them-
selves.

Mr. Case said when the case commenced they distinctly
stated that they (the magistrates) sat there in the charac-
ter of a grand jury, to ascertain whether there was suffi-
cient evidence to put the parties on their trial. He (Mr.
Case) had taken very full notes of the evidence as it pro-
ceeded, and lie was prepared to say there was ample evi-
dence to place them upon their trial.
Sir George Stephen said the evidence he had to produce
would go so far as to establish an alibi with respect to two
of the parties charged, that with regard to the third it
would prove that he was a mere passer by at the time and
took no part in the riot ; and, with regard to the other
three, he had evidence to show that it was the conduct of
the police which led to the affray, and that it was impos-
sible, with justice to the defendants, to commit them on
either of the charges preferred against them. He wished
to say nothing offensive to the magistrates, but lie felt
bound to add that the evidence undoubtedly raised the
issue whether they had called a meeting which they had
no right as magistrates to do, whether in calling that
meeting, they had imposed restrictions upon it beyond
their powers, and whether they were not the parties
blamable in not taking the police under their control, or
taking sufficient measures to preserve the peace.
Mr. Case said all that might be matter to be urged in
defence of the prisoners, supposing them to be committed ;
but if he understood the duties of the magistrates right,
they did not sit there to try the prisoners, nor could they
entertain the question of the legality or illegality of the
meeting. It might be either legal or illegal—that was not
the question. He apprehended the only question for the
bench to consider was, whether there was sufficient evi-
dence to put the accused upon their trial. In justification
of this view of the matter he should turn to an authority,
to which he felt assured even Sir George Stephen would
bow—it was that of the present Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas, Sir John Jervis, then her Majesty's Attorney-
General. In one of his late acts he says,—" If, in the
opinion of such justice or justices, such evidence is suffi-
cient to put the accused party upon his trial for an indict-
able offence, or if the evidence given raise a strong or
probable presumption of the guilt of such accused party,
then such justice or justices shall by his or their warrant