The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-22 00:00:00

(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and Mr. Justice ERLE

Sheriff—Sir Thos. George HESKETH, Bart.)

The commission for these assizes was opened on Wed-
nesday evening, by Mr Justice Cresswell. Oh Thursday,
Mr. Justice Cresswell and Mr. Justice Erie proceeded, at
ten o'clock, to St. George's Church, where prayers were
read by the Rev. P. B. Hesketh. Mr. Justice Cresswell
entered the Crown Court at a quarter-past eleven o'clock,
and the following gentlemen were sworn on the

GRAND JURY

James Heywood, Esq., M.P. Weaste House, foreman
Weld Blundell, Esq., Blundell Hall.
Thomas Ridgway Bridson, Esq., Bolton.
Colin Campbell, Esq., Liverpool.
Adam Gladstone, Esq., Liverpool.
Lawrence Heyworth, Esq., Liverpool.
Adam Hodgson, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Berry Horsfall, Esq., Liverpool.
William Ford Hutton, Esq., Hutton-park.
Christopher Morris, Esq., lrrell Mount.
Edmund Molyneux, Esq., Liverpool.
Robert Neilson, Esq., Halewood.
William Nichol, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Shaw, Esq., Liverpool.
Spencer James Steers, Esq., Halewood.
John. Steward, Esq., Liverpool.
William Gerard Walmsley, Esq., Platt Bridge.
John Woodcock, Esq., The Elms.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in addressing the Grand Jury;
directed them as to several cases which would be brought un
der their notice, and concluded with the following remarks or
the present disturbed state of the country. He said :—A riot
in law, was a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three
persons or more assembling together of their own authority
with an intent mutually to assist one another against any one
who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprise of a
private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in
a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people,
whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. If
they should find there was an assemblage of people in military
array, with arms and banners, it could hardly be said that a
meeting of that sort was not calculated to excite terror, and if
they proceeded to ahy act, that made it a riot. It was not ne-
cessary that any personal violence should be inflicted to make
it a riot. Any meeting assembled under such circumstances,
as, acct rding to the opinion of rational and firm men, were
likely to produce danger to the tranquillity and peace of the
neighbourhood, was an unlawful assembly; and, in viewing
this question, the jury should take into consideration the way
in which the meeting was held, the hour at which they met,
and the language used by the persons assembled, and by those
nho addressed them. The difference between a riot and an
.unlawful assembly was this :—lf the parties assembled in a
tumultuous manner, and actually executed their purpose with
violence, that was a riot; but if they merely met for a purpose
which, if executed, would make them rioters, and, having
done nothing, they separated without carrying this purpose
into effect, then it was an unlawful assembly. It was possible
that the Grand Jury migat have charges of drilling brought
before them. By the 6th of Geo. 111., and Ist Geo. IV., all
meetings or assemblages of persons for the purpose of drilling
themselves or for the purpose of
.practising military exercise,
Without lawful authority, were misdemeanours. Besides these
cases they might possibly have some of seditious speeches.
Persons claimed the privilege of discussing grievances and
talking over public proceedings. This they had no doubt a
right to do, but they must do it under certain limitations. If
they found a large assembly of persons brought together, not
for the purpose of discussion, but for the purpose of resistance
to the law, and of exciting dissatisfaction and discontent,
speeches of that sort were seditious, and tended to disturb the
peace of the town. There was one case, not in the calendar, in
which a party was committed for a conspiracy. It was called
a treasonable conspiracy, by which he supposed was meant a
conspiracy for the purpose of inciting others to engage in a
transaction which a short time since would have been called
treason. He directed their attention to a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, in which the law of treason was somewhat modified.
The law now was, " That if any person whatsoever, after the
passing of this act, shall, within the United Kingdom, or with-
out, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or
depose our most gracious Lady the Queen, her heirs or suc-
cessors, from the style, honour, and regal name of the Imperial
Crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's

dominions and countries; or to levy war against her Majesty,
her heirs or successors, within any part of the United Kingdom,
in order, by force or constraint, to compel her or them to
change her or their measures or counsels, or in order to put
any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or over-
awe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or
stir any foreigners or strangers with force to invade the United
Kingdom or any of her Majesty's dominions or countries un-
der the obeisance of her Majesty, her heirs or successors, and
such compassings, imaginations, devices, or inventions, or any
of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any
writing, or by open and advised speaking, or by any overt act
or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and
being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the
Court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or
her natural life, or for any term not less than seven years, or
to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or
without hard labour, as the Court shall direct." If the jury
should find many persons meeting together from time to time,
addressing each other on the subject of arming, and speaking
with praise of the transactions in Ireland, which were notorious
to every one, and urging the people to provide themselves with
arms, and actually providing arms from time to time, there
would be little doubt that such a conspiracy would be for an
illegal purpose, because these arms were to be used in opposi-
tion to the military Lrce of the Queen, and in such a case that
would be felony.

MINT CASES.

Mary Mitchell, 37, was found guilty of uttering a base
shilling at the shop of Mr. Haslam, confectioner, Bolton,
on the 18th March last.—Sentence deferred.
Alice .Rourke was found guilty of having in her pos-
session, at Scholes, a mould, for the purpose of casting
base coin. Sentence deferred.
Charles Boyle, 34. and Patrick M'Mannering, 28, were
tried for having in their possession, at Great Bolton, a
mould, for the purpose of making base shillings. The
evidence was not clear, and the prisoners were acquitted.
John Holden, 47, was found guilty of having in his
possession base coin ; and John Holden, 9, and Jane
Holden, 14, pleaded guilty to passing base coin at Ash-
ton-under-line. Sentence deferred.

Mary Collett, 28, was found guilty of having, at Sal-
ford, on the 7th instant, unlawfully uttered to Ann Wat-
kins, a licensed victualler, in payment for three glasses of
rum, a counterfeit half-crown, knowing the same to be
bad. Sentence deferred.
Joseph Robinson, 46, and Thomas Campbell, 34, were
found guilty of having unlawfully in their possession ten
counterfeit shillings. Sentence deferred.