The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-09-09 00:00:00

SENTENCES OF THE YORKSHIRE RIOTERS.

On Monday, at York, Lord Denman proceeded io sen-
tence the prisoners, who to the number of 150 were assem-
bled in the two courts. The Lord Chief Justice addressed
himself first to the case of one Mitchell, who had been con-
victed of plundering a soldier, senseless and bleading 'in one
of the affrays between the military and the mob. This man
was sentenced to ten years' transportation. The other pri-
soners were then called upon to say anything the chose,
after which Lord Denman proceeded to address the prisoners
generally, who, he said, had been guilty of violating the
rights of persons and of property most seriously, all of them
having been guilty of rioting, many of them of conspiracy as
well. They had lent themselves meanly and abjectly as the
instruments of men much worse than themselves, who had,
after duping them, left them to bear the brunt of the in-
evitable consequences. If they had felt like Englishmen,
they would have manfully resisted such disgraceful influences,
and refused to become (the tools of base incendiaries. The
law had not yet laid hold of the main movers in these dis-
graceful proceedings; and it seemed that some persons at a
distance even hail power enough to induce many to prefer
sacrificing their resources for (seditious purposes to profit-
ing by a course of steady and honest industry. Examples
must be made of all who in whatever manner set the law at
defiance. Men must he taught that the law was not to be
broken and the peace disturbed with impunity. The least
intelligent must be fully aware that no dependance could be
placed on the forebearance of a mob ; that nobody could fore-
see how long the grossest outrages might be delayed ; and
that it was only the salutary terror of such proceedings as
the present that could restrain the lawlessly disposed. It
was necessary this also should be impressed upon the minds
of the people—that if, in consequence of an unlawful assem-
bly, and the attempt to disperse it on the part of the autho-
rities, any one so engaged were to be killed, the guilt of
murder would be shared by all who ‘vere included in that
assembly. There was not the least doubt that this was the
law of England, and it was well that it should be so, for
otherwise every one would say, what the generality of the
prisoners now present had said, " I had no part in the mat-
ter ; I wielded no weapon ; I gave no blow ; I committed
no violence." It was quite possible that some of those now
' at the bar might not have actually injured any person, but
all those who were all together in an illegal gathering, giving
thereto the sanction and the encouragement of their presence,
were equally involved in the responsibility. Danger and
terror necessarily arose from the congregation of a large and
riotous assembly, and in the guilt all were sharers who com-
bined to form the multitude. Extreme, indeed, would be the
peril if the law followed any other rule. In some cases per-
sons had endeavoured to extort money under the apprehen-
sion of violence. If in any such case money had been paid,
the receiver—it should be well understood—would be ()linty
of no less a crime than highway robbery. The essence of this
offence was the extortion of money through the fear of vio-
lence. What could be a greater source of terror than a vast
and lawless mob ? And the absurdity of the multitude
rendered them not less dangerous or less criminal. In
several of the cases which had been tried on this occasion the
jurors had made recommendations to mercy, which the
judges were disposed very much to extend over the whole
number, for the jurors had evidently entertained the im-
pression that many of the prisoners had been misled by
others, but still, it was to be feared, too much with the con-
sciousness of ill-doing, and too much with the concurrence
of their own will. It was a painful duty to deal in the way
of punishment with numbers of men who had the power
of maintaining themselves in a very respectable sphere of
life, and with every desirable comfort, but who, through
their own folly, had placed themselves in a position in
which they were liable to be imprisoned among felons, in
gaols—the disgrace of which many of them had never be-
fore incurred—there to expiate the criminality they had
become involved in. The judges would, of course, en-
deavour to draw the best distinction they could, though it
was not possible to be thoroughly accurate. Some would
have punishments lighter far perhaps than they merited; others
would be discharged with none at all ; and it was to be hoped
that this lenity would have the effect of teaching them not to
distrust the law, but to feel assured of its considerate protec-
tion, while its authority must be maintained. Let it be borne
in mind, that though character had answered once with many
of them, it could never prevail so again ; and that if any of
them were hereafter caught in such proceedings, their treat-
ment would be, deservedly, far more severe. It was impos-
sible not to remark how ably, and at the same time humanely,
the magistracy had behaved through these transactions, at
the same time their conduct had been such as must have
satisfied the people that magistrates of all politics and all
persuasions were firmly resolved to preserve the authority of
the law. In the prosecutions the greatest forbearance had
been manifested, probably too much so, for the judges ima-
gined they had not heard the worst of these proceedings ;
however, they could only deal, of course, with what they
had before them in evidence; but they felt concerned to
find symptoms of something like intimidation and improper
displayed in the indisposition of some wiinesses to re-
peat at the trials testimony they had decisively given
before the magistrates. (In one or two cases witnesses
pretended not to be able perfectly to identify men to whom
they had previously sworn distinctly.) It would serve such
people right if actions were brought against them by the men
who had been confined so long on their evidence, which after
all it should seem they durst not adhere to. The humanity
of the prosecutors were remarkably examplified in the case of
Wilkinson, who had been convicted of a riot in which it ap-
peared he had stabbed a constable witn his knife •, this was
only laid as misdemeanour, though it might have been put as
a felony. The sentence, however, would be the most severe
that could be inflicted for the offence on which the indictment
had been framed, and that was imprisonment with hard
labour for 18 calendar months. The next case in point of
violence would be 12 months. Armitage (who had been so
respected as to be appointed a Wesleyan Sunday school
leachers,) with some others, 6 months; others (whom the
learned judge named) were sentenced to terms 5,4, 3, and 2
months. Sornes were let off with a nominal term of three
weeks, dated from the commencement of the assizes, and a
number were discharged on their recognizances.
Mr. Justice MAULE disposed of his cases in a similar way,
addressing the prisoners in the same strain.

A soldier, in a newly raised Irish corps, observed to his
comrade that a corporal was to be dismissed the regiment.
" Faith and indeed ?" replied the other " who's that sure ?"
" Corporal Punishment," said the wag.