Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

wives and daughters with them. As to their having cheered on the field, or at the appearance of the soldiers, they had a perfect right to do so; and unless the cheers were those of defiance, they were quite innocent. Several of the witnesses (for the defence), indeed all of them who spoke of those cheers, looked upon them, not as cheers of defiance, but as proceeding from a consciousness of innocence. Many of the persons, even the women, when they saw the soldiers, looked upon their approach as in no manner hostile to their meeting. When his lordship, in summing up the evidence of Mr Tyas, came to that part which mentioned the hissing opposite the PoliceOffice,

Mr Hunt requested that his lordship would recollect, that neither he nor Johnson had given any directions or encouragement to the people to hiss.

His lordship said that he was about to state that fact to the Jury.

Having gone through the evidence of several other witnesses, his lordship again called the attention of the Jury to the peaceable conduct of the meeting on the 16th, and the fact that no person had been called to prove that any act of violence had been committed before the cavalry came. They would recollect that there was no interruption of business on that day, and this would materially influence them in the judgment they should form, whether immediate or remote danger was to be feared. On the part of the Crown it was suggested that it might possibly have been so that an immediate disturbance was not the object of the parties accused, but that they looked to the future power of some mischief. It would be for the consideration of the Jury to inquire how far this was proved by the evidence. The next question was, whether the meeting was unlawful as to the inten

tions of any, and which of the defendants. In looking at the case in this view, it was necessary to examine the actions of the several parties. The meeting was admitted on all hands to have been very large, and one of the charges against the defendants was, that they had attempted to excite, in the minds of those present, disaffection and discontent, and to produce a hatred and contempt for the Government of the country, as by law established. Let the Jury look at the facts. It was said that this meeting was called by 700 housekeepers. However, no one of those persons had been called to prove that fact; and as to the manner in which it really was called, or by whom the notice was given, the Court and the Jury were left in the dark. Mr Hunt, it appeared, had recently before this been at a meeting at Smithfield, where certain resolutions had been agreed to. From thence, or at least soon after, he was found in the neighbourhood of Manchester. was there before the time at which the meeting of the 9th was to have taken place. Now, if Mr Hunt had intended to propose resolutions at the meeting of the 16th, similar to those which he had proposed at the Smithfield meeting, it would be for the Jury to say how far they would be likely to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of those who were assembled. He would leave this part of the question entirely to them, with only this observation-that if Mr Hunt had such object, and that the resolutions were calculated to excite discontent, then quoad Mr Hunt, the meeting would be illegal; and if he communicated such intentions to any others, and that they approved of them, then there would be a conspiracy; and if any three of them went to the meeting with such intent, the meeting would, as far as they were concerned, be illegal; for the law said, "three, or more

He

persons." The Court and the Jury went, not only on what was proved, but what might be proved, and no evidence had been offered that it was intended to submit any other resolutions to the Court. With respect to the flags which were carried, it was important for the Jury to look at the inscriptions which were on them. There were Universal Suffrage," “Annual Parliaments," and "Vote by Ballot," "No Corn-laws." Now, if the words" no corn-laws" meant only that the laws on the importation of corn should be repealed, nothing was more harmless than the inscription. The criminality of the motto would be in wishing to have them so repealed by threat or force. Neither was there any harm in the words "Unite and be free," unless the Jury believed that there was a bad intention in calling for such union. The next inscription was "Taxation without representation is unjust and tyrannical." If by this was meant that it would be unjust and tyrannical to tax any man who had not a vote for a member of parliament, it would be unlawful, and calculated to excite disaffection in the minds of those who were present, a great body of whom had not votes. But it was quite an error to suppose that any man in the country was unrepresented. Every member of parliament not only represented the particular place for which he was chosen, but also the whole of the kingdom, and it was his duty to attend to the interest of the country at large. Another banner had the inscription, "Labour is the source of wealth." So it was, and so he hoped it would long continue to be, and that those who acquired wealth by their honest labour should enjoy it, and transmit it down to their posterity. The next flag had the inscription, "Let us die like men, and not be sold as slaves." Surely there were no slaves

in this country; and if the inscription meant to convey that any portion of the people were sold as slaves, such a meaning would be calculated to excite discontent. The banner of Bamford's party bore " Parliaments annual," and

Suffrage universal," "Unity and strength." If any of those banners were meant to convey to the eye what in such a meeting no voice could convey to the ear-if they meant that the people should be disaffected or discontented till they had obtained those objects-then the parties who bore the flags, and those who marched with them, would be guilty of an illegal act, and the meeting, as far as they were concerned, would be illegal. He would now come to another part of the evidence-to the training and drilling; and he should tell them, that if the object of both was to produce greater order and regularity in those who attended the meeting on the 16th, it was perfectly harmless: but if it was intended, by giving this regularity, to give a greater degree of strength to the party, and thereby to overawe the government, or to gain confidence to any seditious opinions to procure a legal object by motives of fear, then it would have been illegal, and the meeting at which they assembled after such training would be illegal also. It would be criminal as to all those who were concerned in training for such an object, though there might be thousands of others attending it who knew nothing of such motives, and whose purpose was quite legal.

Now, as to the part which each individual took in the meeting :-First, Mr Hunt came to the neighbourhood of Manchester. He was met at Bullock-Smithy by Moorhouse, and he went to Manchester on the 9th, where he addressed the people, certainly not in a manner respectful to the magistrates. He remains in the neighbourhood till the 16th, and nobody knew

how he spent his time till then; at least it was not in evidence, any farther than that he was at Johnson's. It was a question for the consideration of the Jury, whether he intended to propose the resolutions carried at Smithfield; at all events, he had offered no evidence to shew that he had any others. Mr Hunt and Johnson were both present when the people hissed at Murray's and at the police; but it did not appear that either of them had advised or encouraged it. Johnson was on the hustings, and proposed Mr Hunt as chairman; and it would be for the Jury to say, how far he was likely to know the resolutions which were intended to be proposed. This would entirely depend on their opinion of his intentions. He next came to Moorhouse, and certainly he appeared to have had less participation in what had passed than all the others. The Jury would look at his case, and, judging by his acts, would see how far he was connected with what was done. Conjecture would not be sufficient against him, and if only such existed, he was entitled to an acquittal. The Jury would next look at the case of Swift, and see how far he was connected with any previous motives. It appeared from the evidence of Mr Henry Orton, a reporter, that Swift was present, and exhorted the meeting to be peaceable; but then this was on the testimony of a witness whose recollection as to other points was at least questionable. He (Mr Justice Bayley) had before told the Jury, that evidence of words from recollection of this kind ought to be looked at with caution. He did not mean to say that Mr Orton told any thing which he (Orton) did not believe, but the Jury would do well to consider whether his recollection of what passed was the most accurate. He next came to - Healy; and if the Jury believed that he meant to impress on the minds of

the people that they should have any change in the representation by means of force or threats, he would be guilty. As to the words, " No Corn-Laws," as he had said before, that was a point on which much difference of opinion existed in the country, and a wish to have them repealed could not be criminal. But the words, "Taxation without representation is unjust and tyrannical," were, if they bore the meaning he had before said, calculated to excite disaffection, and would, in that case, be illegal. Bamford, it ap peared, headed a party; but if the banners which were borne by that party were not calculated to excite disaffection, there was nothing in the manner or conduct of the people to excite alarm. As to Wylde, he was at the head of another party, but the banners which they bore were not specified, and therefore it could not be known whether they were of a dangerous tendency or not. Jones was proved to have been on the hustings, but it would be for the Jury to say whether it was for the purpose of con structing them or not. It appeared he had used the word "enemies" in one of his speeches to the people. He (Mr Justice Bayley) was sorry for it. That word should not be applied by any one set of men in this country to another, where all ought to be united in one common bond of amity and union.

It was very near twelve o'clock when his lordship concluded; and, in a few minutes after, the Jury retired; and, after consulting together for five hours, returned into Court at five o'clock. The Foreman held a paper in his hand, and said the Jury had agreed upon their verdict, which he read as follows

"Moorhouse, Jones, Wild, Swift, Saxton-Not Guilty.-Henry Hunt, Joseph Johnson, John Knight, Joseph Healy, and Samuel BamfordGuilty of assembling with unlawful

banners an unlawful assembly, for the purpose of moving and inciting the liege subjects of our Sovereign Lord the King into contempt and hatred of the Government and Constitution of the realm, as by law established, and attending of the same."

Mr Justice Bayley. "Do you mean that they themselves intended to in cite?" The Foreman. "Yes."-Mr Littledale. "This verdict must be ta ken on the fourth count.”—Mr Justice Bayley. "Let the verdict be so recorded. You find, gentlemen, on such counts as the words of your verdict are applicable to. You do not mean to find that they created terror, or incited it in the minds of the liege subjects of our King?"-The Foreman. "We meant, my lord, to find on the first count, omitting a few words.”—The learned Judge then requested they would retire and look over the counts of the indictments again, and say to which count they meant to apply their verdict.

The Jury withdrew for a few minutes, and returned with a verdict of Guilty generally on the fourth count, and Not Guilty upon the remaining counts.-Mr Justice Bayley. "I take it for granted the defendants are still under recognizances."-Mr Hunt. "We are, my lord."-Mr Justice Bayley. "Then let them now additionally, in Court, enter into their own recognizances to keep the peace and good behaviour for six months, Mr Hunt in the sum of 2000l., Mr Johnson of 1000l., Knight, Bamford, and Healy, 500l. each.

The parties immediately entered into their several recognizances.

Mr Hunt said, he meant to take the sense of the Court of King's-bench upon the legality of the verdict.

Mr Hunt, according to the notice he had given, moved on the 26th of

April for a new trial in the Court of King's-bench. On his presenting himself, the Chief Justice called upon him to state the grounds on which this motion was made.

Mr Hunt. The first ground, my lord, is a misapprehension of the learned Judge, in rejecting evidence which ought to have been received.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-That was evidence tendered on your part, I presume.

Mr Hunt.-Exactly so, my lord; and also in preventing me from getting the same point out, by the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-What was the general nature of the evidence?

Mr Hunt. It was evidence as to the acts of aggression-of cutting, maiming, and killing, committed by the Yeomanry Cavalry, and other military, upon the persons of those who attended the meeting.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-At Manchester, I suppose? What is your next point?

Mr Hunt. The next point is, my lord, the learned Judge's admitting evidence which, I say, ought to have been rejected.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-What species of evidence was that?

Mr Hunt.-Certain resolutions of a meeting held in Smithfield, my lord. The Lord Chief-Justice.-Any thing else, Mr Hunt?

Mr Hunt.-Yes, my lord. The admission of evidence of certain trainings and drillings at a place called White-moss. The third point is a misdirection of the Judge, which arose in consequence of these points.

The Lord Chief-Justice. That is, these rejections and admissions of certain evidence?

Mr Hunt.-Yes, my lord.
Mr Justice Bayley.-You mean,

Mr Hunt, for putting to the Jury, points as arising by inference out of the evidence so admitted?

Mr Hunt. Precisely so, my lord. The fourth ground is, that the Jury gave a verdict contrary to evidence. The Lord Chief Justice. Have you any other ground?

Mr Hunt. Yes, my lord; I have a fifth and last ground. It is, that the Jury gave a verdict contrary to the direction of the learned Judge.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-Are those all the points?

Mr Hunt. They are, my lord. The Chief Justice then stated it to be necessary that his brother Bayley should read over all the minutes of the trial. Accordingly, in the course of the present and successive days, this was done, and Mr Hunt pleaded at great length his right to a new trial.

On the 8th May, the Chief Justice pronounced his opinion as follows:

Although this matter has occupied a considerable portion of that time and attention which is dedicated to the general administration of justice, it has not presented to my mind any doubt whatever; and I will deliver my opinion upon the several points with as much brevity as possible.

The first objection taken by the defendants was to the rejection of evidence as to the supposed misconduct of the military in the dispersion of the meeting; and, in my opinion, that evidence was perfectly irrelevant to the matter in issue. The matter in issue was the object or purpose of the assembly, and the conduct of the people prior to the dispersion. The conduct of those who dispersed the meeting could have nothing to do with the object, because that object existed before the meeting assembled. No evidence which went to prove the conduct of the persons assembled was rejected; on the contrary, witness after

witness was called, who spoke to the propriety and peaceableness of that conduct up to the time when the military arrived; and I am therefore of opinion that the evidence in question was properly rejected. If, however, any doubt upon that point could exist, the verdict of the Jury, narrowing the charge to the fourth count, would remove that doubt altogether, because that count does not charge the defendants with any violence at the time of the meeting.

The second point of objection is to the admission of the resolutions of the Smithfield meeting; and the objections to this point of evidence are twofold: first, that the best evidence was not produced which the circumstances might have afforded; and, second, that no evidence ought to have been admitted upon the subject. With respect to the first of these objections, the papers which were produced were proved to have been received from the hands of one of the defendants at the time of the meeting, as the resolutions which were to be passed at the meeting; and therefore, as against that defendant, no better evidence could exist. With regard to the latter objection, it was in proof that these resolutions had been recently proposed by that defendant at a very numerous meeting held for the alleged purpose of parliamentary reform the avowed purpose of the meeting in question-at which that same defendant, a stranger in Manchester, was invited to take the chair; and, as regarded the question of intention, I have no doubt that it was competent to shew, as against that defendant, that at a similar meeting, held for an object professedly similar, such matter had been proposed under his immediate inspection. The effect of that evidence was left to the Jury: it certainly did amount to a declaration, by the defendant, of his opinions upon the sub

« AnteriorContinua »