mult and insurrection, and to excite hatred and contempt against the go

vernment.

Mr BENYON rose on the part of the prosecution. No doubt, the learned gentleman said, the Jury were already aware that the present prosecution arose out of one of those dangerous meetings which had been held in Cheshire, and in the adjacent counties, during the last summer-meetings which were calculated to terrify the peaceable subjects of the realm, and which had been headed, and principally promoted, by itinerant orators. The Jury, however, were called upon -and from the knowledge which he (Mr Benyon) had of many of them, he doubted not that they would fulfil their duty-they were called upon by their oaths to dismiss from their minds every circumstance which they had previously heard upon the subject, and to try the case upon the evidence, and only upon the evidence, which would be adduced before them. The two defendants, Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr Harrison, were well known: the first was a gentleman of estate in the county of Stafford, and had inherited a considerable paternal property, together with the rank and title of Baronet, which had been conferred upon one of his ancestors in the reign of Charles the First: the second defendant, Mr Harrison, had been, until lately, a stranger in the county of Chester; he was, the learned counsel believed, a dissenting minister and a schoolmaster. Upon the 28th of July last a public meeting had been announced at Stockport, and, previous to that day, the residents in the neighbourhood had been advised that a meeting was to take place for the real or pretended purpose of petitioning for reform in parliament. Upon the day appointed a number of persons, not less than five thousand, and, according to the statement of one of the defend

ants, amounting nearly to ten thousand, assembled; and it would be found, that, previous to that meeting, Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr Harrison had been known to each other, and that they had corresponded; and it would be shewn, that, upon the 28th July, they were in intimate conversa tion for at least an hour before the assembly took place. It would be seen, therefore, that these defendants were not persons accidentally coming together in consequence of the handbills which had announced the meeting, but that they came there together in consequence of a preconcerted scheme. The meeting was numerous, and was attended by men who had bludgeons in their hands; those bludgeons were not merely carried for shew, or for intimidation, but a constable, whom they were pleased to call a spy, was nearly put to death by some persons in the crowd. The meeting in question, the learned counsel would shew, had not been a peaceable meeting for the purpose of petition. It had been attended by persons carrying banners, inscribed with the common cant terms of "no corn laws,” “universal suffrage," " annual parliaments," and" voting by ballot." At a particular house a platform had been erected, upon which the leaders mounted; and the Jury would find the two defendants taking a leading part in the ensuing transactions. It having been previously agreed that Sir Charles Wolseley, as a gentleman of rank and property, should be called to the chair, that individual took the chair amidst the acclamations of the crowd: he then opened the meeting, and used the seditious words imputed to him by the present indictment. Sir Charles Wolseley had said, "that he was in Paris at the beginning of the French revolution that he was the first man who made a kick at the Bastile; and he expressed his hopes," and the Jury

would hear in what direction he then pointed," that he should be present at the demolition of another Bastile." He then abused the Ministers of the Crown, and said that he could not find terms in which to speak with sufficient detestation of them. He spoke of spies, and said that he detested their employers, Sidmouth and Castlereagh. He said, that where the people were not represented, no allegiance was due; taxation was a robbery; and resistance to the government justifiable. A great deal more had been said; but those were the principal points upon which he (the learned counsel) charged the defendant, Sir Charles Wolseley, with having used seditious speeches at this illegal meeting, with a view to bring into hatred and contempt the government and constitution of the country; language more calculated to produce that effect could scarcely be conceived. Mr Harrison, the second defendant, followed Sir Charles Wolseley. He declared against "petitioning any more, which he considered degrading and humiliating. There would be a meeting," he said, " of delegates at Oldham, on the Monday following, at the Union-room, for the purpose of establishing a National Convention; and it would also be one of its duties to devise farther means for extending and consolidating the national union." How far the evidence would bring home to the defendants, or either of them-indeed, if it did to one, it must to both the charge which was alleged against them, it would be for the Jury to determine. As to the seditious language, there could be no doubt; the Jury would judge of the intention and of the tumultuous meet ing. If any words more strongly tending to bring the government and the constitution into contempt and hatred could be used, he (Mr Benyon) was at a loss to know what those words were. It would, perhaps, be

stated by Mr Pearson, the learned Counsel for the defendant, that the meeting in question was a peaceable meeting for the purpose of petition, but it would be shewn to the Jury that Mr Harrison had expressly disavowed any intention to petition. The right of peaceably meeting together for the purpose of petitioning the Sovereign or the Legislature against grievances, either real or supposed, was the right, the birthright, of Englishmen, and Heaven forbid that he (Mr Benyon) should stand before the Jury to deny that right. There was no impropriety in a peaceable meeting for the purpose of seeking reform in parliament, but the meeting at Stockport had not been a meeting of that character. The language, the conduct, the whole insignia of that meeting, shewed that the purpose was not petition, but intimidation. The conduct of the meeting on the 28th July had been calculated, not for the reform of the British constitution, but for the subversion of it.

John Kenyon Winterbottom, examined by Serjeant Cross, said he was a solicitor in Stockport. He saw a public meeting in the town of Stockport, between one and two o'clock on the 28th July last. He attended in a building (a Sunday-school), near the meeting. The place is called Sandy Brow. He should think there were 4000 or 5000 assembled. He was not so near as to observe whether they were strangers or inhabitants. They were quiet at first. Most of them had sticks, which appeared to have been newly cut from hedges. They were not walking-sticks. The population is upwards of 20,000. There were hustings or a scaffold. Several persons were on the scaffold. Sir Charles was pointed out to him as one: he knew Mr Harrison, and saw him there. He heard Harrison say, "The House of Commons was the people's servants;

that it was as absurd to petition them as it would be for a master to petition his groom for his horse. He said that there was a barrier between the throne and the people, which must be removed either by force from heaven or hell, in order that they might see whether a man or a pig was upon the throne." He thought there was laughter. The expression of derision was general. Harrison said, "The united will of the people was sure to prevail. It was an axiom that could not be confuted. It might be necessary in some cases to petition the House of Lords, who were, by the constitution, placed in a different situation to the House of Commons; but in the present corrupt state of things it was useless, and he would not recommend it."

Thomas Bolton lived in Stockport. Great numbers of the people were townsmen: he saw no unusual sticks: they were not more numerous about the hustings than he should have expected. He stood amongst the crowd, and gained high ground when he could. He saw no chair. The first attention he paid was to Sir Charles: he heard what he said. He made a minute about an hour after, and could state that Sir Charles had said what he had there noted. [He was allowed to read it.] "He was happy in addressing the people of Stockport from Sandy Brow; it was a place consecrated to liberty, by the absence of friends he would have been happy to meet there; and he trusted Sandy Brow would be more famed in history than the field of Waterloo. Was there a peace-officer present, he trusted they came to keep the peace, and not to break it. But was there any of your spies, your notetaking, or black-book gentry, tell your employers, the tools of a Castlereagh and Sidmouth, that I hate them, that I detest them that I eternally execrate them. He was proud to say, that he was at the taking of the Bas

tile in France-he should be happy to be at the taking of a Bastile in England." (He saw nothing but the action of speaking with force and energy.) "And were all hearts but as firm in the cause as his own, they would soon put an end to the present tyranny and corruption." He heard Mr Harrison, but took no note of it, and now recollected nothing of it.

Joseph Johnson, surveyor at Stockport, gave similar evidence relative to Sir Charles, Mr Harrison, &c. Mr Harrison stood next to Sir Charles, and spoke, and said they wanted to get to the throne in order to see whe ther there was a pig or a man on it; and if there were 10,000 walls betwixt them, they would blow them up either to heaven or to hell. The expression about the pig, and that of the walls, was received by acclamations.

Thomas Welsh, a clerk to Mr Har. rop, in Manchester, said that Mr Harrison had read from a letter that the Deity had intended man for happiness, and provided a sufficiency of all good things to make him so; but as the majority of that meeting was extreme. ly unhappy and miserable, and rendered so by their rulers, the intentions of the Deity had been frustrated, and rebellion against that government became almost a duty. Sir Charles read the resolutions, and put them to the meeting.

One of the resolutions was, that Lord Sidmouth had been guilty of high treason. Another was, that a general meeting of delegates should be held at Oldham, or other places, as might be agreed upon. Another resolution was, that a subscription should be entered into to defray the expense of prosecuting his Majesty's ministers. The resolutions were put separately. He did not recollect who read them. All the resolutions were agreed to. Mr Harrison recapitulated the speeches, and said a deputation from the delegates should present their petition to

the throne, and to remove all impediment, for they did not know whether there was a man or pig there. As ministers, Mr Harrison added, had screened themselves with a bill of indemnity, that this meeting do indemnify the speakers, in case any thing seditious had been said. This was carried with cries of "We do, we do."

Mr Pearson said, that it was now his duty to address the Jury on behalf of Sir Charles Wolseley, and on behalf of Sir Charles only. The question before the Jury was not a political question, nor was a political dissertation from him (Mr Pearson) to be expect ed. In a court of justice, in the sanctuary of the law, the voice of party should be for ever silent; and he conjured the Jury to consider, that, if it was incumbent upon him (the learned counsel) to abstain from obtruding upon the Jury any political discussion, it was still more incumbent upon the Jury to guard their minds from the slightest shade of political bias. The charge of conspiracy, the learned counsel thought, scarce deserved an argument; it had been, by the evidence for the prosecution, completely disproved; and he was only astonished that his learned friend had not long since abandoned that charge, and confessed that his ground had mouldered beneath his feet. A conspiracy, for sooth, between two men who had not been proved to have met until a few moments before the time at which their offence was alleged to have been committed! The whole charge of conspiracy was gone; and it would be wasting the time of the Jury to argue it farther. The other part of the indictment would depend entirely upon the question whether the meeting of the 28th was a legal or an illegal meeting; and to such a question the learned counsel felt assured the Jury could return but one answer. The numbers who at

tended that meeting were wholly unimportant; and he (the learned counsel) would go at once to the conduct and to the language employed by that meeting. What then were the resolutions which had been passed at that meeting? He (Mr Pearson) would venture to declare, that even from the partial detail of those resolutions which had been given by the witnesses for the prosecution, nothing would appear by which his client could be affected. of reform, whatever might be his opinion, he would here say nothing. It was a legitimate topic of discussion. It had formed a material topic of political writers at various periods, ever since the Revolution, and the wisest and best statesmen had endeavoured to effect it. Need he refer to Locke and Bolingbroke, to Fox and Pit? It was surely too late of the day to make it necessary to argue that reform was a legitimate object of meeting and petitioning. Universal suffrage certainly seemed of all chimerical projects the most chimerical; but still it was not unlawful to discuss it and to petition either House of Parliament, or the Sovereign, or, if the petition was refused, to remonstrate boldly and manfully, but respectfully. Where was the limit to petitioning? Whatever Parlia ment could grant, the people could petition, and they had a right to give force to their individual opinions by meeting and uniting their wishes. He could not think of wasting their time by remarking upon the absurd evidence that all the people of this great empire were to be assembled at Oldham. That it had been seriously urged for the prosecution was singular in judicial proceedings. It was beyond every thing in real life,-beyond every thing in comic fiction. The wildest of wild romances had nothing like it. The flappers of memory and mathematical carving of meat in Gulliver's Travels were not comparable to this; and the

alarm of the inhabitants of the Flying Island, that this earth would be destroyed by the tail of a comet, was as reasonable as any alarm for this wild speculation of a national meeting at Oldham. Say that they were to be delegates who met. He needed not to tell them that that would not be unlawful. Needed he to remind them that a meeting of delegates was held in London, among whom was Dr Jebb, Sir William Jones, Mr Pitt, Mr Fox, the Lennoxes, the Cavendishes, and the Howards? They were not prosecuted by the Attorney-General. Why then should a meeting in Cheshire be thus visited? But such a meeting would not have been illegal. But if they had the dictum of a Judge, which they had not, that it was illegal; still, in the present case, it had, according to the evidence, been only proposed. Then there was a subscription proposed for the prosecution of Ministers who had violated the law: but to the law, and the law only, they applied. How could this be a violation of the public peace? Next, as to the conduct of the parties at the meeting, there was nothing illegal in mere numbers. The acts of the last Parliament were a distinct admission that meetings of that kind were legal before. It had been laid down by that upright and impartial Judge, Mr Justice Bayley, that if there were 60,000, it was not, therefore, an unlawful assembly. If a constable was hurt, it was before Sir Charles came; even if it were not, how could he be answerable for that more than for a pickpocket who might steal property in that crowd? Sticks for convenience, or even parade, were not unlawful. If they were held up, so were hats. But in no shape were they connected with his client. As to the cap of liberty and the flag, they were aware that at York, where such things were proved to have existed to a much greater extent, Mr Hunt was acquitted in every

count, similar to what they were try. ing at present. Here he read the count on which Mr Hunt had been convicted, and called the attention of their Lordships particularly to it. Perhaps the cap of liberty was a bauble unworthy of the attention of men of sense; but the multitude, men as well as children, valued the symbol more than the thing signified

"Pleased with this bauble still as that before." Of the rattles, tittles, rosaries, or garters, mentioned by the poet, were there any more harmless than the cap of liberty, originally emblematical of the manumission of a slave, in England the symbol of liberty? It had been used and abused in France, so had li. berty. He could not suppose the constitution of this country could be destroyed like a necromancer's spell, by a breath, a hiss, or a shout. If the meeting was not illegal, the speeches could not make it the meeting described in the indictment. Seditious words might form a substantive crime, but it was not the crime before them. If others used seditious words, Sir Charles Wolseley was answerable only for his own words. Here he felt peculiar difficulty. Sir Charles Wolseley was a person of the highest honour and respectability, and would not separate himself from a fellow-sufferer; but he could not suffer considerations of that kind to influence his conduct as his counsel. Let Mr Harrison deny, or explain, or prove to be an idle joke, the allusion to an illustrious person. Such expressions were improper, disgraceful, indecent, mischievous. But Sir Charles Wolseley was not answerable for every absurd remark made by others. The Bastile, it was evident, and he would prove, had been mentioned only hypothetically; and Sir Charles Wolseley took no greater liberty in this respect than Mr Burke had done on the other side. Sir Charles, in saying that he