Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

of law, but that was their object; that was their intention; and it is in vain to delude you into the supposition that those who proceeded in the first instance down this street to the Public Office were actuated with any other purpose than to engage in a conflict with these men.

Does it rest there? Does it rest upon expressions of hostility to the London police ? No, gentlemen. You are to suppose that they went out with the common purpose of pulling down the house of Messrs. Bourne or some house, and that they intended to set fire to houses, and that they began of course with Messrs. Bourne? The body are stated to have passed down by Messrs. Bourne's premises. I leave my learned friend by-and-by to deal, in the way in which my learned friend endeavours to insinuate a previous intention-I leave it to my friend to deal with the evidence of the witness who says that the people behind could see what was doing before. I only notice it to make a passing observation. They pass these premises and go to the Public Office. What did the London police do there? Their inspector or their leader calls them in, and shuts the gates; the garrison retires into the fortress, and the gates are closed. What do the assailants do? They commence a volley of stones at the windows of the Public Office. They were not aware what might be the instructions under which those men were acting within. They thought probably it would be quite sufficient to draw out the body in their own defence. If there had been an indict

trates of the town, (a) who was mentioned | justify it; I do not say it is right in point to you, and for whom I entertain no feeling but that of respect-they might have considered those meetings in which this gentleman took part were as little justifiable as the meeting which they were attending. The more proper way to put it is that this meeting they were attending of the 4th of July was as justifiable as the meeting attended by this gentleman to whom I have alluded. Having that feeling if there was anything wrong or illegal in their conduct, they thought the magistrates of Birmingham who had attended those meetings ought not to have been the first to introduce foreign police from the city of London, and let loose the body of London policemen to break their heads. I do not say they were right in feeling that, or that the magistrates were not justified from the state of the town in introducing them. I do not say that the magistrates have not been well warranted in attending the former meetings. But you find, from whatever cause, there was a strong feeling in the minds of many people not against Messrs. Bourne, but against the magistrates and against the London police. What do you find them doing? Is this a mere vain imagination of mine? What are the facts that are proved? I tried hard to get an admission from the witnesses, but they looked with smiles of derision at me when I put the question time after time, "Do you not know that there was a feeling of excitement against the London police ?" And at last, fortunately without my putting it, the facts came out that some of the persons, parties to the disturbance, might havement against these men for commencing used strong expressions against the magistrates and the police, and that some of them had proceeded to the Public Office calling out, Come on to the damned London police "-intimating that they were going to engage in a conflict with that body not townsmen of their own, who would have a constitutional right as they thought to interfere with them, but that body which came from a distance; not a body of military, but men marching in military array and wearing a uniform something like a military dress, and not wearing their side arms, although I do not think they came without side arms in case they had to attend a second meeting. (b) They thought-whether right or not I do say -they were entitled to resist these men, and to show them that the men of Birmingham were as good as they were, and that it was unnecessary to have a foreign body introduced. I do not stand here to

66

(a) Alderman Muntz. See Ann. Reg. 1839, Chronicle 104 and Reg. v. Collins, below. (b) See below, p. 1163.

o 61636.

the demolition of the Public Office, where they were throwing these stones and vowing vengeance against the police till a body of troops were called out who put them to rout, and any were taken afterwards, you would have my learned friend quoting Miller's case(a) to show that they had commenced demolishing the building, and that such was their hostility that had they not been interrupted by the troops they would have pulled down the building. Yes, the coal-heavers had hostility and hatred to the "Lumpers," and they went intending to inflict their vengeance upon them, and commenced an attack upon the house, though they were prevented carrying it into effect. The jury, believing them to have that intention, found them guilty under the judge's direction. It so happens no interruption took place, and that they were allowed to show what they intended to do. As far as the main body was concerned, they showed they had no such common

(a) King v. Batt. See above, p. 1119.

NN

intent. Having broken the windows and having offered to those within that species of challenge which ought to have drawn them, they went to the Bull Ring, where they would have had no more conflict such as they had on the evening of the 4th; they went away, showing they had no other intention than that of assailing the London police. Gentlemen, what takes place? They proceed up the streets and throw stones at the windows. Many of them break windows, and the great mass of them pass on to the Bull Ring. But some of them remain in the corner near Messrs. Bourne's premises. Now, gentle. men, when the feelings of the populace are once excited, formed as the populace is of persons of various characters dispositions and situations in life, it is very true it is most dangerous, and there is no knowing to what excesses some of that populace may go. It may be that the mob start for the purpose of making an attack upon the body of the police, who they think have wantonly assailed them; and, being victorious, some of them may chose to extend their vengeance to others, or some may be dishonest enough to break into houses where property may be got, and the parties then forming that crowd may commit a felony with which the others have no common purpose whatever. But, gentlemen, was there ever on the part of the crowd, generally, an intention manifested of destroying the house by fire? It appears by some exertions on the part of some of the crowd the windows were broken in, and some of the property taken out, and a bonfire made in the public street of some of the property of some of the houses proved to have been plundered by some persons in the crowd. And now I am going further than is necessary for the purposes of my client. But it is my duty to guard against any effect from the evidence that any man's ingenuity may push it to. At the time that the goods were brought out and burned in the street there was no purpose of demolishing the house. If the common intent was to set fire to that dwelling-house in the first instance, it is not in the street they would have made a bonfire. They would have collected combustible matters in the house itself, as they afterwards did, and not in the public street.

This charge is not against the men concerned in that disturbance for burning the property of Messrs. Bourne. The charge is not for plundering the shops of anybody, but the charge is of destroying or beginning to destroy the building itself. If the men had had that common intent would they not, I ask you, have shown that intent by setting fire to the house

itself, instead of removing the goods, and burning them to mark their dislike of the owner of the goods? Is it to be wondered at that, having gone so far, a new idea would suggest itself to those disposed to commit outrage? The question is, where did the first intention begin of burning the house? Now, is there any single expression to show there was the slightest intention on the part of those men, when they spoke of persons coming from the North at the moment when it was said they were no match for the military and the military had assisted in dispersing the meeting of the 4th of July, of destroying the property, they having all that time allowed them to bring these goods out in the street, although these persons might after a space of time have pushed their purpose of outrage a little further? Not one word of all that was said or done indicates such a purpose as that. Everything indicated an attack upon the police and not an attack upon this or any other house. [Counsel concluded by warning the jury against the dexterous simplicity of the Attorney General.]

[Daniel, for the prisoner Wilkes, submitted that although there was evidence that the prisoner Wilkes had made use of violent language at Holloway Head, yet there was fair ground to infer that he had separated himself from the other parties before the attack on the house of Messrs. Bourne.]

LITTLEDALE, J.: Jeremiah Howell, the case for the prosecution is closed. The counsel for Henry Wilkes and John Jones have addressed the jury, and you are at liberty now to make your defence. Have you anything to say?

Howell: Certainly, my Lord. I work hard for my living. I am as innocent as a babe unborn. I have never been below the Bull Ring for the space of three months, and though I have been lame seventeen years, I have walked sixteen years out of it on one leg. I have never been at any meeting at all, and never saw any of those London police till I had been in custody, and never was confined in a gaol a minute in my life, and am as innocent as a babe unborn of this crime. I am a poor person, and have no one to defend me.

LITTLEDALE, J.: Do you wish to say any. thing else?

Howell: No, my Lord. LITTLEDALE, J.: Francis Roberts, what do you say in your defence ?

Roberts: I hope your Lordship will have mercy on me. I was not in the Bull Ring at the time that Hall says I was. It is a very hard case for a man to swear my life away in a large number of people at nine at night. I have a family, my Lord, and

a mother to support. I had not any time to attend the Bull Ring meetings.

LITTLEDALE, J.: Do you wish to say any thing else?

Roberts: No, my Lord, I cannot say anything else.

LITTLEDALE, J. Thomas Aston, what do you say in your defence?

Aston: The things I had I picked up from the footpath, outsido the shop door. LITTLEDALE, J.: Do you say anything else P-No, my Lord.

LITTLEDALE, J.: Mr. Miller, do you call any witnesses?—No, my Lord, I have no witnesses.

Does Mr. Daniel?-He is not here.

Daniel I have no witnesses to call. I have witnesses here to prove the same facts as were proved by the witnesses for the prosecution of Wilkes, going in the same direction; but it is not necessary to call them.

LITTLEDALE, J.: Do you not call any ?No, my Lord.

LITTLEDALE, J.: Wilkes, you hear what your counsel says; he does not intend to call any witnesses.

Henry Wilkes: Yes, my Lord, I do. (Daniel consulted with Wilkes.)

Daniel: I will not take on myself the responsibility; the prisoner wishes it.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER HENRY

WILKES.

William Eades sworn.-Examined by

Daniel.

What are you?—I am a slipper maker by trade.

On Monday night, the 15th of July, were you at the "Chapel" public-house P-Yes. Whereabouts is it? Almost opposite the chapel gates at Whittle Street.

Was there a sick club held at that house that night? Yes.

Are you the steward ?-Yes. Does Wilkes live in the yard at the back of the public-house ?—Yes.

Had there been a meeting of the club that night? Yes.

What time do you close the books?About nine o'clock, a few minutes after, about ten minutes after.

Did you see Wilkes that night ?—Yes, I

did.

Were the books closed ?-They were not. How far is it from the Bull Ring ?-It may be half a mile.

In what direction does it go along High Street or in the opposite direction? Along the High Street and then down Hill House Lane; that is the way I should go myself.

Cross-examined by the Attorney General.

Is he a member of the club that meets there ?-No, he is not.

Do you know how he came to be there that evening ?-No, I do not. I came downstairs and went up the yard, and when I was coming back again down the yard I met Wilkes in the entry.

How long did you continue to see him in the entry P-Not more than half a minute. That is all you saw of him that evening?-Yes.

Re-examined by Daniel.

Does the entry in which you saw him lead to his own house?—Yes. Daniel: That is the case, my Lord, for the prisoner Wilkes.

REPLY FOR THE CROWN.

[The Attorney General said that there was nothing unusual in such a prosecution being conducted by him as the representative of the Crown.]

In the burnings at Bristol, which was still more atrocious and the devastations still more frightful than those which have disgraced the town of Birmingham, there was immediately a Special Commission, (a) and the Attorney General of the Crown attended to conduct the prosecutions that came out of those conflagrations. Again, gentlemen, you may remember in the year 1830 there were disturbances(b) of a very serious nature in the county of Surrey, in the county of Berks, in the county of Wilts, and in the county of Hants, worse, I believe, than in any others. What was done? Why, there were Special Commissions issued by the Crown, and His Majesty's Attorney General for the Crown attended to conduct those prosecutions. Gentlemen, for any thing I know, upon those occasions the prisoners' counsel may have availed themselves of the opportunity of condemning that which was done. But I believe it was approved by the public, and I have no doubt, gentlemen, that the public will of the conduct that is now purapprove sued in doing all that is possible to investigate these lamentable outrages and bringing the offenders to justice. Special Commission, on this occasion, is unnecessary, for it so happens that my Lords, the Queen's judges, in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, were about to open the Commission for the county of Warwick, where Birmingham is situated, just at the time when these cases might be brought to trial. If it had not been for that, no doubt a Special Commission whould have issued, and in the ordinary state of things the Attorney General for the Crown would

A

(a) See Rex v. Pinney above, p. 11. (b) See Ann. Reg. 1830, Chronicle, 200; Life of Alderson, 49, 171.

have been called upon to attend the judge | molished the house of Messrs. Bourne ; if and the jury in administering the criminal they placed Birmingham in jeopardy; if justice of the country. I hope I have now they, in short, were guilty of a violation sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the of this Act of Parliament, I ask you circumstances which gave ine the honour whether, for the sake of example, that of appearing before you. there may be safety to life and property, this is not a fit case to be brought before a jury in the shape in which it is presented. It was for the grand jury in the first instance to say whether they would find the bill. All that I humbly do is to present it to the consideration of the jury. The grand jury found the bill, expressing by that finding that it was fit the prisoners should be put upon their trial for this offence. It is now submitted to you, and you are to say upon your oaths whether they are guilty or not guilty.

Miller: I am sure, my Lord, the Attorney General would not wish to misrepresent me. I never complained of the Attorney General being here to conduct the prosecution. I complained of the prisoner Jones being brought here on a charge of misdemeanor that he might have traversed, and then being tried for a felony.

Attorney General: My learned friend made a very long speech, and I never interrupted him. I am going to make a short speech, and I trust I may do so without interruption. I appeal to you whether it has not been made a very serious ground of complaint that the Attorney General appears here to conduct this prosecution. It was put by Mr. Miller again and again on Thursday morning, and also during my friend Mr. Daniel's able and zealous address. Then am I to understand there is no complaint upon this subject, or that any complaints upon that subject are withdrawn? The next ground of complaint is the manner in which the prosecution has been conducted. Now, gentlemen, if this be a case which does come within the Act of Parliament passed in the 7th and 8th of George 4, if this be a case of beginning to demolish and demolishing by a riotous assembly, I ask you whether those who advised this prosecution would have done their duty if they had recommended that this should be treated merely as a misdemeanor. I do not say, very far from it, that the prisoners are guilty; but there has been a very flagrant offence committed by some one-according to the statement of my learned friend there have been horrible atrocities and frightful devastations and can it be said that the justice of the country would have been satisfied under these circumstances if there had been an indictment against these prisoners for a common riot, such as might take place at a boxing match, to be treated with levity rather than with seriousness? Gentlemen, this indictment was found by the grand jury of the county of Warwick on Tuesday last, before I had the honour of appearing in this Court. But I have no difficulty in saying that I recommended the prosecution in this form, and I take upon myself all the responsibility that belongs to such a proceeding. Whether these individuals really were guilty is for you hereafter to deterIf they did meet tumultuously and set the law at defiance; if they de

mine.

Gentlemen, another great complaint is made which seems to me to be levelled at my Lord the judge, much more than at the humble individual who addresses you, and that is that this trial has not been postponed to a sufficiently distant period to give the prisoners full opportunity of defence. That was the act of my Lord, and not of the Attorney General who conducts the prosecution. There was an application to postpone the trial, and if you were in Court I would appeal to you whether it was resisted by me in a manner that could in the remotest degree call for any censure or condemnation. I at once left it without the smallest reluctance in the hands of the learned judge, stating I should be perfectly content with any determination he might come to, and if he, who has no feeling on this subject, and can have none but that justice may be fairly administered, said that the trial should be put off till the next assizes, I should most respectfully bow to it. But what said the learned judge? He, in the first instance, postponed the trial from Thursday to Friday upon the application of Mr. Daniel, and then a further indulgence being asked on the part of Mr. Miller, the counsel for Jones, the learned judge fixed the trial for this day. It was his act, and if there were any party to be condemned, it would be the judge of assize who now presides here to administer justice, tempered with mercy. But there is no censure to be dealt out to anyone. The prisoners were treated with mildness and justice, according to the common mode of proceeding. If this offence had been committed three days ago they might have been brought to trial immediately, unless they had some grounds before the Court for the postponement of the trial. No grounds were laid for the further postponement. It was not even suggested or whispered that there was any witness who could be subpoenaed to prove their innocence. It was not sug

gested, much less stated upon affidavit, that there was any further evidence that they could obtain by further delay. Gentlemen, I could ask you from the course that this trial has taken during this day which it has occupied, whether there is the slightest reason to believe if it had been postponed until the end of the year 1840 that any additional evidence could have been given by any one of the prisoners? Gentlemen, they would then have had an impartial trial by a jury free from all prejudice, free from all bias. They will have it now, gentlemen, and if they are innocent, they are safe in your hands. Gentlemen, I cannot help-I will not say that I complain of it—but I cannot help feeling regret that such topics should be resorted to, and I can hardly think they would have been resorted to, if my learned friend had really felt that confidence in their case which they have proposed in addressing you.

Now, gentlemen, let me first consider, without resorting to the cases of any other prisoners, whether the offence has been committed, which is defined by the Act of Parliament. Has the corpus delicti been proved? Now, I must say upon that subject the case seems to me to admit of no doubt whatever. The offence consists in a number of persons tumultuously and riotously meeting together to pull down or demolish or destroy a house. It is said there must be to the number of three at least assembled. There were here not fewer than 3,000. Were they tumultuously and riotously assembled? I think that is not at all denied on the part of the counsel for the prisoners. Then, did they begin to demolish and destroy? Why, gentlemen, they not only began, but they actually accomplished, their object. It has been decided in these cases, as my Lord is well aware, that if you charge a beginning to demolish, it is not enough that stones are thrown, and windows are broken, if the mob then voluntarily retire, having accomplished all that they meant to accomplish, without a superior force having restrained them, and interrupted them. But here, gentlemen, the destruction was actually accomplished, for not only was the front of Messrs. Bourne's house broken in by the mob-and, gentlemen, I really am almost ashamed to take notice of a remark of Mr. Daniel, because I introduced this case to you avoiding all harshness of expression, and trying anxiously to guard against doing anything that should prejudice your minds. I am taunted by my learned friend with treating with too much tenderness and respect that body of which his client was a member, aye, and was the leader. I think the reproach did not come very

gracefully from the counsel of Wilkes. Well, then, gentlemen, stones are thrown at the windows, and the front of the shop is battered in. There is something that is described as a battle axe used, and there are other instruments of a very formidable description. Not only the windows but the window frames are completely broken in and the mob enter; there is shouting and cheering; they then pillage the shop, take out some of the boxes, and light a fire near the monument in the Bull Ring. Then, what do they next do, gentlemen? Was it a mere casual misfortune that the house caught fire? No, gentlemen, it was done by premeditation and design; they lighted a fire in the Bull Ring near the monument. They heaped bed-ticking upon it, and then carried the burning brands to Mr. Leggatt's premises on the opposite side of the way and to Messrs. Bourne's premises. How did they conduct themselves when they got into Messrs. Bourne's premises ? They put fire under the wooden counters. They heaped wood upon the fire, and took all the necessary measures that the house might be in conflagration. That consequence was immediately produced. Every room was on fire. The engines came at last, and by one or two in the morning the fire was extinguished. But then nothing remained except the brick walls of the house. There can be no doubt, gentlemen, that this offence was mitted, and that it comes within the Act of Parliament. It was probably committed by a great number, and there is consequently very great difficulty in such a scene of confusion in selecting the most guilty and in tendering clear evidence against them. Gentlemen, you are to say whether there is not satisfactory evidence upon which you may safely act against each and every one of these prisoners.

com

I will shortly take them in their turn. Now, gentlemen, Jeremiah Howell, the lame man, says what I think he says in vain; he professes his innocence. He has not a counsel to make an attack upon the prosecutors, and to bring his case favourably before the jury by casting odium upon the prosecution. Gentlemen, that shall not at all tempt me to press the charge against him, but it is my duty to point out to your notice that he protests his innocence just as strongly as the innocence of Jones and Wilkes is protested, and he declares that he was not in the Bull Ring last night, and had not been there for three months before. Now, you have witness after witness proving him there, and about his identity no doubt can be entertained. You observe the infirmity under which he labours. has lost a limb. He walks upon a crutch.

He

« AnteriorContinua »