it, I do not know. It is now in evidence before your Lordships that what the gentleman read was in print. I submit that the document must be produced before any thing is said of its contents.

be

Solicitor General: I humbly apprehend that we are not bound to bring the walls of Cold Bath Fields Prison here, and that that which was posted up there may given in evidence as verbal testimony, and that I have a right to cross-examine him as to what he read, just as I might ask him the inscription upon any flag.

GASELEE, J.: I think it was so held at Lancaster in Mr. Hunt's case. They were allowed to give evidence of the oath taken.(a)

Phillips Certainly; there could have been no objection to that. The best evidence here would have been what appeared on the walls. But this must have originated somewhere. I do not know whether the parties who have the original think it prudent or discreet to withhold it. But if this came from the Government and this is a Government prosecution-it must have come from the secutors. I am astounded almost to find this course resorted to on the part of the Government, when there is no person around the Court that does not see the document lying before them.

:

pro

GASELEE, J. That is not the document posted on the walls.

Solicitor General: The only question is

this

GASELEE, J. (reading the decision in Hunt's case upon the admissibility of parol evidence) : "An indictment against A. B. and others of a meeting, parol evidence of inscriptions may be received without producing them."

Phillips: Because there are no copies of them.

Solicitor General: This has been affixed to the wall.

PARKE, J.: The usual mode is by producing a copy, and asking whether it is

correct.

Solicitor General: If my learned friend wishes the document to be put in, I have no objection to it.

PARKE, J.: I will not say it is not admissible, because the thing is affixed to

the wall.

(The placard was handed to the witness.) Solicitor General: Is that a copy of what you saw on the wall ?-It is.

Read it, if you please.

[It was to the following effect:

"Whereas printed papers have been posted up and distributed in various parts of the metropolis, advertising that a public meeting

(a) 1 St. Tr. N.S. 492.

will be held in Coldbath Fields on Monday next, May 13th, to adopt preparatory measures for holding a National Convention as the only means of obtaining and securing the rights of the people; and whereas a public meeting holden

for such a purpose is dangerous to the public peace and illegal, all classes of His Majesty's such meeting nor to take any part in the prosubjects are hereby warned not to attend any ceedings thereof.

"And notice is hereby given that the civil authorities have strict orders to maintain and secure the public peace, and to apprehend any persons offending herein, that they may be dealt with according to law.

By order of the Secretary of State."]

There was a copy of this stuck up against the walls of Cold Bath Fields Prison ?-And is there now.

And was there the 13th of May ?—Yes. You thought this not being signed was to be disregarded ?—Yes.

That is your opinion ?-Yes, as it does not specify what Secretary of State.

And perhaps you thought there would be nothing illegal in such a meeting? Phillips: What signifies what Mr. Stallwood thought?

Solicitor General: I may ask this to try the credit of the witness.

PARKE, J. Certainly.

GASELEE, J.: He has said it was to be disregarded.

Solicitor General: Did you consider a meeting to consult upon preparatory measures for holding a National Convention as the only means of obtaining and securing the rights of the people would be an illegal meeting ?-I never considered the question at all, because there was a meetthe number, and the peace was not ing held by Mr. O'Connell with ten times broken. (a)

Was that a meeting to adopt preparatory measures for holding a National Convention ?-I do not know what its object

was.

[Witness saw a flag with a death's head and cross bones. He saw the American Mee was declared chairflag unfurled. man.]

Did he (Mee) say anything about the taking care of his wife and children? Mr. Mee addressed the meeting, desiring them to be peaceful and quiet, for it was of essential importance to their cause that it should be conducted with peace and quietness.

I asked you whether he said anything about his wife and children ?-I am coming to that-and that he was very for advertising their meeting, for it gave much obliged to the Whig Government

(a) In December 1830, in Dublin; see Ann. Reg. 1831, 304.

them an importance they did not possess. He then halted, and he was desired by the people to go on. He appealed to the people to know if they were prepared to sacrifice one tenth of all their earnings to support his wife and family.

It was proved by other witnesses that some of the police constables behaved with great violence, though none of them spoke to any violence used by the prosecutor or Redwood; and it was stated by one of the witnesses for the defence, Mr. Courtney, on his cross-examination, that he saw a death's head and cross bones on one of the flags and the inscription "Liberty or Death." and it was also proved on the cross-examination of another of the witnesses for the defence, Mr. Carpenter, editor of the True Sun, that he knew of the intended meeting before he went to the ground, as he had seen it stated to be the intention of the meeting to establish a National Convention; that he had seen it stated in various publications, advertisements, and bills; and he further stated that it was notorious. (a)]

Solicitor General: I beg your Lordship's permission to call back Redwood.

Phillips: This witness has been in Court during the entire time of the examination of the prisoner's witnesses.

Solicitor General: It is quite new to me that there should be any objection. I am surprised at the objection taken.

Phillips: As to your surprise it signifies nothing. Beyond all question the usual custom is not to examine those who have been in Court when there has been an order that they should be sent out, and my learned friend was aware of that, for the first question he put to Mr. Stallwood was, Have you been in Court? My learned friend proposes to call a witness to contradict ours-one who has been in Court during the entire time of the examination. It is true he has been so, and we made no objection; but my learned friend should have told us in common fairness he intended to call him again. He could not perhaps anticipate what the witness has stated; but when he found that the witness was stating facts he intended to call Redwood to contradict, he ought to have called our attention to

(a)" For several days past large placards have been distributed throughout the metropolis, by order of the Committee of the National Union of the Working Classes, and signed by John Russell, the secretary, intima. ting that a public meeting would be held on the Calthorpe Estate, Coldbath Fields, on Monday next (this day), to adopt preparatory measures for holding a National Convention as the only means of obtaining and securing the rights of the people."-The Times, 13th May 1833.

it. Redwood stays in Court, and knows what he has to contradict. See the situations in which our witness stands! We have called our witness to contradict what that witness swore, and I say let not this Redwood who has heard every word come up to contradict our witness.

PARKE, J.: It is competent to call a witness to contradict anything incidentally arising. Yours was to prove a fact. GASELEE, J.: Are you about to call Redwood to reswear what he has already sworn, or to contradict something that this man has said?

Solicitor General: To contradict what he has said.

:

PARKE, J. It can only be for that. GASELEE, J.: It is the rule of law with respect to people who are in Court, unless the judges make some order to the contrary, there is no legal objection to their evidence-if it is by accident without any design. That has been done upon this occasion which has been done upon others. The witness has been allowed to stay in Court. Therefore the Court will, unless it sees there is any improper course taken, admit his evidence.

[Redwood was re-called to prove that he was sober, and that he never raised his truncheon until he was stabbed.]

At five minutes to eleven o'clock Mr. Justice Gaselee commenced his summing up to the jury. (a)

SUMMING UP.

GASELEE, J.: The question for you to consider will be, whether there was suffi cient provocation to reduce the offence of the prisoner below the crime of murder, if death had ensued; and although it is not mentioned in the indictment, you are at liberty to inquire whether the meeting was an illegal meeting or not; for if it was, the police would be justified in taking away the flag; but if the meeting was not an illegal one, then they would have no right to take the flag away from the prisoner. Taking it that the meeting was a legal one this question will arise, whether the taking away of the flag was a sufficient provocation to justify the prisoner in striking with such a deadly weapon; and it makes a great difference whether a man under provocation takes up a deadly weapon on the sudden, or whether he goes out with the weapon in

(a) Annual Register, 1833 (Law Cases), p. 327. His Lordship during his summing up was twice informed by the majority of the jurors that they had no wish to trouble his Lordship; but on each occasion one juror expressed his wish that his Lordship should proceed.--The Times, 5th July 1833.

tending to use it to prevent the taking away of the flag. It will be for you to say whether the conduct of the prisoner showed that malignity of purpose which would, if death had ensued, have constituted the crime of murder. If you are of opinion that he took this deadly weapon with an intention to resist, under all circumstances, the taking away of the flag, I feel justified in telling you, and I believe that my learned brother will agree with me, that, if death had ensued, the crime of the prisoner would not have been less than the crime of murder; however, you ought also to consider whether there was sufficient provocation before the blow was given to reduce the offence, had death ensued, to the crime of manslaughter. A great deal has been said of the impropriety of sending out policemen in plain clothes. (a) I own that it does not strike me that there is any impro. priety in it; for those who have to prevent disturbances, would not do their duty if they did not take every means of discovering the persons who were concerned in them. For, although it would be improper, as suggested on the part of the prisoner, if persons were sent out to lead others into the commission of offences; yet when the object is to prevent the commission of crime, parties would not do their duty if they did not take every means of finding out the parties concerned by sending those in among them who might be able to make the discovery.

On the part of the prisoner a great deal of evidence has been given to show that the conduct of the policemen was very violent and very outrageous. You will have therefore to consider whether their conduct was a sufficient provocation to the prisoner to resist as he did, or whether, from the fact of his having taken the weapon out with him, there was that malignity of purpose which would have made the offence of the prisoner amount to murder, if death had ensued.

It appears from the evidence of Mr. Stallwood that the proclamation contained in the Riot Act was not read. Now, a riot is not the less a riot nor an illegal meeting the less an illegal meeting because the proclamation of the Riot Act has not been read, the effect of that proclamation being to make the parties guilty of a capital offence if they do not disperse within an hour; but, if that proclamation be not read, the common law offence remains, and it is a misdemeanor(); and all magistrates, constables, and even private individuals, are justified in dispersing the

(a) The suggestion was that police spies in plain clothes fomented the disturbance. (b) See Appendix C.

offenders; and if they cannot otherwise succeed in doing so, they may use force. I do not lay down this as the law for the first time; the law has been so laid down by the judges on the special commissions.(a) There has also been given in evidence a proclamation issued by order of one of the Secretaries of State; and in that proclamation it is stated that printed papers have been posted up, advertising that a public meeting would be held to adopt preparatory measures for holding a National Convention. Now, that proclamation is not evidence that the meeting was to be held for the purposes there mentioned. It is, in effect, only a notice given by the Secretary of State, and is evidence in this case in no other way; but, if placards convening the meeting were posted up, stating that the meeting was for those purposes, then it is an illegal meeting. If it was intended by force to make any alterations in the laws of the country, that would be a much more serious offence, as it would be high treason. The proclamation states it to be an illegal meeting, and commands all constables and others to disperse it. If such a notice be given, and a party chooses to treat it as of no effect, he does it at his own risk.(b)

Clarkson, for the prisoner: The Solicitor General did not offer any evidence to show that this proclamation was issued by the Secretary of State.

GASELEE, J.: That is true; but, without any proclamation at all, if a meeting is illegal, a party who attends it knowing it to be so is guilty of an offence. There may be a difficulty in saying in what way this meeting was illegal, but it was either illegal as a misdemeanor or a higher offence; and, whichever it was, it justifies the dispersion of the meeting. One of the witnesses has stated that the purpose of the meeting was to adopt preparatory measures for holding a National Convention, and that that was generally known. If you think that the meeting was held for the purpose of adopting preparatory measures for the holding of a National Convention, then the police had a right to interfere, and arrest the parties. The first question will be, whether the prisoner was the person who gave the wound to the prosecutor Brooke? And the question

for the trial of the Bristol and Nottingham (a) The special commissions issued in 1832 rioters. See above, p. 1.

(b) "If after such a notice as that parties choose to treat it as deserving of no regard, but actually do attend a meeting of this description, they must take the consequences and be liable to the punishment to be inflicted upon parties so conducting themselves."-Shorthand Notes.

will then be, whether there was such provocation as would have reduced the offence to the crime of manslaughter if death had ensued? If you are of opinion that the prisoner, having taken the flag in his hand, had prepared the weapon with a view of protecting it under all circumstances, then I own it appears to me that there are not those circumstances which will reduce the crime, so as that, if this person Brooke had died, it would not have amounted to murder. If you think that the prisoner, previous to his going out, prepared a deadly weapon to resist any attempt to defeat the object of the meeting, or to prevent himself from being deprived of the flag which he carried, I am bound to tell you that I think the offence has been proved.

A Juryman: Before we retire will your Lordship let me ask a question? The only evidence as to the character of the meeting is that to which you have referred given by Mr. William Carpenter. His evidence goes to show that it was notorious that a meeting was to be held, but not for that purpose; and there is no evidence put in, I believe, in any form, not even a copy of the advertisements or placards which the getters-up of this meeting had issued, so that we cannot gather it from the meeting itself, Mr. Carpenter's evidence only referring to that. Are we to consider it an illegal meeting as a matter of course, because it is so pronounced in the proclamation by the Secretary of State ?

PARKE, J.: Certainly not.

GASELEE, J.: No, I have stated that Mr. Carpenter says what was the object of the meeting.

PARKE, J. He does not state the proclamation but the placards. The placards have not been put in.

Another Juryman: Then the legality of the meeting we are not to decide upon? GASELEE, J.: If the meeting was legal, then the arrest was improper. Then the question is whether the resistance to the arrest was proportioned to the attempt made to arrest. It is not because a man attempts to arrest you wrongfully that

you are to kill him with an instrument prepared for the purpose of supporting you in what you are about to do. The question would be, whether that instrument was prepared to resist any attempt to oppose them at all hazards, or whether it was under those circumstances which, according to your honest opinion, would justify you in saying he did not do it with that intent. If he did, in point of law I have told you the consequences. You will consider your verdict. If there is any information I can give you I shall be happy to do it. They have not given in the placards, but one of the witnesses has said what the object of the meeting was.

His Lordship concluded at twenty minutes after one o'clock, when the jury retired to consider of their verdict.

At twenty minutes past two the jury returned into court, and the foreman, addressing the judges, said, "My Lords, we have, as your Lordships are aware, given not only long, but close and anxious attention to this case, and have, since we retired, considered with all the care which it was possible to bring to bear upon it, the evidence on both sides, and we cannot on such evidence conscientiously pronounce any other verdict than Not guilty."(a) Verdict, not guilty.

(Attornies: Maule & B., and Harmer & Co.)

MATERIALS MADE USE OF.-The report is partly taken from 6 Carrington and Payne's Nisi Prius Reports, p. 81. The shorthand notes in the possession of the Solicitor of the Treasury, the evidence in the Old Bailey Sessions Papers, and the report in the Times of 5th July 1833 have also been made use of.

(a) Annual Register, 1833 (Law Cases), p. 327. "The announcement was received with a

general burst of applause, which it was impossible to stem within the walls of the court, and without, the applause, even at this late hour, was, to say the least of it, deafening."-The Times, 5th July 1833, and Place MSS. 27, 797, f. 214.