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 incite?"-The Foreman. “Yes.”—Mr Littledale." This verdict must be taken 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 2000, Mr Johnson of 1000l., Knight, Bamford, and Healy, 500/. 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 admit. ted upon the subject.. With respect to the first of these objections, the pa pers 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

ject of Parliamentary Reform. The third objection was to the reception of that evidence which regarded the training and drilling, and the assault at White-moss. The question submitted to the Jury upon this head presented two points: first, the general character of the assembly; and, second, the particular case of each individual charged, as connected with that general character. Now it was proved by the evidence, that a very considerable part of the persons assembled, and indeed all who came from a distance, came to the meeting in large bodies, in organized bodies, and with a military step and movement. The conclusion which would naturally be drawn from such appearances was a point for the consideration of the Jury; and no reason able person will say that that point was left to the Jury in a manner more unfavourable to the defendants than was warranted by the circumstances. It is also proper to state, that at the particular place from which one of these large bodies came, persons had been formed and trained to marching and military movements; and that these same persons had violently ill-treated certain individuals, whom they called spies, and had made one of those individuals take an oath that he never would be a King's man or name the King again; and that some of the persons who composed the Manchester meeting expressed their hatred to this man, by hissing and hooting as they passed his house. There can be no doubt, I think, that this evidence formed matter for the consideration of the Jury. With respect to the last point the reception of evidence as to the inscription upon the flags or banners-I think it was not necessary either to produce those flags, or to give notice to the defendants to produce them. Those cases in which the actual production of writings has been required, are widely different from the present case.

am not aware that the evidence of eyewitnesses as to flags exposed to public view was ever called in question until now. Inscriptions, under such circumstances, are public expressions of the sentiments of those persons who bear or who adopt them. If it were to be held that words so exhibited could not be proved unless by the actual production of the flags, why should the witness be allowed to state the colour of the flag, or even to say that he saw the flag at all? because, according to Mr Hunt's argument upon each of those points, the production would be the best evidence; and if parole evidence under any circumstances ought to be received, I think it was good evidence in the present case, notwithstanding the assertion that some of the banners were at the time of the trial in the custody of a constable at York; because, even taking this to be the fact, if the flags had been produced, then the prosecutors might have been called upon to prove that the flags produ ced were the same flags taken at the meeting; to deduce them from hand to hand; and, in case one step should fail, the evidence must be rejected altogether. To require such proof would be unreasonable, and to give it, in many cases, impossible. Having now disposed of these objections to the law laid down in the case, I shall take no notice of what has been called misdirection as to this or that particular point; I shall only say, generally, that the whole effect of the evidence appears to me to have been left most properly to the Jury: that the Jury were not directed to presume against the defendants any thing which was not well warranted by the evidence; and that they have not come to any conclusion which the nature of that evidence did not fully justify. I therefore think that this is not a case in which a rule to shew cause should be granted.

On the 15th May, the defendants

were called up to receive judgment. Affidavits were put in, and a speech of considerable length made by Mr Hunt in mitigation of punishment.

Mr Justice BAYLEY, in pronouncing the judgment of the Court, went at great length into the detail of the case. From the great number of persons who attended the meeting of the 16th August, that meeting could scarcely be considered a deliberative assembly. The probability was, that, in a meeting of such magnitude, individuals would rather be taught their grievances by the persons who presided than state the grievances which they actually endured, and that the remedies resolved up. on would be provided in the same manner. His lordship then adverted to the question as to the resolutions. If the resolutions to be passed at the Manchester meeting were the Smithfield resolutions, no one could entertain any doubt of the effect which such proposals were calculated to produce upon such an assembly. If it was intended to pass different resolutions, it had been competent to the defendants to shew, by evidence or by affidavits, what these resolutions were. The learned Judge concluded his address by observing that the Court had not been inattentive to the affidavits of the defendants, and proceeded to pass

sentence.

The sentence of the Court was, that Mr Hunt should be imprisoned in Ilchester gaol for the term of two years and six months. At the expiration of that time to find sureties for his good behaviour during a further term of five years, himself in 1000l. and two other persons in 500l. each. Johnston, Healy, and Bamford, to be imprisoned in Lincoln-goal for the period of one year, and, at the expiration of that time, each to enter into sureties for his good behaviour during five years, himself in 2001. and two other persons in 100l. each.

Mr Hunt wished to know whether his confinement was to be solitary confinement.

Mr Justice BAYLEY replied, that the Court made no such order. He had no doubt that every proper attention would be paid to the convenience of the defendants; and, if cause of complaint should arise, that complaint would be attended to.

SIR FRANCIS Burdett, for LIBEL, CONTAINED IN A LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS, on the MANCHESter ProceedINGS.

Leicester, March 23d.

The Jury being impanelled, Mr BALGUY opened the proceeding. He stated, that this was an information filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the defendant, Sir Francis Burdett, for a libel. The first count charged, that the defendant, being an ill-disposed person, and intending to excite hatred and contempt of his Majesty's Government, and particularly among the soldiers of the King, and wishing to have it believed that certain troops of the King, on the 16th of August, 1819, wantonly and cruelly cut down certain of his Majesty's subjects, did, on the 22d of the same month of August, publish a certain libel. The count then set out the libel verbatim, which was in these words :

"To the Electors of Westminster.

"Gentlemen-On reading the newspaper this morning, having arrived late yesterday evening, I was filled with shame, grief, and indignation, at the account of the blood spilt at Manchester. This, then, is the answer of the boroughmongers to the petitioning people-this is the practical proof of our standing in no need of reform

these the practical blessings of our glorious boroughmonger dominationthis the use of a standing army in time of peace. It seems our fathers were not such fools as some would make us believe, in opposing the establishment of a standing army, and sending King William's Dutch Guards out of the country. Yet, would to Heaven they had been Dutchmen, or Switzers, or Hessians, or Hanoverians, or any thing rather than Englishmen, who have done such deeds. What! kill men unarmed, unresisting!-and, gracious God! women, too, disfigured, maimed, cut down, and trampled upon by dragoons! Is this England? This a Christian land? A land of freedom? Can such things be, and pass us by like a summer cloud unheeded?-Forbid it every drop of English blood, in every vein, that does not proclaim its owner bas. tard! Will the gentlemen of England support or wink at such proceedings? They have a great stake in their country. They hold great estates, and they are bound in duty, and in honour, to consider them as retaining fees on the part of their country for uphold. ing its rights and liberties. Surely they will at length awake, and find they have other duties to perform besides fattening bullocks and planting cabbages. They never can stand tamely by, as lookers on, while bloody Neroes rip open their mothers' wombs! They must join the general voice, loudly demanding justice and redress; and head public meetings throughout the United Kingdom, to put a stop, in its commencement, to a reign of terror and of blood, to afford consolation, as far as it can be afforded, and legal redress, to the widows and orphans and mutilated victims of this unparalleled and barbarous outrage. For this purpose, I propose that a meeting should be called in Westminster, which the gentlemen of the committee will arrange, and whose summons I will hold my

Whether

self in readiness to attend. the penalty of our meeting will be death, by military execution, I know not; but this I know, a man can die but once; and never better than in vindicating the laws and liberties of his country.

"Excuse this hasty address. I can scarcely tell what I have written. It may be a libel; or the Attorney-General may call it so-just as he pleases. When the seven bishops were tried for a libel, the army of James II., then encamped on Hounslow-heath, for supporting arbitrary power, gave three cheers on hearing of their acquittal : the King, startled at the noise, asked, What's that?' Nothing, sir,' was the answer, but the soldiers shouting at the acquittal of the seven bishops." Do ye call that nothing?' replied the misgiving tyrant; and shortly after abdicated the government. 'Tis true, James could not inflict the torture on his soldiers!-could not tear the living flesh from their bones with a cat-ofnine-tails!-could not flay them alive! -Be this as it may, our duty is to meet! and England expects every man to do his duty!'

"I remain, Gentleman,
Most truly and faithfully,

Your most obedient servant, F. BURDETT. "Kirby-park, Aug. 22. 1819.”

The learned Counsel said, that the information contained other counts, laying the charge in a different man

ner.

Mr Serjeant VAUGHAN then addressed the Jury.-Considering with whom this prosecution originated, and against whom it was levelled, he was not surprised that it had excited the curiosity and interest which appeared in the court. A great law-officer of the Crown had thought it necessary to bring before a Jury of his country a gentleman of ancient family, of great