Peterloo Trial Account

The Manchester "Pratt" edition of
the famous trial at York of Hunt,
Bamford, and the other Reformers.
William Hulton's copy (Chairman
of the Manchester Magistrates) who
was seven hours in the witness-box
in this trial, with inserted manuscript
notes in his own hand.

\
ae ee
AN IMPARTIAL
REPORT
OF
The King
/
Versus
q
HENRY HUNT,
JOSEPH JOHNSON, JOHN KNIGHT, JAMES
|
HOORHOUSE, JOSEPH HEALEY, JOHN THACKER SAXTON |
ROBERT JONES, SAMUEL BAMFORD, GEORGE
L
|
SWIFT, AND ROBERT WILDE,
FOR
oe
A Conspwacy, ;
TRIED
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY, |
AND
A SPECIAL JURY,
At York Spring Assizes,
ON THE |
\
)
16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 2ist, 22d, 93d, 24th, 25th, and 27thof
MARCH, 1820.
\
~AIEeaTR ;
MANCHESTER: |
k PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH PRATT.
SOLD ALSO BY
Messrs. W. and W. Clarke, E. Thomson, Bancks and Co. J. Ford, T. Sowler. /
7. Crook, Mrs. Richardson, Mrs. Fletcher, R. and W. Dean,
J. Roberts, J. Royle, J. Ellis, T. Barrett, § J. Gleave.
|
AND BY BOOKSELLERS IN
LIVERROOL, W ARRINGTON, BOLTON, PRESTON, ROCHD ALITY, BC RY
ASHTON, OLDUAM, STOCKPORT, LANCASTER, &C
TR20

=
|
|
|
:
\
ames of the Pury.
WittuaM Harz, Eso. Foreman,
Wit1am Cueater, Ese.
JAMES Barker, Ese.
Joun Hurron, Eso.
Gro. Atkinson, Jun. Ese.
Francis Rogson, Eso.
Timorny Hutton, Ese.
Gero. Beswick, Ese.
Joun Cuapwick, Eso.
Witriam Sexey, Ese.
Tales.
Mr. Seprimus Bromury, of“Sculcoates, Auli,
|\ |
|
Poe See eee
Mr. Geo. Appery, of Wakefield,
Counselfor the Prosecution,
j
Mn. Scarterr, Mr. SERJEANT Huiock, M
Mr. Lirrimpate.
R. SERJEANT Cross, and
Attorney, Mr. Maury, (Solicitor for the Treasury)
Counsel for the Defence.
} ’
Mr. Horr, for J. 'b. Saxton.
Mr. Barrow, for J. Moorhouse and R. Jones,
\
(Tue orner Derenpants PLEADED THEIR OWN Causz.)
|
Attorney for the Defence,
Mr. Pearson.
: Ue
: |) BeRuUNO BreaL MULE COEFROTETAAPE
|
]
\

esate:
/garamg the greav wumver Ol:PEYRORGRAETAL
==
ea

E garamgythne greatnumper ot persor

~ e , farangthe greabnumperom persongiseatedBartisters
hb
‘

THE TRIAL, Xe.
THE KING
Versus
HENRY HUNT, JOHN KNIGHT, JOSEPH JOHNSON, JOHN TT’.
SAXTON, JAMES MOORHOUSE, JOSEPH ROBERT JONES,
GEORGE SWIFT, ROBERT WILD, JOSEPH HEALEY, AND
SAMUEL BAMFORD.
On Thursday, March 16, 1820.
a
We Indictment in this case, it may be proper to observe, was
originally found at Lancaster, but on an application from the
Defendants to the Judges in the Court of King’s Bench, itwas moved
by certiorari into the Nisi Prius Court of York.
Athalf-past seven o’clock in the morning the Court began to
fill, and by eight o’clock, all the boxes and galleries were occupied.
by gentlemen of the first respectability. Not fewer than twenty
reporters were in attendance from the different London and proyincial
papers. About a quarter past eight Mr. Hunt madehis appearance,
accompanied by Messrs. Pearson and Harmer. They were
followed a short time afterwards by Messrs. Johnson, Wilde, Healey,
Saxton, and the other defendants. They seated themselves at the
semicircular table, which is placed in the centre of the Court, and
they occupied more than half the space usually occupied by the
leading counsel. Mr. Hunt was nearly opposite the Jury Box.
Mr. LirrLepALs commenced the proceedings by reading the indictment,
which charged the defendants with having on the Ist of July,
conspired together, to call divers public Meetings of the people, and
thereby to excite terror in the minds of his Majesty’s liege subjects,
and that in furtherance of their designs they had produced an unlaw~
ful assembly at Manchester on the 16th of August last, for the purpose
of breaking the peace and exciting disturbances in the town;
and it also charges them with attending the said Meeting, at which
sixty thousand persons at the least were present, many of whom
conducted themselves in a formidable and menacing manner, and
were armed with clubs and other weapons, having also flags with
them, on which were divers seditious and inflammatoryinscriptions.
This indictment contained two counts, one charging the defendants
with a conspiracy, and the other witha riot.
As Mr. ScarvLetr wasrising to address the Jury, some conversation
took place between him, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hunt, ref
1 , garding the great number of persons seated at the Barristers’ table.

eee
' ducting thei
6
Mr. Justice Barry decided that all persons, who were conr
own defence, ought to be allowed to sit there; the
rest might be accommodated with seats behind the counsel.
Mr. Hunt said, that he was willing to agree to any arrangement,
which his Lordship might think it proper to make. He was
not, however, aware that any arrangement had been previously
made for the accommodation of himself, and the other defendants;
and he had, therefore, placed them in the situations which they
then occupied. Room, would, however, be easily found for them behind
the bar, as he intended to move before the opening of the case,
that all the witnesses, on both sides, and he knew that a great: many
were in Court, should be orderedoutofit. 4 :
Mr. Justice Baiey then ordered the several witnesses,
both for the prosecution and defence, to withdraw from the Court.
Mr. Tuomas Barrow. And out of hearing too.
The order was complied with, and among the other witnesses
who withdrew, were the Rev. Mr. Hay, Mr. Hulton, Mr. Sylvester,
Col. Fletcher, Mr. R. Wright, and several other Manchester
Magistrates, who had been active on the 16th of August, and for
whom two boxes had beenespecially reserved in the Court. Several
of the reporters, and a great number of persons indifferent
parts of the Court also withdrew. ;
The JupGe then ordered the proclamation to be made, that if
any witnesses on either side should remain in the Court after this
notice, their evidence should not be received. From this rule, however,
an exception was made in favor of the Solicitors on both
sides. ‘ f
Mr. SCARLETT now commencedbystating, thatit was scarcely
ossible that the Jury could be unacquainted with the leading features
of the transactions which gave rise to the present indictment,
and which it would be his duty to bring under their consideration.
Various reports of the circumstances had beencirculated all over the
country, and some of those reports must have fallen into their hands.
Though this was a subject of regret, inasmuch as the accounts
might prejudice their minds, yet he hadstill the most perfect. confidence
in the Jury he was aboutto address; and he had no doubt,
from the correct understanding of the important duty they had to
erform, that they would throwall that they had previously heard
out of their thoughts, and decide fairly upon the evidence laid before
them, of the guilt or otherwise of the defendants. For himself,
he had great satisfaction in being able to address a Yorkshire Jury
on the present occasion; he was rejoiced at it: because the Jury
before whom it was brought, could hardly possibly be influenced by
anylocal or personal considerations that might elsewhere have interfered
with the due administration ofjustice. Had the choice beer
left to him, he knew no set of men to whom he would more cheerfully
have referred it than a Jury of the county of York: | he felt per-
‘fectly satisfied with the decision in the Court of King’s Bench on
the subject. ;
They must also be aware that the charge preferred against the
defendants’grew out of a Meeting which took place in the county of
Lancaster, in the monthof August, last year. ‘The defendants were
7
sharged with holding, andassisting at an illegal Meeting: a Meeting
the object of which was to inspire alarm and terror in the minds of °
their fellow subjects.. It was necessary for himto detail certain circumstances
which had preceded the Meeting alluded to, and these
would furnish in themselves the ground work and matter of charge
against the defendants ; and at the same timereflect light on other
parts of their conduct. The defendants, it was well known, were
the planners of several public Meetings, and if it should be shewn
that the object of such Meetings was to change the law of the land
by force, thepersons presiding at, and assisting iv such an assembly,
would beanswerable to the offended laws ofthe country. It was undoubtedly
the right of the people of England,in any particular place,
to hold public Meetings for the purpose of taking into their consideration
any alleged grievances, andto petition the Legislature forredress
of those grievances. The right to hold such Meetings was among
the most valued privileges of British subjects. But those Meetings
were unknownto the Constitution—unknownto the practice of former
times—and unknownto the law of Engiand, which were called
for the purpose of uniting for one commonobject all parts of the nation;
and which, underpretence ofseeking for relief of alleged grievances
went to inspire terror and alarm. It never had been, and he
hoped it never would be a part of the law of England, that any one
man, or set of men, should have the powerof calling togetlme all
the people of England, to meet at one giventime, and at one particular
place, for the purpose of diseussing the grievances of which
they might complain-—or comingto resolutions on the remedy which
they in their wisdom might think proper, or ought to be adopted.
Such, he would repeat, never had been, and such he would contend
never could be the law; and he would tell the Jury why it could
not. No man could deny that the physical power of the country
rested with the people; and those who, like some of the present defendants,
contended thatall right and all power cameoriginally from
the resolutions of the people ;—those who, referring back to a very
early period of our history, found in such resolutions the grounds of
our Constitution ;—those contendingthat the people had a right to
meet en masse, proved that such Meeting was contrary to law.
If they could suppose all the people of England assembled on some
important occasion, on some occasion when they might be gathered
on one great plain, they must, in recognizing such an assembly, admit
asa consequence that in such case all constitutional power,
andall functions of the state, would return to the original mass.
Tt followed then, that if so vast an asssembly, an assembly possessed
of such mighty powers, were convened to adopt measures
for the general good, that it would resume the functions
of the constituted authorities, and the whole form of the government
would be dissolved. Hence then it followed, that the people, Meeting
of their ownfree will, or obedient to the call of some aspiring
demagogue, to unite for any general purpose, and not for the remedy
of any local or peculiar evil—it followed, he would maintain, that
such a Meeting, absorbing all law, never could be a legal Meeting.
Ifa case were supposed, of which moderntimes afforded no example,
like that of Athens, where 30,000 men formed the state, and

8 \
where it was the established rule to meet occasionally for the purpose
of re-modeling their laws—then, the powers of the government
being constantly with the people themselves, such a proceeding might
not be at variance with the constitution under which they lived.
But, even at Athens, though such extensive powers were exercised,
the greater part of the population was doomedto unrelenting slavery,
and was allowed no voice in the public debates.
The character of the Meeting, from which the present charge
had sprang, he would nowinvite the Jury to investigate. The right
of the people of England to mect and discuss their peculiar grievances
he had already admitted. This was a privilege which, from
ancient usage, they had a right to claim, and he trusted that no
factions disturber—no sanguinary demagogue—andno public alarmist,
would ever be able to shake the constitutional basis of that
right, for which our ancestors had fought and bled, and which he
hoped we should know howto preserve, and to hand downto our posterity.
They would presently see how far these wholesome principles
of liberty had been acted upon by the defendants. Of the
course which Mr. Hunthad taken, he need not say much.
It was unnecessary to say any thing in description of this
defendant, because his name had appeared so much connected
in the late transactions as to leave no doubt on the mind of any
mayaas. to his character and avocations. The. others were
more obscure, aud he should, therefore, tell the Jury, who they
were. John Knight, had formerly been a Manufacturer, at Manchester;
his occupation had latterly been that of an itinerant orator.
Joseph Johnson was a Brush-maker, residing in or near Manchester,
and, he believed, was also in the habit of attending public Meetings.
Of John Thacker Saxton, all the description he knew was,
that he was some way orother connected with the Office of a paper
called the Manchester Observer. Joseph Healey was an Apothecary.
James Moorhouse was a Coach Proprietor, residing at
Stockport. George Swift followed the business of a Shoe-maker, at
Manchester.. Of Robert Wild he knew nothing but that he resided
at Ashton-under-lyne. Samuel Bamford and Robert Jones
were individuals in humble circumstances. The Jury would find
that they were all connected in some sort of way in one general
schemefor altering the laws and constitution of the country. To
commence with Mr. Hunt: it appeared that he had some timein
the month of July, 1819, assisted at a Meeting held in Smithfield ;
by whom assembledit was not now theirbusiness to inquire. At that
Meeting certain resolutions were passed, the object. of which was
to inculcate on the people of England, that the time was now arrived
when some extraordinary and efficient measures should be taken
to remedy the evils which were then the subject of complaint—
when in fact. something like a provincial goverment should be established
to annul those laws which were passed with the concurrence
of that body at present called the House of Commons. It appeared
that Mr. Hunt and the party with him proposed resolutions that
eameto that in substance. Among them were two that went to declare
the people were not bound to obey the laws framed by Parliament
as at present constituted. The enlightened body assembled
9
at Smitfield proceeded to declare, that the people of England were
not bound to pay the taxes imposed, nor obey the laws at present
in force, until such a Parliament could be procured as met with the
approbation of those by whom the resolutions first mentioned
had been framed. He alluded to the proceedings at Smitfield for no
other purpose, than to shew the Jury the probable cause of Mr.
Hunt’s being invited to preside over the Meeting held at Manchester.
On the 9th August, a Meeting of the people was called at
Manchester, for the purpose of taking into consideration certain
public grievances, to discuss the best mode of obtaining a Par-
, liamentary Reform, and to choose a Representative, to be returned
by that Meeting, to sit in the House of Commonsas their Legislatorial
Attorney. This, he thought, must strike every one, was a
measure that did not fall any thing short of the highest misdemeanour.
Acting thus, they at once renounced all law, and set the
authority of the Kinghimself at nought, by which alone,in the early
periods of our Constitution, all Parliaments were called together.—
It was known, that in other times Parliaments were wholly regulated
by the will of the Crown. It was only after the lapse of many
ages, numerous changes, and favoured by a variety of happy accidents,
that England became possessed of that popular, deliberate assembly
now seen in the House of Commons. Onthe 8th of August it
appeared then, that Mr. Hunt made his appearance in the neighbourhood
of Manchester. He was met at a place nine miles distant
from the town, and conducted by Johnson, another of the
defendants, to Stockport. On the morning of the 9th, it would
be found, they were making progress together to Manchester, with
(as he believed) Sir Charles Wolseley in their company. He
could prove, from words used by Hunt, andbills posted round the
town of Manchester, that the Meeting called for the purpose before
specified had been prohibited by the Magistrates,as illegal, and
the people were forbidden to attend it. It would equally well appear
also, that Mr. Hunt was disappointed and displeased with the
conduct of the people on that occasion: they had offended him in
some measure by the dispositions they had manifested in yielding to
the orders of the Magistrates. He made a speech on that occasion
couched in very indecorous language, in which he spoke of the Magistrates,
nine i number, as being ninetailors; at the same time
reproaching the Meeting with having yielded a too-ready acquiescence
with their prohibition. He reprehended their conduct altogether
as unbecomingandpusillanimous. He considered the time arrived
whena different course ought to be pursued, and he consequently
gave notice that he would hold a Meeting in Manchester onthe following
Monday, the 16th of August, and insisted on their attending
him on that day. This notice being given, Mr. Hunt went
to the residence of Mr. Johnson, near Manchester, called Smedley
Cottage. There he remained some days, and while there, he
should be able to shew he was visited by Mr. Knight and some of the
other defendants. Apparently in connection with the proposed
Meeting, secret drillings, at the dead hour of night, were known
to have taken place, at several places, within the distance offive,
six, or seven iniles round Manchester. These drillings, tho’ decid-

eee
10
edly unlawful, were boldly carried on, and were dangerous to approach.
On the Morning of the 15th of August, a party of men
were seen at a place called White Moss, practising military evolutions,
in a way that left no doubt that some ulterior object was in view.
Attracted by curiosity, those who saw the proceedings at White Moss,
yentured to approach near them, and were in consequence beaten
in a most brutal and cruel manner. One of the two persons who
were thus treated, was recognised as a Police Officer of Manchester,
and obliged to fall on his knees, and recant the allegiance he had
sworn to his Sovereign.
Mr. Hunt here interposed, and appealed to the Judge, whether
the allusion to this circumstance to which his case had not the
remotest application, could be intended for any thing else than te
excite an unfair prejudice against him?
Mr. Justice BatLey—THit shall appear unconnected withany
transactions in which, according to the evidence, you may appear
to have been engaged, then I shall take and remove anyprejudice
in the minds of the Jury which it may appearcalculated to excite.
Mr. Hunr—TIfeel perfectly happy in your Lordship’s hands.
Mr. ScarLett resumed, and said he was too old im his profession
to be set astray by any interruptions, whetheraccidental or designed.
But he would inform the defendant if he wished to know it
—(Mr. Hunt exclaimed ‘Yes ’”?)—what use he meant to makeof it.
Heinformed him then, that he meant to connect him deeply andcriminally
in the transactions that took place at Manchester and its
vicinity previous to the 16th of August—(Mr. Hunt, Very well,
do so if you can.)—He meant to connect him with men who were
engaged in those secret and obscure movements. The Magistrates
at Manchester, on finding that a gentleman from London, who had
no connection with their own neighbourhood whatever, was come
downto preach to the people, at another great Meeting on the 16th
of August, determined to take such steps as would as far as possible
secure the public peace. In coming to that Meeting of the 16th of
August, he would open a scene to the Jury, which he ventured to say
had no example in the whole system of public Meetings of any country.
What was the Meeting to have been? Wasit to represent the
feeling of the people of Manchester? Noa, but to congregate in that
town, to the interruption ofal! public and private business, and to the
disquietude of all who had property there, the people from not only
the surrounding parts, but from places at a considerable distance.
[Here the learned Counsel put in a map of Manchester and the surrounding
townships, and explained, which cannot here be doneif it
were material, the local position of the surrounding cuuntry.] Early
onthe morning of the 16th he said the people were observed moving
in large bodies upon Manchester, as the commoncentre. They were
regularly formed ; they advanced with banners and music, and with
all the appearance and form of an invading army, except the want of
cannon. They advanced upon the town in divisions from Rochdale,
Saddleworth, Leeds, Oldham, Middleton, and many otherplaces in
the adjoining counties, The defendant Bamford, was seen at Middleton,
arranging a body of 2,000 men; he regularly dressed them, to
use a military phrase, formed into a hollow square, put laurels into
il
their hats, to distinguishofficers from privates, and marched them on
and united them with 2,000 more men from Rochdale, Healey was
at Oldham, similarly occupied with his detachment, and singing on
the way a song of triumph,in anticipation of the exploits of the day.
The town of Manchester was thus every way enclosedby large bodies
of people, marching to it on the 16th. Lo the first body that moved
on the high road, were some of the men who had been seen at White
Moss the day before, arrived opposite Murray’s house, one of the
men who had been socruelly treated, and who was lying then in
bed in consequence of his bruises, they commenced a loud huzza,
halted, and by their whole conduct proved they exulted in the recollections
of the proceedings, and hailed the sufferer, to confirm
him inthe oath they had forced him to take. It was about eleven
o’clock that Mr. Hunt and his party were seen to enter the town.
He first approached.Murray’s house ; when he stood upin the carriage
that conveyed him, and ordered the processionto stop, and the
same token of a knowledge of what had occurred at White Moss was
shown by Hunt’s party, as that which had been given by the party
themselves. He next passed on to the Star Inn, where the Magistrates
were silting, and from thence to the Police Office, at which
places the parties issued the most hideous groans and shouts. The
party then proceeded to the place of Meeting, which had been prepared
for them under the direction of several of the defendants, and
those defendants were also employed in arranging the mob. It would
be found that the Magistrates having taken their station in a house
on the ground, had established line of constables extending nearly
to the hustings. |The mab were directed to form themselves round
the hustings at particular distances, and when Hunt arrived, to open;
let him pass, and immediately close up again. They were particularly
directed to admit none but their friends amongst them. All
these things were arranged with great regularity when Mr. Hunt arrived,
accompanied by personsbearing largesticks, and banners with
various inscriptions, and moving in perfect military order. When
they approached the hustings, they wheeled off to the right andleft ;
and indeedall their motions indicated a considerable proficiency in
military exercises. The learned Counsel then proceeded to describe
the mottos and inscriptions on the different banners. One borethe
inscription of “ Equal representation or death.” Mr. Scarlett putit to
the Jury to reflect what was meant by this. It was nota propertime
or place to go into the question of Parliamentary Reform. Onthat
subject many honourable and patriotic men differed from each other;
bat whatever varieties of opinion might exist on this subject, there
was no true patriot, no honest man, who would notresist to extremity,
rather than countenance any attempt to alter the Constitutionby
force. But did not the motto ga to intimate that the parties composing
the Meeting were determined to obtain equal representation or death?
“No Corn Laws,” too, were inscribed upon their banners, as if
they had not had enough to inflame the popular mind without
that addition. On another banner was inscribed «Annual Parliaments,
Universal Suffrage, and Election by Ballot”? Now he
knew that there were very many well-meaning men, who advocated.
the first of these measures; but was it right that such a principle

12
13
2S PUere
should be artfully held up to the people as an imprescriptive right,
which they ought to put forth as an imperative demand, just as
they were desired by any unprincipled demagogue? It was melancholy
that the populace could be so worked upon, often to their
own destruction. In vain were their eyes opened by ridicule—he
recollected Hogarth’s fine print of the change in the calendar.
Many.years ago an alteration was made in the calendar for the computation
of time, when it became necessary to strike out eleven
days to make the divisions answerto the best-received calculations.
Mobswere then found to protest against this alteration, and heroes
were also found to work ontheir folly and passions. People were
found preaching about the absurd notion that they lost eleven days
of their existence by the change, and great efforts were made to
adhere in preference to the old plan.—lIt wasfinely ridiculed in Hogarth’s
print, in which the mob were represented throwing up their
hats in great commotion, and exclaiming “Give us back our eleven
days—whyare they to be taken from us ?””—( Laughter)—The same
absurdity was always to be practised upon the credulityof the multitude.
Who, he wished to know, had beenselling or endeavouringtosell
the people of Royton, Oldham, Middleton, and the other places that
that day poured their thousands into Manchester? The only intention
of such insignia was to inflame the minds of the populace assembled;
to rouse their passions; and in course of his practice he
knew of no law which sanctioned such an inroad on the Constitution
of the country. The Jury would recollect that this Mecting
was not called by any body of the people of Manchester, or of the
county of Lancaster, nor by any person connected with either the
town or county. What, then, could be ihe object or purpose of this
Meeting? These were considerations to which the Jury would have
to direct their serious attention. He must contend that the meeting
was convened for the avowed purpose of inspiring terror and alarm,
and he would put it to their candour whether such an immense
number of labourers and mechanics as were assembled together on
that day, could fail to produce the most serious alarm in the minds
of men of property? Could such a Meeting be lawful in a country
where laws were framed for the security of property? If it could,
they might as well dispense with the laws altogether. Were such
Meetings to be tolerated, they would compel Government to maintain
a larger military force than at present existed; a result upon
which no friend to his country could reflect but with alarm. Of
what service was the eivil power in such cases? What could 200
constables have done against a mob of 60,000 men, and menfor the
most part ofdesperate habits, fortune, and character. The Magistrates,
finding the mobsincrease in such endless numbers, could not
know howfarits ramifications might extend. They could not be certain
that the people of Birmingham, Coventry, and other manufacturing
towns, were not coming down upon them ss well as the Reformers
of Rochdale, Middleton, and Oldham. The Magistrates,
therefore, became very properly alarmed for the safety of the town,
and the lives and property of their townsmen; and in consequence
issued a warrant for the apprehension of the leaders of this formidable
multitude, who were accordingly apprehended, and now brought
before the Jury for their opinion as to their guilt or otherwise. He
should proceed to lay the case in evidence before them, which would
prove much stronger than he had beenable to state it. He had the
greatest confidencein them, and was certain they would give a conscientious
verdict on the evidence before them, as to the nature of
the case, and the real character of the Meeting.
Evidence on the part of the Prosecution.
Thefirst witness examined was Thomas Fidler, he lives at Bullock
Smithy, which is three miles from Stockport: saw Mr. Hunt
there, he came with a servant there on the 8thof August, at lwo
o’clock in the afternoon: he remained there four hours, and ‘when he
was gone; Mr. Moorhouse came and enquired for him. Witness informed
him that Mr. Hunt had gone to Stockport, and Mr. Moorhouse
went away in about ten minutes. Mr. Moorhouse was at Bullock
Smithy a few hours before: he drew up for a moment, but did
not stay more than a minute: he did not come into the honse: he
went towards Stockport, and did not see Mr. Iunt.
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow—He said that Mr. Hunt was
not met at Bullock Smithy by Mr. Moorhouse, and conducted to
Stockport. When Moorhousefirst called he did not stop more than
a minute: upon his return he inquired after Mr. Hunt. Moorhouse
had.beenin the habit of calling at his house, and he has known him
intimately, but does not know whether he had been in the habit of
attending political Meetings.
Cross-examined by Mr. HuNr—The witness’ houseis the principal
Inn in the placc: Moorhouse was there before, while Hunt was
in the house, but he did not comein, he only stoppedopposite the stables,
and washalf an hour after Mr. Hunt’sarrival.
Mr. Hunt. Thenit is not trae,as Mr. Scarlett stated, that I
was met by Johnson and Moorhouse, and by him conducted to
Stockport? That is not true ?
Witness. No: the only person who saw him was a person of
the name of Jump: knowsof no otherof the defendants. He conducted
six different persons into his room by Mr. Hunt’s permission: the
door was not kept locked, and no person wasrefused access to him.
H. Lomax keeps the White Lion, at Stockport: saw Moorhouse
and Hunt togetkerlate that night, and again, the next morning,
about eight o’clock : he went into the house ef Moorhouse late
at night, and saw them come out the next morning: another person
joined them about nine o’clock. It was, he understood, Sir Chas.
Wolseley: a crowd of people was assembled to see them. Witness
«aw also Parson Harrison. Witness supposes that the crowd was
collected to see Mr. Hunt: they were not accustomed to have such
crowds except when Mr. Moorhouse was making his speeches. Moorhouse,
Harrison, Hunt, and Wolseley went into Moorhouse’s house.
There was one gig and a hack-chaise. Hunt and Wolseley got into
the gig, and Moorhouse aud Harrison into the chaise.
Cross-examined by Mr. Banrow—Moorhouseis a coach-pro~
prietor: cannot say whether Moorhouse had ever addressed the people.
B ,
a naanSea
Sesre ome
Seeen — SSee E ee

|
Stockport: I saw nobody cut, but a constable pressed down by the
people: I dont know whether he had a limb broke: I dont know
whether he was flying from the cavalry: I thiuk it was as the people
were flying from the cavalry. I saw the cavalry come among the
people, and IT who was for a moment alarmed, gotamong the constables,
who formed two rows from the house where the Magistrates
sat, up to the huslings. I saw Nadin on the ground, but saw nobody
insult him. LTheard Mr. Hunt address the people, and recommend
them to be peaceable, and they remained so until the cavalry
charged, with the exception of one or two who wanted to press roughly
through the constables. I knew one of them, Thomason. .
Examined by Mr. Barrow—I know Mr. Moorhouse, but I
did not see him on the hustings ; he was in the carriage going there.
_ Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant HuLLock—But nothing of any
interest transpired in this re-examination, except his stating he saw
the flags, with inscriptions, among the people, and the coach bring. up
Mr. Hunt and Mr. Johnson to the hustings, and that he heard Mr.
. Hunt say on the hastings, “If any people break the peace, put them
down, keep them down,and make themquiet.” He could form no
judgment how manyof the crowd could hear Mr. Hunt.
Mary CapMAN examined—I was a servant with Mr. Moorhouse
last August. On the 8th August there was a bed made up for
Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt—I admitI slept there that night.
Mr. Moorhouse was(she added) a very religious man,and used
often to read his bible, and to the servants. She expected no riot on
the 8th or 9th of August. Mr. Moorhouse hadsolittle idea of it,
that he took his wife with him. Mr. Moorhouse had eleven chileeee
14
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr—Witness keeps a chaise; has
known Meetings at Sandy-Brow, which witness has attended; never
saw Moorhouseat these meetings; if Moorhouse had beenthere,
and addressed the meeting, he would have noticed it. Witness was
in the yeomanry corps, and wascalled upon to attend on the same
business at Manchester, on the 16th of August. Mr. Moorhouse
might have attended one of these meetings without the witness
knowing it: never saw any crowds upon any other occasion: the
Duke of Wellington never passed through Stockport. Witness
could not help laughing at the Manchester Meeting, as he thought
we(the yeomanrycavalry) hadno right to be called there; it was a
fine day: witness did not see any particular transactions on this day:
was acting there in the capacity of a yeomanry cavalry-man: nothing
took place that day that struck him as being particular : saw nothing
of marching in array, except the yeomaury and the soldiers : saw
manypersons running about, between one and two o’clock, and yet
lie sav nothing particular. The Cheshire yeomanry had nothing at
all to do but stand still. Witness saw some persons down and wound
ed, but did not take any notice of them. [Mr. Scaruett interfered,
and said that what passed subsequent to the arrest of Mr. Hunt,
could not be givenin evidence.} Witness repeated that he saw nothing
particular, during the whole of the day, except that he saw two
flags, which the cavalry had taken. Witness did not see the banners
until he saw them in the handsofthe cavalry. The Stockport
troops had twoflags belonging the people: did not know how they
got possession of these flags: they took them back to Stockport.
The people had nearly ali run away before the Stockport cavalry
ij came upon the ground : their swords were drawn before they came
| upon the ground—the swords were ordered to be drawn before they Gren!
15
1 iio came upon the ground. Sam. Morton examined by Mr. Serjeant Cross—In August ;
| iW Mr. N Hunt; said, 2 thatx as it was in evidence two of the flags last
.
hevlivedinear:
ar St.
St : >
Michael’s Church, Manchester: on the 9th of i
lp ! were in eeeakee —ae of
|
pashea
th
~—
|
that month, saw a number ofpersons
eae
assembled: there was a
uced
great
in
\
Court, instead of being alluded to, by oral evi- ao “aaeroerehesteingaertery were in agig, and .
| | tf i Mr. Ay Justice p Batterysaid, ; . that only two of them were said : probablyfour; there : were about e and 1000 some persons other persons collected, in the the chaise, gig \ f
Pay to have been so disposed of.
i
1 i} M. BENTLEY examined—llive at Heaton Norris, near Stock-
i
| port, and was there on the 8th August last, and saw Mr. Johnson
I | there in the evening of that day in a gig with Mr. Hunt, going toltr
# wards Stockport. I saw Mr. Hant wth the gentleman they called
Sir Charles Wolseley on the following day.
Cross-examined—I know Mr. Johnson: am not a yeoman ; have
been a clerk in a counting-house, but am now out of employ. I was
at Manchester, on St. Peter’s Field, the 16th August, merely from
curiosity, and was at the back of the hustings; I saw no act of vio-
Jence among the large body of people until the military came. Isaw
one or two men very insolent, and wanting to break through the
ranks of the constables. 1 think there were 50 or 60,000 persons
there, and I only saw one or two rough. Either on the way or on
the spot, I saw nothing that alarmed me until the cavalry came. I
was then, indeed, afraid—[Mr. Hunti—“ It was quite time then to
look to yourself.’ |—I saw no arms among the people: live at
stopped in the open space of ground, and Hunt got upon his legs i
and began speaking. Witness said Mr. Hunt made allusions to the
Manchester Magistrates ; he compared them to nine tailors, upon a
shop-board: hesaid in his opinion the Meeting forbidden was a legal
Meeting, and he gave that as the reasonfor calling them tailors,
and he encouraged them to be firm and comeforwards, and there was |
no doubt but they would prosper. Witness said that there was to |
have been a meeting on that day, the 9th of August, but witness does |
not know that it was forbidden, except by the placards which were | i
posted round the town. A placard signed by nine Magistrates
was shown to the witness, who stated that he knew that mostof the
persons whose names were signed to it, were Magistrates. There
was a great noise at the time. Mr. Hunt said, they must comeforwards
on the 16th. There were loud shouts of, “we will, we will;”
and Mr. Hunt waved his white hat. Johnson was seated byhis side,
and occasionally waved his hand for them to be silent. This Meeting
continued about half an hour: drove off towards Mr. Johnson’s
|

Seaeedtal
16
17
}
}
house to dinner. Witness then proceeded to give an accountofthe
transactions of the 16th of August. He stated that he saw Mr.
Hunt and Johnsonin a carriage, followed by a great numberof peo~
ple, who marched six and seven abreast; they kept step very well
like soldiers: cannot form an idea as to the number: they were half
an hourin passing him. This body came from the Oldhamor Rochdale
road, which join at Shudehill. Witness heard a bugle blow, as
a signal for them to go on: they halted more than once during the
time he was upon thatstation. There was a black flag, with the
inscription—* Liberty or Death.” He saw another, with—* No
Corn Laws.”? There were several other flags with Caps of Liberty
at the top of them. Witness followed them from Withy-grove : was
at the opposite side of the street when they passed Murray’s house:
Murray was up in his room veryill: they hissed as they passed.
The mob (I call them the mob) shouted out that they wanted some
White Moss humbugs. They were balted at that time. The carriage
at that time was gone on: the carriage was not then in sight :
the town was very tumultuous, and as for myself, said the witness,
I was alarmed. Herhaslived in the town 40 years, and never
saw any thing so tumultuous before. Witness did nothing himself,
he was so muchafraid, as a manufacturer was not able to attend to
his business whilst this was going ov, there were so many persons
running up and down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hott—I do not know Mr. Saxton,
nor can I speak to his person: he is a stranger to me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr—I am a fustian-manufacturer,
and I could not carry on my business that day from the people going
backwards and forwards. When the procession was gone there
was a good deal of running up and down. I live in Essex-row,
No.5, and thatis not near the road taken by the parties. 1 was at
Withy Grove when I met the people coming; I stopped until they
passed, but did not go home afterwards to my business; I went on
to the corner of Hanging Ditch, which is about a stone’s throw
from Withy Grove; I was alarmed at the black flag, and I thought
they were going to Jevel something. Iam a married man, and have
had ten children; seven are now living; none of them were at Peterloo,
nor did I go to the place. Other people were at work,
though T was not. Notwithstanding my alarm at the black flag, I
did not go home to mind my business and wife and family, but went
on with the crowd a short way. I thought there would be a disturbance
and a fight. I heard trumpets blowing; people generally
fight after they have done blowing trumpets. 1 consider a meeting
tumultuous when there is a racketty assembly. I saw some of the
weavers come up with Mr. Hunt. Plenty of boys, girls, and women
were in the crowd. Icannot answer whether they marched
in step with them. I cannot tell whether the womenfelt as alarmed
as I did; Ican only speak for myself; 1 saw many whom I knew
among them. The alarm did not take away my appetite, for I
went home to dinner, and sir, exclaimed the witness to Mr. Hunt,
if you had been in London, there would have been nobody there.
I saw the chairing at the election the other day, but I was not
alarmed, for there were no black flags; there were flags, and ban-
ners, and music, but it had not the same appearance as at the Man-~
chester Meeting. The difference was, that one looked something
like war and disturbance, and the other like merriment and rejoic~
ing. ‘The former apprehension was ‘created by the people coming
such a distance, with caps of liberty, and flags of “Liberty or
Death.” At both processions there was music. I saw no person
drunk at Manchester, but I did see one in that state at the York chairing.
It was the sober procession, not the drunken, that looked, in
his opinion, like war. He could not say there were women and
children in the York procession. I can’t say that I saw a blood red
flag with a spike on it at the chairing, or one with an inscription
about the Corn Bill. The Meeting there and at York had a
different appearance, and were different things; one was like war
or disturbance, and the other like merriment orrejoicing.
(Here someslight manifestation of approval took place in the
gallery, and Mr. Justice BatLey remarked on the impropriety of
such conduct, and requested it might not be repeated.)
WirneEss.—There was a report of large numbers to come to
Manchester, and coming in that way with Caps of Liberty, and banners
with ‘Liberty or Death!” he was very much alarmed; he saw
noneof those at the Manchester Meeting drunk; he saw one rather
intoxicated at York; but it was the sober procession that appeared
to him like war, and not the drunken one at York.
_ Onbeing re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Cross, he said he kept
his family at home the streets were so tumultuous ; he thought it
dangerous for them to go into the streets.
_ Toa question from Mr. Hunt,hesaid, I do not recollect any
thing you said about the blunder made by the Magistrates in the
hand-bill, prohibiting the Meeting on the 9th August. I do not
know why the Magistrates were compared to nine tailors.
Mr. JOHNSON asked whether there was any man a greater leveller
than himself? He said, there are many men in Manchester
greater levellers than Tam. I have been in Lancaster gaol. I have
not since I came out paid any of my old debts: I havepaid all those
debts I have contracted since that period: I was discharged under
the Insolvent Act. I canfight a little at times: I never fought with
Mr. Heatly for asking rent from me. Ifit ever comes in my power
I intend to pay my debts. I have been unfortunate, and I gave up
all my preperty to my creditors. It is two years ago since I took the
benefit of the act. He never fought with any man in High-street.
Mr. Jounson wished to know whether he might put questions
relative to the conduct of witness’ family? Being answered in the
negative, he enquired whether the witness paid his debts? He did
not pay any of the money since leaving Lancaster gaol; he was unforfortunate
in business, lost all he had, and was not now in a capacity
to pay ; he had a wife and sevenoreight children to support.
JaMES SaNDRIG examined by Mr. LirTLEDALE—I saw Mr.
Hunt on the 9th of August, at the bottom of Blakeley-street, Manchester.
He had just then got up in his gig to address the people.
Witness was at his work, but was drawnto the spot by curiosity.
There might have been about 1000 persons. He heard Mr. Hunt
|
.
.
|
;
|

18
say, that the first thing he heard of the postponementof the meeting
was at Bullock Smithy. There were nine signatures to the paper,
which fulfilled the old proverb, that “nine tailors made a man.”
Healso said something about a notorious quorum. He wasastonished
at any one being sent to Liverpool to know whether the meeting
was legal or not. He knew himself that it was legal. He also
‘said, that there was another meeting to be held on the following,
Monday, but witness did not hear him say whether he should attend
it or not. Here the placard from the Magistrates, warning the
people not to attend the meeting of the 9th, was put into the witness’
hand, and he said he saw similar ones in Manchester.
Cross-examined by Mr. HuntT—I amin the employ of a timber
merchant, at Manchester. I took no notes of what you said.
I think I wrote somepart of it for a man connected with tie Police.
T did not hear you say that youxhad important private business to
transact, and that I must return to the country on the 16th. I did
not hear you say any thing of the blander of the Magistrates in
threatening all the people with their displeasure if they did not attend
the Meeting, although they had previously declaredit illegal.
Jno. CHaDWieK examined by Mr. ScarLettT.—Lives at Manchester,
and is ashoemaker. He went on the 9th to meet Mr.
Hunt. He met him at Ardwick-green. There was a gig with
Mr. Hunt and Mr Johnsoninit, and a chaise with Sir C. Wolseley,
Parson Harrison, and Mr. Moorhouse in it. There appeared to be
about 300 people coming in with them. The crowd increased as
they went along. He heard Mr. Hunt say in a low toue, “shout,
shout, shout.’ He repeated that till he got opposite the Observer
Office. There they stopped, and every time Mr. Hunt whirled
his hat, the people shouted and the others joined. They appeared
to understand him. They then went on to Mr. Johnson’s house,
and shouted again. ‘Huntsaid, ‘three times three.’ This was opposite
Saint Michael’s Church. He then told the people to come on
one side, and he would tel] them his errand to Manchester. He
then drawedhis gig-on one side, and said that he had beeninvited to
attend at Manchester, by the Manchester Committee, and that he
and his gig, and his political Bob (his horse,) had set out together.
He had come as far as Coventry, where he saw the Courier newspaper,
which stated that the Manchester Magistrates had put down
the Reformers at Manchester, and that he (Hunt) would be afraid
to shew his face there, as they would make him. smell gunpowder,
Afterwards, he said that he had seen the proclamation at Bullock
Smithy, and such a proclamation never came from a shop-board of
tailors: he added that he would have the Courier to know that he
was not afraid of gunpowder. He then turned'to the Stockport people,
and said he hoped to see them all on the 16th, and that they
would bring as many oftheir friends and neighbours as they could with
them. Witnessknew where White Moss was; on the ldth of August,
he got there before day-light: White Moss is about 5 miles from
Manchester. There was a great number, about two or three hundred
at’first, but they kept increasing all the morning. They came from
different roads. Witness went there from curiosity. They fell in
rankslike soldiers when the horn was blown. This was about day-
19
light. Witness also fell in. The people fell into the companies
belonging to the place they came from. Every company had a
person to command it. They then marched about the field for two
hours, and when the word was given to fire, they clapped their
hands. The words “Make ready, present, fire,’ were given as if
they had guns; and at the word fire, they clapped their hands.
About six o’clock theyall joined in a body, and then they made me
and all the other spectators fail in with them. I did not know any
of them by name. Isaw Murraythere.
Mr. Hont objected to this evidence. The witness had sworn
that he knew none of these people.
Mr. Scarvetrsaid he would shew that someof these people
had attended Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Huntsaid, it mattered not, unless some of those persons
were among the accused.
Mr. Scaruet? said, he hoped Mr. Hunt would not be allowed
to disturb the proceedings of the Court.
Mr. Justice Battey—Mr. Hunthas a rightto take the objection,
and I am doubting whetherthis is evidence.—(The witness was
sent out)
Mr. Scaruett said, he was about to shew, that some of those
persons who were training, and who assaulted Murray, had attended
the meeting of the 16th, and had also cheered opposite Mutray’s
house: he would shew that Mr. Huntand his party had done the
same. This he conceived wasperfectly regular.
Mr. Justice BatLEy—When you have shewn that any of the
persons of the White Moss party were at the Meeting on the 16th,
then it will be evidence, but I think you had better prove that first:
Witness was again called in and examined. Hesaid he was at
the Meeting of the 16th, and the first person he saw there was a
man whom he had seen at White Moss with a letter brought from
Manchester. A person arrived at the White Moss after witness had
seen Murray. The parties then formed into a square, like four
walls, and the man who was to read the letter was in the centre.
The letter was not read, as they said there was no nameto it, and
they would have nothing to do with it. The man then joined them.
The man who was to have read the letter was the man who led up
the Middleton and Rochdale parties on Monday. This man was
drilling the men, and giving the word of command. He saw Murray,
the constable, on the Moss, and heard the people call “Spy.
spy,” and then run after him. There was another man with Murray.
Witness left the ground about six o’clock. He went next
day at 1 o’clock to Johnson’s house, to meet Mr. Hunt. Witness
went with a party from the Union School-room at Manchester. He
did not see Mr Hant go from Johnson’s for he (witness) joined the
Rochdale and Middleton parties who were going on to the Meeting.
Saw Mr. Hunt go on to the Meeting afterwards from Johnson’s
house. Johnson, Knight, and a person they called Carlile, were
with him inan open topped chaise. Some of the people walked in
ranks near it, but the rest walked irregularly. They shouted as
they came to Johnson’s; and also at the Exchange, and opposite
Murray’s house, they hissed hard. There was a woman on the
coach with the coachman. Shecarried a flag.

20
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—Ilive at No. 30, Miner-street,
Manchester; I havelived there nine years. I work little for myself.
I know you are Hunt; when you bid the people shout, I did
not join them. J went through mere curiosity, and nothingelse.
Istaid-upall the night I went to White Moss; the man who went
with me is named William; I do not knowhis other name; he saw
all I saw at White Moss. I nevertold those who brought mehere,
that another person had been with me at White Moss. I have frequently
talked over the matter with the man who went with me. I
do not know where he lives, The story I have told here has been
taken down in writing by Mr. Milne; he never asked me whether
any body had been with me. I went to him of my own accord to
speak the truth: I went to him last Thursday. I never went to
himbefore that time. There were some scores, who did notfall in
until they were forced. They said to us, “you mustall fall in, for
we'll have no lookers on.” When I first came they had not fallen
in—they were all sitting down. There are roads close to White
Moss, and persons passing could not. miss seeing the people marching.
WhenIJ fell out of the ranks, I went into the next field, lest I
should be made fall in again. I think there were as many spectators
as persons marching. I left them about seven in the morning, and
went home. I do not recollect any other words used, but “ march’?
and “countermarch; when they said “march,” the men walked
up the field. I think whenthey said countermarch, they marched
back again, not backwards, but to the place from which they came:
I did not see themraise their arms in the attitude of firing ; I did not
see the people in the carriage hiss or take any notice of Muorray’s
house; any person who shouldstate te the contrary would state what
is false.—Witness described the flags borne by the different parties
on the 16th. I heard shouting and cries of Hunt and Liberty. There
was no disposition to do mischief manifested by the crowd: they
were all gay and cheerful. Ifany person was to swear that the people
marched by with you fouror five abreast in a riotous manner, they
would swear a falsehood. I saw no swords, pistols, or bludgeons: I
saw some walking sticks with some of the people. If any one of them
had had weaponscalculated to do mischief, I must have seen them.
I never cheered on any occasion—WhenI got to Peter’s Field I stood
near the house where the Magistrates were. When the cavalry
camein, I wasrather alarmed, but not before. Peter’s Field wasfuil
of people, who were all standing peaceably. I saw nothing to the
eontrary. They remained sotill the cavalry began to go down. As
they were going to the stage I quitted the field. They camein with
, their swords drawn, and in a sort of a trot. I went away because
I thought there would be danger. There were many others running
as wellas me. I went to White Moss, as it was well knownin the
town that drilling was going onthere.
Cross-examined by Ropert Witp—Ileft Manchester about
twelve o’clock on the night of the 15th, and arrived at White Moss
about six in the morning. It is day-light between two and
three in the morning in August. It would be a hard job for me to
tell you the road L took to White Moss.
21
Cross-examined by Mr. Jounson—Some of the people went
before Mr. Hunt’s carriage on the 16th. You may call it marching
if you will. I can’t say whether they went six a-breast. I was before
the carriage, and I do not know how those behind it went. I
heard no soundof bugle, nor any order for hissing given at Murray.
Re-cxamined by Mr. ScarLEtT—I went to Blakeley, and then
erossed the fields to White Moss. The nearest turnpike road to
the Moss is a mile and a half distant. The nearest village is Blake-
Jey, whichis a mile off. There were some stout lads who marched before
the carriage of Mr. Hunt. I saw them in Ashton-lane.
[ The placard calling the meeting of the 9th of August in order
to consider of the best means of obtaining a Radical Reform in the
‘House of Commons, was then put in.]
Mr. Hunt objected to it as evidence, unless it could be shown
that he had been a party to its being published.
Mr. Justice BarLey said the placard had not yet been proved.
Jas. Murray examined by Serjeant HULLocK—Lives at Manchester;
went on the Sunday morning of the 15th August last,
accompanied by Shawcross and Thomas Rymer, to White Moss,
about five miles from Manchester ; they went by theturnpike-road as
far as Blakeley ; they got to the Moss by day-light ; the people came
in parties, some before them, and some behind; to avoid them they
turned out of the road; they crossed the Mosstill they got to the
men who were drilling; they were in detached parties, and there
was a commander and a drill serjeant at each squad. The man at
the head gave the orders, and he heard the words “ mareh, wheel,
halt,” from them, and the men obeyed the words of command ; they
might also have said, “eyes right and dress.’ He continued observing
them not many minutes, and was close amongst them when
at the corner. Shawcross was not quite so nigh as he was. The
drill serjeant at the head of one of the squads said to him, “fall in;”
he said he thought he should fall in soon; he then moved from
them, and there was a cry of “spy” ran along the whole line, and
the answer received was “ Mill’em; d—n them, mill’em.” They
then shouted: «They are constables,” and the answer to that was
« Murder them, d—n them, murder them.” He then endeavoured
in escape, they pursued, and overtook Shaweross, and were beating
Lim.
Mr. Hunt—I submit, my Lord, that this is no evidence in the
Pia case. Itis evidence of an assault, for which the parties
ave been already tried and convicted. Mr. Scarlett well kuows the
effect of this on a Jury.
Mr. Justice BarLey—I don’t mean that any thing should be
given as evidence which 1 don’t think is evidence. At present I
have my doubtsonit. (‘The witness was here ordered out of Court.)
Mr. Scarier contended, that he could connect theillegal and
outrageous acts of this assemblage on the Moss with someof the
personsattending the meeting at Manchester on the ensuing day.
The JuvGe decided that the evidence was admissible.
Fumes Murray called again—About 25 or 30 men overtook
him; they began to beat hiin with sticks. He told them that did
Not look like Reform in Parliament, but like wilful murder. He
a

_
22
said this was very different treatment to what nations at war gave
to each other, and if he was an enemy,to take his prisoner. They
asked him how they would be treated at Manchester, if they were
taken prisoners : he answered, as prisoners and gentlemen, and not
to be murdered. They continuedto beat him,till one of them called,
« Kill him out and out, and put him in the pit, or let him go.”
Afiother observed, “ He has had enough, if he has any more he’ll
die. They then held a consultation, and one asked him if he was
willing to go down onhis knees and swearnever to be a King’s man,
or name the name of one again. He answered yes, thinkinghislife
depended on it. He did go down uponhis knees and swore as they
desired him ; they standing round him with sticks, while one of the
partyadministered the oath. Soonafter they left him, and he then
went to Middleton, not being able te get to Manchester; he got
there in the course of that day, and the next day, the 16th, he was
confined to his bed.
In the forenoon he heard a noise; some bugles were sounded
under his window, at which he could see what was passing in the
street. At the sound of the bugles and the word “halt,” the whole
body halted; the streets were full; the ranks in the centre were in
order; the people on the side mixed together in confusion; the
ranks in the centre appeared about six a-breast. When the bugle
sonnded again. the word “march” was given, and they marched off
hissing at his house. There were flags and banners, but could not
see the writing on them. No carriage appeared in the party; supposes
there might be five or six thousand men, of those who were
marching in line, besides the crowd onthe sides, in which were men,
women, and children. Did not observe any woman in theline ;
there were boys of sixteen or seventeen years of age. Could not
identify any of them, as being of the party of the day before at
White Moss. About one o’clock came another large party of men,
women, and children, with an opencarriage in the midst, in which
were Hunt, Johnson, and he thinks another person. The carriage
passed his house: did not exactly stop, but moved slowly. The
mob hissed, and pointed to his house. The persons inthe carriage,
he is quite sure, looked up at the house; he believed they were
standing up. This body might consist of three or four thousand
ca men, women, and children. The nearest road from Smedey
Cottage to St. Peter’s area, is500 yards nearer than the way by
his house.
Cross-examined by Mr. HunT.—Heis not employedatall by
the Police: he is a confectioner. He is a constable, but not paid :
they are swornin by the Magistrates annually. He went to White
Moss in consequence of the alarmed state of the country, and_ of
himself and family; he went of his own free will; he told several
people he would go, and believes he did tell Mr. Nadin. He has
not received any thing as wages: he received part of a collection
which was made for the wounded (£15.) for paying his Doctor’s
bill. Never arranged with Nadin: the going was his own act and
deed: he heard every day of the drilling : it was well known. He
came to White Moss on the 15th of August, at day-light: he
supposed about four o’clock. Saw no leokers on only those who
23
went with him. There might have been lookers on: there was a
erowdin the rear which mightbe spectators; but he only looked to
the people drilling. There were not a hundred lookers on when he
was there. They were marching, but he heard nothing said about
firing: if such words had been used, he thinks he must have heard
them. He had made a deposition before a Magistrate, but scarcely
recollects what he deposed, as he was so seriously injured. He
made the deposition on Sunday, about one o’clock, before Mr, Norris
and another Magistrate—he believed it was Mr. Trafford. He
was at the New Bayley some days afterwards, when some words
were put down on slip of paper, which he had forgotten in his deposition:
but does not recollect if he was sworn to it. He goes to
church and chapel, and he (Hunt) might think him a religious man.
He knows Robert Mayor, but does uot recollect any particular conversation
with him and Samuel Marton. He might have said that
he did not like the Reformers. Does not recollect any violent expression
about the blood of the Reformers. He believed he hadsaid,
that if it came to a general action, he would not submit to them,
but would rather fight in blood up to his knees. Recollected a conversation
ata public house; many persons were at him, knowing
him to be a King’s man: he had taken several glasses of ale, an
was irritated, and does not’ know exactly what he did say: will
not swear that he did not make use of the words imputed to him,
viz. that. he would rather row ina boat through the blood of the Reformers,
than walk upon the pavement to his own house. Knows
Chapman: went in a coach with him to Liverpool about January
last: does not recollect saying—thatif he had had the command of the
troops onthe 16th of August, he would soon have put every rascal
to death; but he will not swear that he did not use the expressions.
He was sober when in the coach. Mr. Chapman nevercalled
him to accountfor that, but for saying that he would notbelieve a
Reformer on his oath. He knows the Spread Eagle in Hanging-
Ditch, and recollects being of a party who wentthere to inquire
after Hunt.
Mr. Justice BarLey—lIs this evidence, Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Hunt—“Itis, as to the character of the man, my Lord.”
Jamas Murray’s cross-examination by Mr. Hunt,resumed.
Witness does not recollect any door being broken open. Hunt
was asked for, and the answer given was, that he was gone to bed:
did not see him to his knowledge, but is sure he never went up stairs
at the Spread Eagle.
Cross-examined by the prisoner JoHNSON.—Knows Mr. Robert
Harris ; he is arespectable man. Witness had neversaid he
found a nest of money belonging to his wife, and went to Liverpool
to spend it with bad women.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Huttock-—Was only at the
Spread Eagle once, jnst after a meeting had been held, at which
there had been some speaking by Mr. Hunt: he was the leading character.
He had beer at White Moss about five minutes, when they
began to beat him. In consequenceof the alarmed state he wasin,
he had procured somefire-armsfor his defence.
In answerto a question from the Jup@g, he replied that he had

24
never offered himself as a special constable. He had been a constable,
off and on, about 21 years, and had served altogether seven
ears.
‘ J. SHAwcROSS examined by Mr. Cross.—Is Clerk of the Police-office
at Manchester: recollects the notices of the Meeting for
Radical Reform being postedin the town about the 23d of July last,
and the notice to the people thatit was anillegal meeting, was posted
about on the 31st of July. He went to White Moss on the 15th
of August, with Murray: they got there before day-light, perhaps
about half past one o’clock: he was there about ten minutes before
auy thing happened to him. There could not be less than 600 persons
then assembled: a party of them pursued, and overtook him in
the lane, and knocked himdowninto the ditch, calling out ‘murder
him, kill him !’—Inthe ditch he received a violent kick in the side,
which, for a few moments, deprived him of sense. Ongetting up,
he saw the party with Mr. Murray, and he then escaped a contrary
way.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—Hewasnot directed by any body
to go. Did not know anyof the persons at the meeting. He accompanied
Murray to Lancaster Castle, but whether Murray went
to look at the defendants and identify them, he could not say. He
arrived at the edge of the Moss about one, and saw them drilling
about half past two o’clock. White Moss is about one mile and a
quarter across, and very wet the way they took. He left the Moss
a little after three o’clock. Seme of the bodies were in line, some
in squads, drilling ; and some bye-standers, about twenty: is sure
there were not a hundred, that he observed. He only heard the
words, right, left, He was with Murray, and till the beating took
place, did not separate from him above thirty yards. He did not
hear the words march, countermarch, make ready, present, fire.
He understood this to be the awkward squad learning to mareh. It
was bread day-light, and he saw some of the lookers on go towards
the body as if to fallin. They did not ask him to join them: did
not give hopesof falling in,
he must have heardit.
and if any proposition had been made
Re-examined by Mr. Cross—He was only there five minutes,
did not, during that time, hear the words march, countermarch, present,
or fire,
Examined by Mr. Justice BarLey—Some of the squad appeared
pretty perfect: heard parties going to the White Moss the whole
of the night, they were very noisy, hooting every fiye minutes.
Joun Heywooplives two miles from Manchester, was at White
Moss on the morning of the 15th of August, about six or seven
o'clock : he had not heen above ten minutes, before one of them came
up to him, and was going to take hold of him: he told him, that
two could play at that ; he then called ont, “Lads here’s another
spy :” there then came up a large body of them with sticks, and began
beating him on the head: he was knocked down, and was not
rightly in his senses whilst they were beating him: when they left
him he went away.
On the 16th of August, he saw people marching on the road
towards Manchester, from Middleton and Rochdale, They march-
25
ed in order, and had banners, flags, and drums beating, ‘and fifes
playing : this was about five miles from the Moss, and one anda
quarter mile from Manchester: he was spokento by five men, a part
of this body: they said, that’s he that was at the Moss yesterday ; if
you will come to Manchester, we will give you what you was short
of yesterday. He could not say that he had seen any of these
people the day before: he followed them to within about 400 yards
of Smedley Cottage: saw Hunt speaking from the window of the
cottage: they said it was Hunt: he saw him afterwards in his carriage,
close by him : he did not see any of the five persons who had
spokento him on the road.
Cross examined by Mr. Hunt.—The men who beat him were
not any of the present defendants. Has seen one of them since
(Daniel Hay), and the Magistrates have prosecuted him, and heis
now in Laucaster Castle. They did not use the sticks as arms,
nor was there any command of make ready, fire: nor did they
give me any hint to join them. I heard Mr. Hunt speak that day
from Smedley Cottage, but what he said I dont know. I saw him
throwup the sash, before he spoke from the window: I was standing
in an adjoining meadow.
In answer to a question from Mr. ScaRLert, he said he stood
about 400 yards from the window.
At six o’clock the court rose and adjourned the fuather hearing
until the following morning.
Friday, March 17.
A little after nine, his Lorpsmip took his seat on the bench, the
namesof the Jury were called, and the trial proceeded on. *
Wm. Morris is a weaver at Middleton, about a mile from
White Moss. Smedley is nearly three miles from Middleton, and
two from Manchester. Saw bodies of men assembled near Middleton,
among whom he had observed Bamford, the defendant. On
the 16th of August, large bodies of men assembled at Middleton,
and were formed into sections and squares. There were a great
number of persons, perhaps 2 or 3000. This was betwixt nine and
ten in the morning. They marchedoff four a-breast. When formed
in a square, a chair wasplaced in the centre, which was taken by
S. Bamford, one of the defendants. He said, “friends and neighbours,
I’ve a few words to relate, that you would marchoff from
this place, to remain so, quietly, not to insult any one, but rather
take an insult.” He did not think there would be any disturbance, or
any thing to do; if there was, it would beafter they came back.
Hesaid there was no fear but the day was their own. He got off
the chair, and split some laurel among the men who commanded
the sections. They then formed four a-breast, and marched off ;
before which a large number came from Rochdale, about 2 or 3000,
in the same form, with a band of music, and two flags. They
marched off together. The Middleton body had two flags; and there
was a cap of liberty with each party. The Rochdale cap was cartied
under a flag, and the Middleton cap ona pole by itself. The
men had nothing in their hands butbits of switches or small sticks.
He had seen the Middleton people before that day, wheeling about

26
and forming, both in the field and high-road. Did not know that
he had seen on the 16th any of those he had seen before. He had
seen Bamford with them several times. They had music before
them as they marched on the 16th, and Bamford after that came in
front. Witness went with them nearly a mile, then he stopped, and
saw them march on towards Manchester, and towards Smedley Cottage,
Bamford being in front, and the Middleton body marched
first. He knew a man of the name of John Whitworth. He had
seen him drilling them, and John Hayward had been employed in
the same way. These men had been, the former a private in the
6th, and the latter a private in the 16th Dragoons. Did not recollect
seeing either of these men with the bodies marching to Manchester
on the 16th.
Cross-examined by BamrorD.—Was swornto tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Reminded of the evidence
he had given respecting the chair, and the square formed at
Middleton: he had said that he supposed, from what he (Bamford)
said, that he wished the marching party to be peaceable and orderly,
not only at. MiddJeton, but every whereelse. Had heard examiner
say nothing about the use to which theflags were to be put that day.
Wasnot above a dozen yards from the examiner (Bamford) while
he was speaking, and could hear him well, but heard no more than
he had already deposed to. He had heard him say, be peaceable
and quiet atchurch; but he had not heard him say, “whenthere,let
every man remain near his own hannner.”’ To his knowledge, he
had not heard examiner desire them to come peaceably and orderly
home. Did not hear any thing said by Mr. Bamford about returning
quietly with their banners, to which all stragglers were to repair
on leaving Manchester. Many thousands followed those who
marched from Middleton and Rochdale, besides those who marched.
There were many before and behind, as well as on eachside of the
procession. He observed among them a deal of women and children.
He knew the examiner’s wife by sight; did not observe her
accompanying the procession, nor did he see examiner’s child.
There were plenty of people on the examiner’s right and on his left,
but there was nonein form but those he (Bamford) had led up.
He distinguished the examiner as the leader from the stragglers,
because he was in front of those that were in form. The place
where the men were assembled at Middleton was called Barrow
Field. He had seen in Middleton processions of societies as orangemen
and odd fellows. They walked sometimes two, and sometimes
four a-breast, with music. They had flags too, with inscriptions.
He was at Middleton at the proclamation of George IV. Ile saw
a flag there with an inscription on it; that was carried by the Society
of odd fellows. Did not remark the inscription on the flag.
The people marched off the ground on the 16th of August. They
used to learn him (witness) to walk so when he wasa soldier, and
they called it marching. Did not hear him (Bamford) say any
thing when he gave the leaves of laurel, Knew nothing of the
usages of freemasons, orangemen, and odd fellows, but he perceived
that they had some ways of distinguishing themselves, He did not
know for what the laurel was given.
27
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt.—Witness had been a soldier
26 years ago in the 104th regiment; was a non-commissioned officer
while he remained in this service. Was asked in what way he had
left the service. (He appealed to the Judge to knowif he was obliged
to answer the question. Whentold that he must,)—Said he though
he had beenin the habit of a soldier for two or three years: he never
took anoath in hislife belonging to a soldier. He was never
sworn in: never took the oathof allegiance: so did not feel himself
bound to remain in the regiment any longer than he thought proper;
and so, when he had seen as much as he wished ofthe service,
he then bid them good morning. Considered himself to be
with the regiment, but not as a soldier, though he wore the clothing.
Q. So when you had enough of it, you took French leave of
the raaintent ?—A, When I had enough of it I made the best of my
road.
Q. And have not some people been ill-natured enough to call
you a deserter ?—A. You may if you choose.
Q. But were you uot told, that having violated your oath of
allegiance, you could not be a good witness in a Court of Justice?
—A. Nobody ever told me so. Witness wasfirst admitted as what
is called. a mushroomserjeant. He had received so much a man for
enlisting on the recruiting service: he received regular pay after he
got into Ireland: he believed that he had been in Ireland—he was
there: never saw any orange clubs march in Ireland: had seen
the orange clubs march in Middleton in the same way as the people
had marched on the 16th August. The orange clubs had not, to
his knowledge, marched with such swiftness as the people carried on
the 16th August: never saw them carrying a shillelagh: had seen
them with wands and longer staves: was not alarmed at them nor
at his (Mr. Hunt’s) set on the 16th August: he did not feel
alarmed: could not tell what others felt, but saw no depredation
committed, or insult offered: Smedley Cottage was out of the hich
road from Middleton to Manchester: they marched three miles direct
towards Smedley Cottage, and then turned out of the road a quarter
of a mile: he should not have said any thing about Smedle
Cottage if it had not been mentioned to him: went with them
about a mile: the music kept playing: did not numberthe tunes.
Q Do you mean to swear that you do not remember that
“God save the King” was amongst them?—A. Do you wish me
to begin lying? I suppose I am ranged heretotell the truth.
Q. Lagk you, do you notrecollect that «‘God save the Kine”
was played?—A. No; I don’t recollect it, because it is against
your principles to play it.
_ Q. Did you hear them play the “Rogue’s March” ?—A. If I
did it was yours, 1 believe.
Q. Did you hear them play the “‘Deserter”?—A. If I did I
should have taken it to myself. Witness had heard Bamford
advise the people to go off peaceably and to remain so; but had not
heard him advise them to return so. He was not a special constable.
All that he knew he had learnt from his eye-sight. Had said
nothing to the contrary of Bamford’s being a good and peaceable

ee
nd
VERNESMites
28
29
leader. Did not know whether the switches that the marching
men carried were large enough to flog an infamous cause outof the
Court.
Examined by Mr. Scantett—Had been in the 104th Regiment:
bad lived in the neighbourhood of Manchester nearly 20
years: he was a weaver, and had Jooms of his own.
Joun Eaton examined by Mr, LirrLepaLe—Wasa plumber
and glazier, at Middleton. He described the advance of the Middleton
people on the morning of the 16th of August, with Bamford in
front of them, as it had been described before : one of the flags had
the inscription, Liberty and Strength.
Cross-examined by Mr. BamrorD—Recollected two flags, one
was green, the other blue: saw no large poles in the procession, but
those that sustained the flags and cap of liberty. Was not sure that
he knew Mrs Bamford. In the Rochdale concern, a good many women
were seen, but he did not recollect this or the Middleton body.
The women seemed to share in the spirit of the men who formed the
procession. Did not observe auy frowning looks, they seemed more
upon joy, and ongood terms with each other. Witnessfelt no alarm.
He was a person of some property, but had not thought it necessary
to fasten his doors or windows. He had seenprocessions of Orangemen
and Freemasons, carrying staves, &c. Was rather opposed to »
the Reformers: eould not expect that they would be in any way
partial to him. .
By Mr. Hunr—Witness was in a respectable line of business.
Did not feel alarm, nor see that others were alarmed. He had
marched im an Orange procession, carrying fags and banners—They
had generally the Union flag. They had a Committee and staves of
orders among them. Had heard of Mr. Ralph Fletcher, of Bolton,
but did not know him personally.
Josupu Travis examined by Mr. Scarterr—Wasa grocer,
at Oldham—saw one division of the Reformers pass his house.
They came from Saddleworth in Yorkshire, three miles from Oldham.
After they bad passed, he was sent by the Magistrates to
count the numbers of the whole that passed. There were divisions
from five places, viz—Royton, Oldham, Saddleworth, Crompton,
and Chadderton. There wereflags at the head of every one of these
divisions. They marched in sections; there was a commander to
each division. Their advance was irregular, as some of the sections
yarclied four a-breast, others had six, eight, or a dozen a-breast.
Eachdivision was divided into sections, and a commander appeared
on the left flank of every section. They had a bugle infront ofall
the divisions. They marched toa place of rendezvous, and then advanced
likesoldiers. He counted 864 that marched in rank. Many
hundreds went beside. Those who went beside, frequently fell in.
The word halt was given, and they all halted at once. The cause of
their halting, he supposed, was some little disorder which had occurred.
As soon as the word halt was given, the commander,at the left
of each section, called out eyes left, and then they very soon got into
order, and the word march was given. Saw Dr. Healey with them.
He lives at Lees. The Doctor led the Saddleworth or Lees diviion,
[ Here Mr. Wont observed to the JupaeE that a note had been
sent out of Court by Mr. Milne, as he supposed to a witness. He requested
that the attorney might be sworn tothe contents of the note. }
The Jupce immediately ordered the note to be brouzht back.
The note was soon returned, whenit was found to be of no alt
portance, as it merely desired that a copy of his deposition might
be given to one of the witnesses, which witness, Mr. Scarlett said
it was not his intention to examine. i
: The examination resumed—Witness said, the 864 mentioned
includedall that witness saw marching in order. The crowd continued
to increase while they were within his view, which was about
half an hour. The persons who formed the procession marched in a
middling way, not so wel! as somethat he had seen.
_ Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr.—Witnessisa constable at Oldham;
was employed by the Magistrates to count the number of Reformers.
He did not shut up his shop ; while he was gone to count
the marching parties, his father attendedto his shop; saw nothing to
alarm him; did not notice the inscriptions on the flags. Mr. Chippendall
went with him, and wrote down what he (witness)A
Mr. Chippendall was not at York now. Witness considered himself
forced to come. Mr. Chippendall is a gentleman in Oldham. Witness
did not knowthat he was special constable. Did not see any drankennessorrioting,
or any person threatenedorill used. Witness was
employed by the Magistrates. Mr. Chippendall is not an attorney
There was nothing onthe colours to alarm witness. The black flac he
had seen passed his own house. He did not like the look of it, but
he took no notice of it. That was not his business, thouzh he ee a
special constable. He saw something about Saddleworth and Mosley
Union”on the flag. That told himwhere the party came from. Saw
something like two hands clasping each other on it, withthe word
‘ Love,’ over them, Did not see a bloody daggeron it. Did notrecollect
the Scales of Justice on it. Did not know any particular reason why
Mr. Chippendall did not come to York. Both names weresigned to
the paper, which he and Mr. Chippendall had sent to the solicitor
for the prosecution. Did not know any reason for Mr. Chippendall’s
absence. Mr. Chippendall was a gentlemanof a very good character.
Had heard that he was subpoenaed to come, but did not know
why he was not here. Had never seen a Cap of Liberty. He had
looked at the emblem over the county hall in York, but did not speak
of a Capof Liberty in stone, but of such as he supposedto be carried
in a procession, when he said that he had never scen one. He
had never seen one carried before the people.
_ Joun AsHwortd,examined by Mr. LirTLEDALE-—Wasan engineer
working at a factory in Oldham last August. He sawseveral
divisions of persons who were proceeding to Manchester. They formed
themselves into a body, and took the new road io Manchester. There
might be about three thousand marchingin a body. Sawa black flag
and a cap of liberty. He was asked by some ofthemto go with them,
but he said “ they were a week too soonfor him, as he should not
go to Manchestertill Saturday.” Whenherefusedto go, some of
them called out that they would make a Moscow of Manchester before
they came back. This wasabout eight o’clock.
dD
EETaeCLnocnSSSSSha eld teaaiaiaeatiiemnieeae aaa

30
Cross-examined by Mx. Hunt.—Was norelation to the man
of the same name that was killed on the 16th. Wituness’s wife and
children were at Manchester, but he was not so alarmed at the Moss
cow story as to go there to look after them. He could not go to
Manchester. Hefelt alarm at what he had heard, and said ‘the
words were terrible’? at the time. He did not hire any body
to give his wife notice of what he had heard, that she might-pack
up and be off. He was told by one or two persons that “they
would make a Moscow of Manchester.” He meant by one or two,
more than one. He never sentto let his wife know any thing about
it. Who was he to send by? He had seencapsofliberty at Middleton,
but had not noticed the cap of liberty over York Castle. He
was not a manihat bothered his head about caps of liberty, or any
ing of that kind. ee.
ee Mr. Barrow.—Witness would have had no objection to
put up the hustings for the Manchester Meciing, had be been.a master
workman in that line, but that was carpenter’s work. He was
engineer, and only worked in iron,
den WILLIAM eseine examined by MR. ScarLeTtT.—Kept
a public-house, at Vailsworth. He saw some of the bodies ontheir
march to Mauchester on the 16th of August. He sawHealey with
them, who said “Victory my boys.’ Healey went into witness's
house, took a glass of gin, and drank “suecess to the proceedings
of the day.” He said that he had known that house for some time,
and hoped the people belonging to it were true to the cause.
By Mr. Hon?.—Witness had nowleft the public-house ; was
settling his accounts and living with his brother. Witness was
much alarmed on the 16th August, but he did not move his property
on that day. His goods had since been sold in his name; they
were removed from his house for convenience of sale; his name had
not appeared inthebills of the sale. He did notbelieve that if his
name had been to them, that any of his creditors would have prevented
the sale. Witness had been in a Court of Justice before.
He had never been tried, but there had been a charge against him
for breaking windows when he was fuddled. He was rather neryous’;
he had been afflicted with an unfortunate malady that made
il necessary to confine him in the Lunatic Asylum; but he had not
been so within the last two years. He was a special constablé, but
never received any thing from the Police in hislife, but two pounds
to bring him from Manchester to York.
JEREMIAH FIELDING, examined by Mr. LirTLEDALE.—Was a
merchant of Manchester. He was between Manchester and Cheetham-hill,
on the road to Bury, on the morning of the 16th. Saw
about 2,000 persons marching in regular order, four or five a-breast,
with music and flags, towards Manchester.
By Mr. Hunr.—Witness did not see them insult or use any
one ill. No womenorchildren were with them when he saw them.
James Heatu, examined by Mr. Scarverr.—Resided, at
Cheetham-hill. He saw a party proceeding to Manchester on the
16th, which he described nearly as the last witness had done.
He saw a party of three, and one of those three persons, looking
earnestly at witness, said to him, “You will not sleep in that
house to-night.”’ Witness went to Manchesterin the afternoon.
3]
By Mr. Hunt—Knew Mr. Nadin: did not know all the Police
runners; could not swear that they were not connected with
the Police at Manchester, but he did not believe them to be persons
of that description.
Rogen ENTWISTLE being called, it was answered that he
was out of the way.
Mr. Hunt suggested that he should be called, as Clerk of the
Race Course, as he was better known bythat title than by the
name of Roger Entwistle.
James Duncutr, examined by Mr. LirrLepaLe.—Lives
near Hollingwood; is a cotton-spinner. Was on the road to Manchester
onthe morning of the 16th of August; saw about 2,500
raen advancing towards Manchesterin regular order; one mansaid,
well, captain, how do you do? (Witness was formerly captain in the
Local Militia,) and some of themcried out that they were going to
West Houghton, where he and his partners had a factory, which was
burned down in 1812, and had beenre-built as a corn-mill. The
factory had been burned in the open day by the Luddites as they
were then termed.
By Mr. HonT.—Witness was at Manchester on the 16th; was
not a special constable: saw Mr. Hunt on the hustings, and in front
of Mr. Buxton’s house: witness took no part in the proceedings of
that day: heleft the ground before the yeomanry cameonit, as he
thought it was not safe to remain without some protection; saw Mr,
Hunt near Buxton’s house after the dispersion of the Meeting: he
left the field before the cavalry came, but went back from curiosity.
He thoughtit safer to be there after the cavalry came than before ;
he did not consider that he had any business there: asked if he was
a doctor? Witness refused to answer, but subsequently he replied,
certainly not, and had not dressed or looked at the wounds of any
of the persons who wereinjured on the 16th of August; he could
not say that he had seen any of those who were wounded; he did
not see any of them; witness sent a cartfilled with goods on that
day, Mondaybeing their regular day for sending; the cart usually
set ont early, at seven o’clock in the morning, and he thought they
would get there before the Meeting assembled; he was not afraid of
sending his goods on that day for the reason just given; he should
have been afraid of sending them if they could not have arrived
before twelve or one o’clock; the goods were sent to the warehouse
at Manchester; was not afraid of the goods being in Manchester
after twelve or one o’clock, because they would be locked up in the
warehouse, which is a pretty safe one; was not afraid to go himself;
returned that evening; met some officers belonging to the 6th
Dragoon Guards ; had some conversation with one of the officers,
on the transactions of the day. He could give the officer but a
very imperfect account of the Meeting, as he left the ground before
the cavalry went there, and did not return till after the crowd was
disporsed. He did not.ask the officer if he had been to Manchester,
and reply, on his saying “No,” “then you have lost all the
fun,” nor had he used any thing like such expression. His business
had cartied him to the warehouse at Manchester, and curiosity
took him thence to the Meeting in Peter’s Fidd. He was aware

32
that a dispersion of the Mecting would take place, from placards
that had been seen about the town; the notices given. by the Boroughreeve
and Constables, from the tenor of which he thought the
dispersion of the Meeting very likely. The substance of the placard
was a recommendation to the people to keep at home, and to
prevent their wives, children, and servants, from attending the
Meeting. Witness, notwithstanding, went to the Meeting, at his
own risk. He thought he should have run some risk had he stayed,
and that induced him to go away fora short time, and then return.
When he went away, the field was completely thronged with people—when
he returned, the military had possession of it. They:
were then bringing Mr. Hunt, out of Mr. Buxton’s house. He saw
no persons that were wounded. Witness had a mill burnt down
some years ago by the Luddites, and he believed that four persons
were hangedfor it—Witness was at Gibraltar the time the mill was
destroyed. He never heard that tbe mill was burnt down by the
black-faced spies from Bolton, and, if he had heard such a story he
should not have believed it. He believed his name might have been
put down as one of the prosecutors. He might have heard that
one of the persons executed was a child, but had never seen the parties.
* Re-examined by Mr. Scartetr—Witness thonght it was not
safe to remain at the Meeting, as he expected that it would be dispersed.
He did not think such a Meeting safe for the town of Manchester.
He should suppose that there might be from 70,000 to
100,000 persons present. They were almost exclusively of the labouring
classes, with the exception of those whom he supposed to
have been carried there by curiosity, from their standing at some
distance from the hustings. Some of the persons who formed the
multitude might unquestionably be out of employment.
Rocer ENnTwistie, examined by Mr. ScarLeTT.—Was an
attorney at Manchester. Fromten to eleven o’clock on the 16th of
August he was at the Albion Hotel, in Piccadilly, on the road leading
to Stockport, He saw a coach going ata foot pace, anda
procession advance as from Stockport, consisting of about 5000
men, marching like regular soldiers. They had banners and
capsof liberty with them, Several had the commandof different
parties. Those who appeared to command were onone side at cere
tain intervals, about a yard from the rest. They had sticks, and yery
large ones, Some walked with them, and some carried them on
their shoulders. The eoach stopped opposite the White Bear, in
Pigcadilly, and he saw Mr. Moorhouse step out of the coach which
accompanied them. One of the marching men said to him, * Thou
hast a good coat on thy back, but I shall have as good a one before
the night is out:” several of them on hearing this wentinto the house.
Witness then went to St. James’s square. there he saw the special
constables in front of Mr. Buxton’s house. Mr. Hunt had not then
arrived. Went to see Mr. Hunt coming up. He was in a carriage
with Mr. Moorhouse and several others. 1 was the same coach that
he had seenarrive from Stockport. He saw Mr. Hunt get on the
hustiags. He had previously seen a party, said to be from Oldham
and Royton,arrive on the ground. They marched on, the band play-
33
ing “ Rule Britannia,” and the people exclaiming “ Britons neverwill
beslaves.’ Altogether, he supposed the meeting must have consisted
of 100,000 men, They were nearly all of the lower order. The
mecitag was certainly calculated to inspire terror and alarm in the
inhaditants of Manchester. It was proposed that Mr. Hunt should
take tne chair. He(Mr. Hunt) then came forward, took off his hat,
and said tie was giad that the meeting had been adjourned from
the preceding Monday, or words to that effect, as they had now double
the number assembled in the cause that there would otherwise
have been. A part of the military approached, and Mr. Huntsaid,
pointing to the soldiers, “Your enemies are among you; if they attempt
to molest you, get them down, and when you have them down,
keep them down.’ Shortly after the Yeomanry Cavalry appeared,
and witness thinking it unsafe to remain, went towards Mr. Buxton’s
house. There was a great shouting among the mob when the Yeomanry
appeared.
By Mr. Hont.—Witness was an attorney; was clerk of the
Manchester Race Course; was examined ou the Coroner’s Inquest
on his oath, and answered the questions put to him there. What he
said at Oldham, and what he now stated at York, was true. He
again described what he had seen from the steps of the Albion; the
coach went at a foot pace, and he conceived it to head the Stockport
division. The coachstopped, but the division went on; some of
the persons had very jarge sticks, which they carried over their
shoulders, but he had not said that they carried them as soldiers
carry their muskets. Witness was very much alarmed, but yet he
afterwards went to St. Peter’s Field, where his alarm became much
greater from seeing so large a concourse of people assembled ; he
was alarmed because he knew that their minds were very much inflamed
by reading the seditious works which had been previously
publisued. He knew someof the parties from Oldham and Royton,
and he had frequently seen them buying the works he had
mentioned at the office of the MANCHESTER OBSERVER, and recommending
them to their friends. He had, besides, frequently heard
them express their sentiments on such subjects. Some of the purchasers
of the works in question he saw at the Meeting. He had
seen few Manchester faces there (but those of the lower orders) who
did not go from curiosity. The Manchester people had bought the
publications of which he had spokenfrom curiosity, but not with the
feelings common to the lower orders. By lower orders he meant
weavers and labouring mev. He had not seen the Manchester
people so eager to buy seditious publications, as those who came
from several places in its vicinity. The lower orders in Manchester
were many of them engaged in the works, and were not allowed to
go out on the 16th of August. Several he had no doubt would have
gone there if they could ; he had never stated that the cause of their
not going to the meeting was their not having purchased the works
to which he had allnded ; he repeated his statement of what had
fallen from Mr. Hunt at the hustings. Did not see any body proceed
to act on the recommendation to get the military down and keep
them down. To him it appeared that Mr. Hunt wished not to be interrupted
by the military, and wanted the people to keep them off, if

eS
“|
’ 34 30
ney in London, was the attorney against him; he never wasin the
Fleet Prisonin his life.
The examination proceeded ; Witness was not close to the constables
the whole time ; heard that morning that the Yeomanry Ca-
Sorte oye
it were in their power. Witness was fromten to twelve yards distant,
and behind the hustings while Mr. Hunt was speaking. The
people were tolerably peaceable while he (Mr. Hunt) was addressing
them. A Mr. Mentzie was with him, and heard the same expressions.
He could notrecollect whether he used the word adjournment,
at the Oldham inquest; his opinion then and since was, that
the word used by him (Hunt) was adjournment: he went to St. Pe
ter’s Field because he was determined to hear what he (Hunt) had to
Say: witness was not onthe line of constables when the military appeared;
saw the Yeomanry Cavalry advance, some cantering, and
the whole on a pretty sharp trot: witness went to the meeting by
himself, and returned with him (Hunt) to the New-Bayley; when
he went to the meeting, he thought it perfectly safe to go by himself;
he saw two or three of the wounded, a woman in particular,
carried on to Mr. Buxton’s house: felt great alarm when he went to
the field; saw the people, and particularly the black flag, which
more resembled a pall than any thing else, with the inscription
«Equal Representation or Death:” felt this fear before the Yeomanry
arrived, not knowing what the result would be: witness stated at
Oldham, that he saw danger the moment he saw the parties come
in from Stockport.
Mr. Hunt—Did you not swear at Oldham that you saw no danger
till the Yeomanry camein, but that you then feared some danger
might ensue ?—His reason for saying so was this, there were before
no acts of violence, but when they came within ten yardsof the hustings,
they were assailed by stones, brick-bats, and sticks: his’ fear
was, what the result of the meeting would be when it broke up: he
was fearful only for the result: he did not hear a report that the
meeting was to be dispersed by the military that day: was not in
London since May or June: remained there a week. Witness never
was in prison for debt or misconduct : the assignees of a bankrupt
i, and himself were served with a notice of a petition in Chancery, and
that matter was now pending. Mr. Parlington, a well known attor- r
valry were ordered up: walked.up and down the field the whole
morning ; no person threatened to take off his coat; saw several
gentlemen insulted by the lower orders who came in, they called
them spies and special cousiables: was not himself called a spy:
did not wave his hand to the Cavalry to direct them. The black
flag was not.of the usual shape of such things, it looked more like
apall: would not swear that the word Love was not on it. There was
at the top of the pole of one of the flags.something like a bloody dagger;
never saw the flag with this figure since that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow.—Witness considered the
coach in which Moorhouse was to be part of the procession, because
it was coming in a walking pace. The coach came immcdiately
before the Stockport division ; there were several passengers inside
and out; did not see them get out; did not know whether Moorhouse
was driving er not; he was on the outside: belieyes the
coach comes every morning at the same hour, and stays at the
White Bear; saw Moorhouse with Hunt afterwards in an open carriage,
and a lady upon a dicky; did not see Moorhouse go on the
hustings ; knew someof the men in the procession to be from Stock-
La Cross-examined by Mr. ScaRLeTT.—Witness could not say
where the flag was placed, but it was uponthe hustings for a time;
all the flags and caps were upon the hustings at one time; did not
know if such was the case while Mr. Hunt was there. If what he
said this day be compared with what he stated at the Oldham Inquest,
he felt convinced that they would agree in every material
int.
FRANCIS PHILLIrs, examined by Serjeant Hurttock—Is a
merchant and manufacturer at Manchester; remembered being on
horseback on the 16th; Mr. G. Birley was with him; met a number
of persons at Ardwick Green, a mile and a half from Manchester;
they were advancing in file, with the regularity of military,
principally three-a-breast: they had no music; had two banners,
and persons by their side acting to appearance as officers; they
regulated the files, and the order was perfectly regular, the number
from 14 to 1500; they had no arms, but a number of them had
sticks, which they carried in various ways; there was one stick
attracted his notice, it had a rough thick bark, as if newly cut; he
caught witness’s eye, raised the stick with his other hand, and
struck it at him; saw the whole pass; heard them pronounce the
words “left, right.’ Witness returned to Manchester; was@ special
constable that day; went to the place where the magistrates
were assembled ; when he got to Peter’s area, there was a crowd
there, and the party he before met came shortly after on the ground ;
he knew them by their banners ; one had the inscription, “‘ No Corn
Laws ;” they marched in the same manner as before ; could not say
what number were on the ground; the party he met in the morning
marched up near the hustings; saw several other parties come up ae
nearly about the same time; there was some music; the party he oe
saw at Ardwick hadno distinctive badge in their hats, but another
wore a laurel leaf, and a third party something white, which he did
pot know ; he saw a party in a carriage, of whom hebelieved Mr.
Huntto be one; he was accompanied by an immense multitude, and
witness never heard suchnoise as that which attended his entrance,
nor ever saw such numbers before. It excited great apprehensions
in him, and, in his opinion, was calculated to excite the same in
the minds of the inhabitants of Manchester; he saw Mr. Hunt on
the hastings ; witness saw him address the multitude, but did not
hear what he said; he could not be heard by half the people assembled
; it might be two minutes after seeing Mr. Huntthat he eaw
Mr. Nadin approach the hustings; did not see Mr. Hunt taken ;
after seeing the military, witness returned home, and ordered the
doors of the factory to be closed in consequenceof the great alarm
he felt, and gave directions to the porter to keep the doors closed,
and not to quit his post. His motive for this was, that he considered
the town to be in imminent danger; witness dismantled some
fire-arms that morning, lest the erowd might pay him a visit; he
put away some bayonets that were attached to old muskets,

36
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—Witness was a merchant, and °
an author sometimes ; wrote and published a pamphlet on this business;
the one produced was the first edition published; a second
published 1,000 each ; sold many, and gave away some, which he
sent away as presents to Members of Parliament; it was a few
days after the meeting of Parliament; Mr. Birley, who accompanied
witness on the morning of the 16th, is brother to Captain
Birley, of the Manchester Yeomen; did not know whether they
were commanded by him at the time ; Major Trafford might have
been with them, though witness did not see him; saw Mr. Hunt
on the hustings; witness altered nothing of any importance in the
pamphlet; he considered the town in great danger, and posted himself
near the Magistrates to give them his support, as he thought he
was bound to do: gave no orders that his men should remain in
doors ; heard many taunting expressions used onthefield to every
man who wore a good coat and went among the crowd ; considered
the shaking ofthe stick as aninsult; the military appeared to him
to act with temper, discretion, and propriety; only sawthe first advance;
saw the 13th and Cheshire Yeomanry come on the field in
a hard canter, when they observed the Yeomen in danger ; saw
some infantry, and two pieces offlying artillery; saw no blood spilt;
saw verylittle of the battle; the dust and the numberofconstables
prevented him from seeing much of what took place.
MrSerjeant: HULLock objected to Mr. Hunt’s going on with
this kind of examination.
Mr. Justice BariLey—Mr. Hunt, 1 thought you heard from mé
before that this is not evidence—you cannot examine as to it. It
may be true that blood was spilt, and I am sorryforit, but we are
not trying that here. The question before the jury now is, not
what was done at the time you allude to, but whether the meeting
was a legal one, and whether the defendants were guilty of promoting
it; and the matter you allude to cannot affect that question.
Mr. Hunt.—I hope your Lordship will allow me to give evipi
as to what occurred, as it will be most material for my deence.
Mr. Justice BarLEy.—You may, Mr. Hunt, give any evidence
you can as to the character of the Meeting ; but surely this kind of
evidence will not affect that.
Mr.Hunt.—My Lord, I cannot better show the character of
the Meeting than by proving, which I think I shall be able to do
that when they were most violently attacked they did not resist, dnd
that, even though some of them were put to death, they acted most
quietly.
Mr. Justice Ba1Ley (to the witness, who was about to retire
from the box.)—stay, stay, was the Meeting peaceable ?
WiTNESs.—It was, my Lord, peaceable in the part where I
could observe.
Mr. Hon? wasthen proceeding in his cross-examination, and
had put another question when
Mr. Justice Bartey said, Mr. Hunt I think it right now to
state my opinion as to the point of law asfar as the legality or illegality
of the Meeting, if the jury shall believe the evidence. I
37
think, then, that if a meeting assembles in such numbers, and with
‘such strength, as to excite alarm in the minds of peaceable subjects,
that meeting is illegal. If the purpose of a meeting be legal,
it may become illegalif illegal means he resorted to for gaining that
purpose. Evenif the meeting be legalin its object, it may become.
illegal by the manner in which it is conducted, if that manner be
such as to excite terror in ordinary minds. So I shall state it to
the Jury, and any thing which took place after such meetiug was
assembled, is vo justification of that meeting.
Mr. Hunr.—MyLord, I shall bow to any thing whieh your
Lordship decides; but, assuming that the view which your Lordshiphas
taken on the question of law be correct, I propose to shew
by my cross-examination, that the fears which were entertained
were quiet erroneous, and not justified by the conduct of the Meeting.
1 wish to shew, that though an attempt was made, by sending
a few straggling and drunken soldiers amongst them, to try
their tempers, and to excite them to a breach of the peace, or to
pst them to death, which, in their numbers they might have doné,
et that nothing was done by this multitude which could excite a
Lickel of the peace, and that therefore all the fears respecting their
conduet was wholly groundless.
Mr. Justice BatLey.—Yes, but the jury will still have to
dec'de whether the Meeting, independently of those cireumstances,
was such as was calculated to excite alarm; and in that decision
what took place on the part of others can have no effect.
The examination then proceeded.—The people were peaceable
onthat part of the field where witness stood; should have conceived
it wrong to send the constables into sach a vast mass of people unsupported
by the military. It would have been excessively imprudent.
The people round the hustings were close together; did not
see them locked; this he merely heard from others; they stood as
élose together as possible—Witness heard nothing that was said on
the hastings by him (Hunt.) It was natural the people should flock
round the hustings to hear him (Huxt;) their wish to hear alone
would nét have made them stand round the hustings as they did.
Wituess considered them as disciplined troops, who came to protect
or fight for him (Hunt,) as occasion offered. They appeared to him
ready to protect him, or fightfor hin, so he gave the command.
Fhey were so close tlie constables could not approach; there was a
Gouble rew of constables front Mr. Buxtoi’s house. Witne¥s went
down that row, but conld not get within twenty or twenty-five yards
of thé hustings; did not-see the Manéhester yeomen comeinto tle
field; saw them form; Was convinced they weré sober; spoke to
some, arid did not see the least appearance of inebricty. He saw
Navin, but had’ ne conversation withhim; did not see Nadin make
any effort to go to the hustings without the yeomanfy ; it would
have been madness to attempt it: :
The Rev. Dr. Suiti resided in Matichester ; is head master of
the grammar-school; was near the Star on the 16th; saw a large
Body of men in Deansgate; it was that party that conducted Hunt
to the ground ; saw him in an open carriage; was in the house
tiext to the Star Inn; the coach stopped, and the partystopped
z

38
also; shouted, hissed, and groaned opposite the Star Inn; did not
know whether the Magistrates were there then or not. Sawor
heard no signal, but it seemed to be done by consent. Hunt, he
thought, wassitting. There were music and banners; could. not
say accurately what the members were ; it was not practicable to
get along the street ; he acted uponthat judgment, for he did not
go home that moment, as he intended. The crowd next stopped
at the Shambles, nearer the ground ; they marchedat first irregularly,
but near the carriage, both before and after it, there was
great regularity ; the men marched in rows in practised step,
Whentheyarrived in King-street, the same thing occurred as opposite
the Star, but being furtheroff, witness did not see it so distinctly
; heard shouting, hissing, anda clapping of hands; a white
handkerchief was displayed from some window; the Police-office
is in Back King-street. The mode in which they proceeded was
most certainly calculated to inspirealarm; many of them seeming
to be countrymen, This body itself was considerable, and connecting
it with what he heard to be in St, Peter’s-field,, he became
very anxious. Most of the shop windows were closed, but the
doors, as far as he recollected, were opened. Witness shut his
own windows, and locked both his front doors. The crowd round
unt had not at all the air of a deliberate assembly.
_ Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr—lIs the head master, of the free
grammar school at Manchester. The business of the grammar
school was gone on as usual in the morning, but after breakfast he
dismissed the pupils. There were four departments in the school,
and about 140 scholars, including boarders. He did not think it
prudent to keep them, but sent them home, thinking it would be
safer to let them be under the protection of their parents. The
school would break up at twelve o’clock, andthen they must have
gone ;but he thought it better to dismiss themat half-past nine,
than haye let them out at twelye o’clock. The school was but
thinly attended after breakfast. He had heard that persons were
ordered to remain within their own houses by the Boroughreeye
and Constables. He would mostcertainly have kept the children
evenover their dinner hour, if he had knownthat there was confusion
and cutting down personsby soldiers in the streets. ‘There
was no insult offered to him. He heard shouting, groaning, and
hissing, opposite to the Star Inn. Does not recollect to have heard
of any instances of any of his boys having been hurt. Recollected
the proclaiming of King George IV. the other day. There
might have been some crowd there then. It was usual on occasions
of great crowds to have the shop-windowsclosed.
Re-examined—Should have been perplexed what to.do, if the
boys had remained, in the schooltill 12 o’clock,. from the state of
the town then.
Examined by Mr. Jounsoy.—Deansgateis a narrow and busy
street. The foot-path is not a yard wide in some places.
Grorcr Bartow, examined by Sergeant Huttock.—Keepsthe
Coach and Horses public-house in Deansgate, Manchester. Remembers
the 16th. of August. Saw great crowds of people passing,
like the drilling of soldiers, A carriage passed in the crowd.
39
Thexe were four menin it, and a womanoutside with a flag int her
hand. Does not know any ofthe parties in the carriage. On
passing the end ofthe street where the Police-Office is, numbers
of persons turned towards the office, and shouted. They had
flags, on one of which there were the words « Equal Representation
or Death.’ He remained at home all that day, because he
was alarmed. The shutters of the windows were up, and they
used candles inside. There was great cheering, such as he never
heard before.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huxr—Hasbeenliving in Manchester
for the last 30 years. Remembers the proclamation of peace.
There were plenty of cheers and shouts then, but nothing like
those of the 16th. of August. Was alarmedonthat dayfrom eleven
o’clock for the rest of the day. Saw the crowdtheother day at
the proclamation of his present Majesty. They marched by, and
marched very well. They did not appear to have had as mpch
training asthose who marched with Mr. Hunt. The crowd on the
16th. was greater than he ever saw before ; twice as great as he
had ever, seen at the Manchester races, Could not say how many
persons passed by his house.
Tuomas Sryan, examined by Mr. Scartetr.—Is a gun-smith,
living in Market-street, Manchester. Remembers the 16th. of
August. Saw great crowds passing by on that day. They were
shouting. He closed his shop, lest the windows should be broken
by the crowds coming down. He keptit closedtill about two
o'clock, or alittle after two.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huxr—Knew Richardson the gunsmith,
(aman whohadfirst been put inte the box before him, but
who was not examined). Did not knowthat it was Richardson who
sharpened the swords of the yeomanry cavalry. His windows
were not broken on that day. The windows were closed at eleyen
and opened between two and three. Part of the windows were
afterwards opened, when the crowd wentpast, and the rest between
two and three. The street is very narrow. ‘He did not
remember to have ever shut up his windows before, in consequenceof
a crowd.
Epwarp Smpson, examined by Sergeant Hutrocx.—lIsa hatmanufacturer,
in Deansgate, Manchester. On the 16th of August
people continued passing in great numbers, from ten o’clock to
one. About a quarter before one Mr. Hunt came. There was 2
crowd, and flags and music. He heard no great noise. The people
marched in a regularstep, about nine or ten a-breast. He kept:
his shop shut from ten o’clock for the remainder of the day, as he
was very muchalarmed lest there should be a disturbance tromthe
marching on that day. He andall his family were very much
frightened.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt.—He wasafraid, because he
did not know howthe Meeting would end. He wasnot afraid of
the cavalry. He had not heard that the cavalry wouldattack the
people. Wasnot at the Meeting, and knewnothing aboutit.
By the Courr.—The numbers which passed were 4,000 er
9,000 altogether,

40
~
Matruzw Cowrkn, examined by Mr. Scarterr.—Is an ac.
eountant ; was at the place of Meeting at Manchester on the 16th.
of August. (Here the witness produced some memorandums which
he took on the occasion.) In his judgement, there were not
less than 100,000 persons present on the field. He had measured
the ground, and made a calculation. The persons were for the
greater part from the country, and mostly of the working classes
and lower orders. There were several flags. On one flag,
«No Boroughmongering ; equal Representation or Death.” On
the reverse were the words, “ Taxation without Representation is
tyrannical and unjust.’ This was the black flag. It was about
two yardssquare. On another were the words, “ No Corn Laws.”
The point of the pole on which this flag was borne was shaped
like adaggar. Another flag had, “ The Rights of Man;” and on
another was a figure of Justice painted blind. There were 16
flags in all, and five caps of liberty. Saw Hunt and the crowd
which followed him coming into the field. These persons wore
white things, either rags or paper, in their hats. He took them to be
bits of linen. He heard some of them say to the others, « Lads,
take care of your rags.” Could not say what proportion of them
wore those badges. ~Saw Hunt and Johnsonin the carriage. Also
saw Knight and Saxton present, There were others whom he
should know if he saw them. (Here he looked round and pointed
out Swift and Jones as having been also on the hustings.) When
Hunt came on the hustings he addressed the people. Witness
took it down then, and he had notaltered itsince. He said, “Gentlemen,
I entreat that you will be peaceable and quiet, and every
person who wishes to hear must keep order: andall I askforis,
that during the proceedings you will be quiet : we will endeavour
to make ourselves heard ; but itis impossible for us to be heard by
the whole. We wish that our fellow countrymen who do hear,
will communicate to those whe do not. It is useless to observe
upon the intended Meeting of last week, only to observe, that those
who by their malignant exertions, in taking advantage of a few
Hlegal words, expected that they had triumphed, instead of which
it had produced two-fold the number.” (There were then
cheers, and Mr. Hunt continued.) ‘“ And now we have ttiumphed,”
He went on and said, “There were two or three placards
signed by two or three obscure individuals.’ At this time some
foot soldiers appeared at the end of Dickinson-street, and formed.
Witness did not take down anything after this; but from his
memory he could state some of what Hunt ‘said further—« Never
mind, they are only a few soldiers; they are few compared with
us, and we are a host against them.” The crowd was such as was
calculated to inspire terror and alarm in the town of Manchester.
His sensations about the Meeting did not arise from what he saw at
the time, but from the intelligence. which he had previously received
from other persons. ,
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow.—I know the appearance of
Jones; Inever heard that he was a carpenter employedto build
the hustings. : 45 ,
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt.—Ihaveno occupation but those
4l
of accountant and law stationer; I am Secretary to a Committee,
but that arises out of my other occupations. Iwas Secretary toa
Committee composed of 300 Gentlemen in aid of the civil power.
Jamnot in the employ of the Police. I occasionally communicate
with The Courier and Morning Post London Papers. I sent up
an account of the Manchester Meeting to The Courier. I think
my report did not appear, I believe they selected fromthe other
papers. I have beenin the service of a professor of the law for
nine years. I have been under instructions for the Excise. I was,
earlier in life, aclerk toabrewery, to Dawes and Fogg, of Bolton,
perhaps twelve months. My father was in the excise; he was
supervisor of the district in which the breweryis situated. (Mr.
Huntasked witness why he left their employment, but he declined
answering, at length he stated as follows :)—I applied to my own
use money belongingtothe firm, and Messrs. Dawes dismissed me
in consequence. That money I have repaid to Mr. Dawes, with
compoundinterest, up tothetime of payment. I took the money
out of the till, and was detected. I know John Roscoe ; he was
servant to Messrs. Dawes. I have repaid it all, with interest, 25d.
It is some months ago since I paid this money; it was the first
money I could command. The reason of my not paying it sooner
was, that my father’s death left three younger brothers to be supported
by me. It wasto Mr. Fogg I paid the money. It was paid
three months ago. I took the notessince I gave evidence against
you at the New Bailey, and since I was a witness on the indictment
at Lancaster. I did not take so much as 25/. from my master’s
till; but it being left to my discretion, I thought I ought to
do my utmost to repair the injury. I have been three years in
business. I never told Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Maule, or Mr. Milne,
this story. I did not know you knew it. The money which I
took was stamped. If I oe known that you were acquainted
with it, I should have had Mr. Daweshere, as he would willingly
come forward for me. I do not know that my father being a
a supervisor of the district, and having great power over my
master, was the reason why I was not prosecuted; I have not
been paid by the Magistrates or Police, except for being Secretary
to the Committee in aid of the civil power. The accounts of
the Committee were passed at the parish table.
'
Mr. Hunr—Dont you know this money was paid out of the
parish rates ? :
Mr. Justice Baytey said this was not a relevant question.
I was within a dozen or fifteen yards of the hustings on the
day of the Meeting, I stood between the hustings and the house
where the Magistrates were. I saw no disturbance. I went purposely
to take notes of what you or any oneelse should say. .The
reason why the observations respecting the soldiers were not written
down was, that all attention being directed to them when they
appeared, I ceased to use my pencil. The cavalry were coming
up at the time. I took down the heads of your discourse at the
time, and the remainder filled up from memory. I am nota
reporter. All I have read is not down in my notes.
Mr.Justice Bauey.—Let melook at those notes. (The notes

42
were handed up.) 1 think there are the materials here of such a
speech.
Cross-examination continued.—I have a good memory. I wrote
out ray notes, and handed themover to Mr. Norris, the Magistrate.
Thave not seen them since. I did not hear you say, “ Put them
down, and keep them down.” TI turned when the cavalry came,
and you might then have said it without hearing you. It was not
said before the cavalry appeared. None but the Editor of The
Courier employed meto take notes of what passed—(witnress repeated
the inscriptions on ihe fiags.) There was no bloody dagger
on the black flag. The inscription on the blackflag attracted my
attention particularly. 1 had not time, or I would have taken all
the inscriptions. The black flag was attached to a pole, as the
other flags were; I saw no difference between them. I saw a
barbed point to one of the flag poles; it was painted red. The
top of the pole was nota fleur-de-lis. I did not see two hands and
the word “ Love” uponthe blackflag,
The Court was then adjourned at seven o’clock, till tomorrow
at nine. .
Saturday, March 18.
At nine o’clock Mr. Justice Bamzy entered the Court ; and
eon Mr. Hunt coming in a few minutes afterwards, his Lordship
remarked, thaton the preceding day he had objected to a question
being put, as to the conduct of the Yeomanry Cavalry. He was
then of opinion, as he was now, that that question could not be
goneinto, as the Court had not been assembled for the purpose of
trying the Yeomanry of Manchester. He, however, desired to
be understood, that evidence going to shewthe peaceable character
of the Meeting, by the absence ofresistance, he had not intended
to exclude bythat decision. If, under that impression, Mr. Hunt
had omitted to ask any witness questions on that subject, which he
wasdesirous of putting, he (the Judge) would order such witnesses
to be called back.
Mr. Huyrhadonly wished to shew the animus of the Meeting,
and after the evidence given on the other side as to the motive
and views of those who attended it he had been anxious to prove,
that instead of offering resistanceto the military, the Meeting had
taken a course directly opposite. He had understood the cause of
the interference on the part of the Judge, and if any quéstions
should occur to_him that he had omitted to put on the conduct of
the people, he would in the course of the day ayail himself of his
Lordship’s permission to recal the witness he might wish to examine
further. :
Thetrial was then resumed,
Thefirst witness was Josrpn Mitts, examined by Mr. Sergeant
Hvxtock :—I keep a public house at Manchester, and know Joseph
Healey, who cameto St. Peter’s-field, at the head of a very large
party of men, on the morning of the 16th. August. They
marchedin files of about four or five a-breast. The number was
upwards of 3 or 4000, and Healey led them up,inamilitary way,
with a trumpeter, to the hustings or cart, which they surrounded.
Healey got upon it, and took from a man whocarried it, a black
43
flag, which he stuck up, and shortly returned it to the original
bearer, after making little speech, saying that they must stand
steady, for their enemies were at hand. They then cheered him.
There was a cap of liberty also. I know one Wild, who led up
aparty of men, and whois not now here tomy knowledge. ( Witness
pointed to Johnson as like Wild, and Johnson addressed the
Judge and said, “Iam no more like him than your Lordship.’
The defendant Wild was ill, and not in Court at this hour of the
morning. He afterwards entered and was gente by the witness,
as having led up aparty of the men through Mosley-street on the
16th. of August.) Wild, on halting the men, said, “ Link your
arms, and keep steady.’ The people immediately obeyed him,
quite round the cart. A little after, not thinking they had kept
room enough, he ordered them to “ fall back,” “keep as you are,”
&c. &c. The people formed in this manner fouror five deep in
ranks. About one o’clock Mr. Hunt arrived, and the people
opened a road for him up to the hustings. Mr. Moorhouse and
Mr. Johnson were with him. Mr. Hunt ascended the hustings, on
which there were several others; among them were Mr. Saxton,
who had been half an hour or more on the hustings before, and
who spoke several times to the crowd, and was often cheered.
There were, when Mr. Hunt arrived in St. Peter’s Area, more
than 60,000 people assembled, andit was in his judgment a Meeting
calculated to inspire terror and alarm into the minds of the
inhabitants of Manchester. Ihad beenat several meetings before,
and never saw the people come into town as they did that day. I
never sawso large a meeting before. All former meetings that I
saw were composed of parties, who came in at random, and at
their leisure, but these came in several bodies in military array
altogether.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt.—Has been a publican for a
year and a half; was one of Nadin’s police-runners before that ;
was a special constable on the 16th of August; saw Healey form
his mennear the cart (hustings), but not quite close to it. Hesaid
the words which witness mentioned before ; he did not hear Healey
advise the people to be quiet, but he might have done so; did not
hear him adyise them to disturb the peace. Witness called the
bodies of men “parties,’ and not squads or spuadrons; he had
no conversation with any one of the witnesses who had been exa-+
mined here. When Huntarrived on the ground, the music struck
up, “Here comes the conquering hero,” did not hear “ Rule
Britannia,” or, “ God save the King,’ but would not say they
were not played. Was not insulted by the people. Would not
say that Healey’s men were linked round arm in arm. When
Wild had ordered the mentofall back, they pushed against the
constables. Witness was alarmed, and expressed his fears to
others who were with him, but did not go to inform the. Magistrates.
Healey’s men formed outside Wild’s men. It was
before Healey’s arrival that the constables were pushed back.
The constables did not complain of being so pushed back. If
Wild had said any thing treasonable, or that could excite the
people to violence. and tumult, witness would haye noticed it,

ATTEESE, Prae ae
44
Did not hear him so excite the people. Would not swear that he
(Wilde) did not urge the people to be peaceable and orderly.
Saw no violence committed by the people on any person. Withess
was there when Hunt arrived. The people shouted, and so
did Mr. Hunt. They were all merry together. Heard Mr. Hant
sey to the people that they should be quiet, and that those who
should disturb the peace, to pull them down, and keep them
quiet. Never heard him advise them to attack the soldiers.
Examined by Mr. Barrow.—Wason the ground before the
hustings were erected ; did not sea Moorhouse there.
wamined by Mr. Horr (for Saxton)—He believed Saxton
was on the hustings before Mr. Hunt came. He waseither on the
hustings, or on a cart near them. Witness saw him there when
Mr. Hunt came. Did not know that Mr. Saxton was a Reporter
to a Newspaper at Manchester. Did not see him with pen, ink,
and paperthere.
Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Huttock.—At first there was
only a cart; but afterwards that was moved a little, and then
planks were placed on twocarts.
Examined by Mr. Hrstey.—Had not given notice to Healey,
the week before,that ifhe attended such Meeting he would take him
into custody. Had not told to a customer of his that the moment
he saw Healey he had marked him for his bird. He had met
him on the 8th. of August, and they talked about his (Healey’s)
journey to London. Healey was arrested on a warrant from Lord
Sidmouth, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.—Witness
went with him to London; he was not broughttotrial.
Henry Morron examined—J live in London, but was at
Manchester on the 16th. of August, to take notes for a London
paper. I went to St. Peter’s Area at half-past eleven o’clock, and
saw different parties marching to the area. As they entered the
seemed to be conducted by persons who had the commandof thenn.
T saw several banners. I cannot say I saw a dagger painted on a
flag; but one of theflag poles had the resemblanceof a dagger
surmounting it, and I think painted red. There were a great
body of constablesformed from the hustings towards Mr. Buxton’s
house. F did not observethe hustings removedfrom its origina]
position. Before Mr. Hunt arrived I saw Mr. Jones exhorting the
meeting to be peaceable, and he said the Committee had, on the
Saturday previous, ordered the people to assemble round the
hustings at six yards distance, andto lock themselves arm in arm,
in order that they might not be broke in upon. These were not
the precise words, but to that effect. I was then about six or
seven yards behind thehustings, which were at that time preparing.
TF heard Mr. Wild speak to the same effect as Jones.
A Mr. Swift addressed the Meeting at greater length than the
othertwo, and obtained a better hearing. All this was before
Mr. Hunt arrived. Swift exhorted the Meeting to be peaceable
until thearrival of their Chairman, and not togive their enemies
any opportunity of exercising that power which he knew they
wereon the alert todo. “ By this means (said he) weshall prove~
to them that we are not mad, as‘they call us; if we are mad, it
45
is the most pleasant insensibility I ever felt in my life.’ As TI
found myself getting nearer the hustings, I thought it advisable
to put up my pencil and paper. I was first amongthe constables,
but was afterwards placed about the middle of the circles which
encompassed the hustings. There were about 11 or 12 such
circles, and in one of them I was locked by persons at eachside
of me. At that time it was utterly impossible for any manto force
his way through that crowd. When Mr. Hunt arrived, there
appeared to be a falling back to make way for him. I saw him
ascend the hustings. Mr. Moorhousewas in the coach.

46
47
haps have been to keep the crowd off. He could not say. Did
not know that it was usual to form a barrier round hustings to keep
people off.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—The papers I hold in my
hand are two of Lhe New Times, containing my accounts of the
transaction at Manchester, which are the same as [ have verbally
given in Court. I was sent down as Reporter to The New Times.
The accounts in those papers are not perhaps exactly the same as I
sent—that is, verbally so, for they were drawn up in a hurry, and
may require verbal corrections. tis not usual to alter the tenor
of my reports; but hasty verbal inaccuracies may be corrected. [
have no other occupation than that of a Reporter for the The New
Times, and an occasional correspondent for some country papers.
While at Manchester, I was frequently at the Police-office, to gain
information of the passing occurrences. J know Mr. Nadin. I
did not communicate any information to the Police-office, as I
receive it from thence. I merely reported for the paper I have
mentioned. I was never employed by the Solicitors to the Treasury;
I never saw Mr. Maule until a month ago, I never was at Halifax,
except passing through on my way here. I sent no communication
of the Manchester business to any other London. paper than The
New Times. What appeared in that paper was from my pen. The
communications which I sent were of occurrences under my eye. I
believe there was a lettersent to the paper from Manchester, but
from whom [I did not know. I never told any one that my report
was made up from what I heard from other London reporters. That
was not the fact ; I was locked in amongthe people.
Mr. Hunt—You must, being so high-bred a gentleman, have
been curiously situated among the lowerorders,
Q. Did you get any thing unpleasant in the crowd ?—I felt no
inconvenience; nobody threatened to take my good coat off my back ;
I was certainly alarmed.
Q. How came you to omit “ the putting down and keeping
down?’ in your account that you sent up ?—A. Because I wrote the
report-in a private room; the moment [ got out of the crowd,
without reading it over, sent it by an express to town; I afterwards
noted down more particulars on refreshing my recollection, and then
{ remembered that passage in your speechaswell as another which I
did not know I omitted until the paper reached Manchester. It is
not my practice to omit material and transmit trivial points. I did
recollect the omission before I saw any other paper, and corrected it
the very day of the meeting.—I never sent up to haveit corrected,
as I had other things of more consequenceto attend to. It certainly
never struck me that by making the observation, “keep them
down,”’ &c. you meant to put.any body to death. I seldom report
in Courts of justice. There were no military in view when you said
“keep them down,” &c.; it was when you spoke to the people at
the back of the hustings. I was very near you at the time, and did
not see youpoint to any one. :
Q. Then those who have said, I pointed to the soldiers and
said, there are your enemies, put them down,&c. &c.are not correct?
Certainly not, according te my recollection. _ 1 haye not got my
original notes, though I knewfor what I was coming here. The
notes I took on the field I lost on the same day in Mr. Petty’s
offices, the solicitor, at Manchester. I made the greatest inquiries
after them without effect. I have not brought down my manuseript
reports to the papers; they may be lost or not. T never saw them
since they went. I refreshed my memory from the account in the
papers whichI hold in my hand. Thoughthereis a verbal difference
between some parts of the written and the printed account, yet
there is no alteration of any matter of fact—I did not hear you exhort
the people to any act which had a tendency to lead them to
violence and disorder.
Mr. Hunr—[holding in his hand a number of The New
Times of the 18th of August|—Look,Sir, at the early part of the
report in this paper—is it yours P—Yes, I wrote it.
[The paragraph referred to stated the arrival of Mr. Hunt and
others at the hustings, in a coach, accompanied by “ Tyas” in
the coach. ]
Q. Is that true—I cannot swear to it, I was told Tyas was
one.
Q. Did you not know Tyas—No; I was also told Saxton
was there; I received my information on the field as well as I
could; I don’t recollect seeing Saxton in thefield.
Mr. Hunt—Is this passage, in which you speak of a lady
who was on the box of the coach as “a profligate Amazon,’ your
writing.
Witness—It is; he did not know that Mary Waterworth was
a profligate woman, but he considered himself justified in using the
word profligate, from seeing her in a situation where he thought no
proper woman would be. He would not call every womanprofligate
whom he mightsee bearing a flag, but he would if he saw her
bear it under similar circumstances. .
[Mr. Hunv then read another extract from the New Times
report, relative to the advance of the soldiers, the seizure of the
banners, and the “ sauve qui pout” retreat of the assembly. This
extract concluded as follows—“ Amongthe spolia opera they say,
are to be reckoned 16 banners with seditious inscriptions, and 6
eaps of jacobinism.”]
Examination continued~—W1tTNess considered them as caps of
liberty. They were red caps, with “ Henry Hunt, Esq.” upon
them. The caps were more jacobinical than the motto. He looked
upon all such as emblems ofjacobinism, wheacarried in that way :
he sawseveral persons wounded by the fall of a building, but no
persons cut while he was there. The shricks of women and groans
of men proceeded from the immensepressure in endeavouring to get
away from the field. This was caused by the appearanceofthe soldiers,
not by any act of the soldiers, but the appearance of them.
He escaped ; he was pressed with the crowd, and got away. Was
not hurt. No one cut at him with a sword, nor cut his hat, and he
never told any one so. He had no constable’s staff on that day.
He had on another day, but not on that. Never said to any person
that he had been cut at twice, but that he had saved the blow
by presenting his staff. He never told a brother reporter that
SSeSESWEShaa)
eh Se AEEN

48
the man who cut at him said, “ D—n you, why did you not show
your staff before?” Never told any one that he would do for Hunt
inthe witness-box. \
Mr. Hunt then turned. toa leading article in the same Paper,
which stated that “the wretch” who was formost in the Meeting
changed countenance, and that his “grin of malice” gave way
toa pallid and sallow hue.
Q. Is that your writing ?-~It is not.
Q. By whom wasit written ?—I don’t know.
Q. Is it true?—Itis true that you looked pale at the approach
of the military.
Q. And that my lips quivered ?—I have nothing to do with
the garnishing of it; you certainly looked pale, as I have mentioned.
Q. Were not the shricks of the women and the groans of the
men calculated to appal the stontest heart ?—I heard no shricks at
that time, nor until afterwards.
Q. You-saw me make no resistance to the constable’s staff,
it was an instant surrender ?—I saw you makeno resistance, but it
was rather a seizure than a surrender. 1 think it. was Nadin’who
seized you. I heard no question put by you to the officer of cavalry.
I saw Nadin take Johnson off the hastings by the leg,
and it appeared to me hé was about to do the same to you; but as
Thad turned roand at the moment, I can’t say exactly how he
took you. :
Cross-examined by Mr. BaMForp—-He went occasionally to
the Police-eflice, and got his information from Mr. Nadin. Had
confidence enough in Nadin to rely on what he told to hin—Nadin
did not tell him about the intention of the soldiers to cut Hunt to
pieces, Had no further communications with Nadin except of this
kind. He knew Mr. M. Cowper; had several conversations with
him. ‘Did not communicate to Mr. Hunt that there was an intention
of assassinating him.
Cross-ewamined by Mr. Swirr—I know you, though I did
not see you until the meeting at Manchester. ‘I refer these words to
you as having uttered them in your speech (some few sentences
recommending peace and good order), Your speech was, I think,
applauded; and so was that of every body who spoke.
JAMES PLarr, examined by Sergeant Huttock—Isa constable
belonging to the Police-office in Manchester. Was on the
ground, ab St. Peter’s area, on the 16th of August. ‘Saw the defendant
Healey, at the head of many hundreds, going to the meeting,
where he got into a cart, and appeared. to address them,
Witness did not hear what he said. There was ’a black flag with
the party, with the words “Lees, Saddleworth, Mosley,”’ uppon it.
He saw other parties besides this. One was coming very near the
church. Some of them had sticks, and were marching three and
four a-breast-—Saw Mr. Hunt arrive with a much larger party.
Knew Bamford, and saw him on the hustings, but could not say
how he got there, he apparently shouting with the rest.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bamrorp—He did not hear him
shoot, but he appeared to do so—There was an immense shout, in
49
which lie (Bamford) appeared to join. He (witness) considered it
as a shout of defiance to the constables on the ground. There was
a waving of hats and sticks. At the time of these shouts the
eople kept their faces towards the constables rather thay towards
Mr, Hunt. Mr. Hunt had then come upon the ground. There
were all sorts of noises made, He had herd shouts and bhuzzas
from respectable mectings. He would not say whether the shout
was not like that he heard at the meeting of the 16th. Was never
accused of having ferged notes in his possession.
In his cross-examination by Mr. HuNt—Q. Whatis the price
of a flimsy (a flash phrase for a forged note) now—A. Why ten
bobs (shillings). The prices vary little according to the execution.
The way I know forgeries was, that my father had forged 5b.
notes paid him for fustian ; he offered one at a grocer’s shop in Middleton,
which subsequently provedto be bad, and they were returned;
the 52. notes were returned by his father to where he got them, and
in return he got six or seven forged notes for l/or 2/. This so
aggravated witness that he determined to probe the matter to the
bottom, and detect the passers. J went to the people (continued
the witness) and by inveiglement I got into the secret, aad obtained
from them a 5/. and a 2/. note, upon which I gave information
to the Bank of England. I subsequently detected the parties, and
would do so again; 8s. was the price of a‘ flimsy’then; for the
51. I gave 2/. 16s. ; the man who gave them to meis nowatlarge
in Manchester; he was committed, but not tried; it was this circumstance
that introduced me to Mr. Nadin, who acted under the
directon of the Bank; by inveiglement I detected others since, and
one of them was by myevidence, andthat of others, hanged. 3
Q. Whatprice did you receive for that—I decline answering
that question. I never gave false evidence, 1 have prevented many,
and never appeared against one that was‘nailed;’ I gave no evidence
for forgeries at the last Lancaster assizes. Witness continued:
he saw Johnson, Bamford, Healey, and Moorhouse, on the hustings.
He would swear that he saw Moorhouseon the hustings; he
was about 30 or 40 yards between the Magistrates: he would not
say that the people did not cheer Mr. Hunt on his arrival; he was
not hurt on the field: he did not see the people commit any breach
of the peace where he was. ;
JonaTHAaNn ANDREWS,examined by Mr. ScarLeTT—Ireside at
Endham Hall, near Manchester; I was head constable in Manchester
in August last; I have some property there. I was on the
ground about twelve o’clock on the 16th of August ; it was arranged
that a line of constables should extend from the house where
the magistrates were to the hustings, or as near as possible to them.
When I went to the ground there was a lineof constables formed
from Mr. Buxton’s house to the hustings, which were then erected.
Shortly after the hustings were removed several yards backwards.
I took notice of the different parties as they arrived; they marched
in regular military order, as I have seen soldiers march; about
every fourth or fifth man appeared to have some command over the
rest; they werefive or six a-breast. A great number had sticks,
and many carried them as a soldier carries his musket, that is, erect

50
upon theleft shoulder; I saw a great number on the ground with
sticks, but they did not carry them in that form. I saw many flags
and caps of liberty. When each division arrived there was tremendous
shouting by those who were on and round the hustings;
there was also waving of sticks in the air—I was near enough to
the hustings to recognise Jones, whom I know, but I did not
hear what he said. I was upon the grouud when Mr. Hunt arrived
in a carriage. There was then an immense crowd of people assembled,
and the crowd which accompanied him was also immense. I
have not before seen as many people assembled together as I on
that day saw. I think there were between 60,000 and 70,000 persons
present, they consisted mostly of labouring people; there were very
few respectable persons present. I conceived so large a meeting
could have no other tendency than to overawethe respectable inhabitants
of the town, andits authorites. The people appeared to
have come from a distance. It was a‘very dusty day; I think it
was a warm day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow—Did not know that Jones
was employed as a mechanieto put up the hustings.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr--t think the division that carried
their sticks shouldered was that which was accompanied by a black
flag, bearing the inscription “‘ Equal Representation or Death.” I
saw them marching into the field with sticks shouldered like muskets.
Thesticks were of different sizes, but they were, for the most part,
very large aud thick. With few exceptions the people all carried
sticks. I calculated the numberof persons present at 60,000 or
70,000. I cannot say what numberof sticks they had amongst
them. The sticks were very large, béth with reference to length
and thickness. They, were different from common walking-sticks,
bat I was not near enough to examine them minutely. The sticks
varied materially in size, according to the size of the men, but I believe
they were from 4 feet to 4and a half long. I did notperceive,
with the division carrying them, a flag inscribed “ Mosley, Oldham,
and Saddleworth Union.” Every fourthor fifth man seemed to have
a command: those who commanded had, in general, sticks in their
hands: the devision of which I have spoken consisted of between
3 and 4000 persons ; I cannot state with any degree of accuracy,
the numberthat carried sticks. Iam positive, however, that more
than onein ten, or more than one infive, carried sticks. When they
eame on the ground, the division shouted, and waved their sticks in
the air. I had no particular companion on that day, and do not
know that any personin particular witnessed with me what 1 have
stated Wehad 100 constables on the ground that day, but I do not
knowone of them by name who saw the transaction to which I speak.
After the people shouted, they marched as near as they could to the
hustings, in same manner asthat in which they had entered the field.
I heard no word of command given; no direction to shoulder arms.
I have not called these sticks muskets. I could not, for the different
divisions were not playing at soldiers. I did not see the people strike
the constables with those sticks. I observed other divisions march
to the ground. ‘The persons who formed them in general carried
sticks. I was in almost constant communication with the »Magis~
51
trates, and therefore it was possible the people might have used their
sticks against the constables without my being aware of the fact.
There were very few womenorgirls present. I was on the ground
when youarrived, but not sufficiently near the hustings to hear what
was said. 1 did not see any other arms except those sticks; neither
pistols nor swords. I did not see any person woundedexceptat the
Infirmary ; and, though on the ground, the constables didnot, in my
sight, make useof their staves.
THomas HarpMan, examined by Mr. LirrLeDALE—I was,
on the 16th of August last, a special constable, and, with many
others went to St. Peter’s area, in Manchester. I arrived about
eleven o’clock. There were few persous then present, but soon after
large bodies of people marchedin, in regular military order. Some
of them had sticks in their hands. Those that I saw carried them
in the left hand (as a soldier would a musket,) and seemed to command
different parties. The divisions formed round the hustings,
and as they came up were cheered. I heard two people speak from
the hustings ; that was before the whole of the bodies arrived. The
first speech I heard was as follows—There has been an order
given to stand six yards back from the stage, otherwise you will
afford your enemies an opportunity of rushing in with their cavalry,
and all their corruption.” The other speech which was delivered
soonafter, was, “ If you have ever so stout-hearted a leader, you will
do no good except you stand firm to your posts.” I heard no more.
Both these speeches were made before Mr. Hunt arrived. One of
the speakers was a person of the name of Jones. Ido not know
who the other was. I saw Mr. Hunt come up to the hustings in a
barouch. There appeared to be a great crowd with him, but I could
not judge exactly of the number. The hustings were removedbefore
Mr. Hunt arrived, but I do not know the cause of the alteration.—
They were however, removed to a greater distance from the place
where the special constables were. They were not removed more
than eight or ten yards from the place where the special constables
were stationed,
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow—Ihaveanuncle of the name
of James Hardman. He was a brewer, andI believe has employed
Jones asa wheelwright. I did not see Jones assistingin the erection
of the hustings. I only observed him whenhe was makingthe speech,
It was possibly about twelve o’clock when Jones spoke. I did
not hear him speak more than once. I was at the time within
fifteen or twenty yards of the hustings. Mr. Green, an acquaintance
of mine, heard the words spoken by Jones as well asl did.
Mr. Green is here. Others must have heard the expressions as
well as myself. { am sure I stated the speech correctly, because
Igot Mr. Ellis to write it down, from my dictation at the moment.
* Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—I am a drysalter, and acted
as a special constable on the 16th of August. I was within 15 or 20
yards of the hustings when Jones spoke. I cannot say whether a
reporter, within five yards of the place, and taking notes, would
give a more accurate account. I can only ape to what I heard,
I observed particularly, the march of the Oldham division; they
were in regular order. I did not count their numbers. Myattention
was drawn to the Oldham division by the expression of a man

52
.
who seemed to havea command. Many of them had sticks. Those
who were in command took their posts on the left flank, and carried
their sticks on the left arm, as a soldier would his musket. I did
not see any of the men use thosesticks ; they were very large, but
not so long as a musket. I saw no persons injured that day. I remained
on the ground till you were taken down to the New Bailey.
Taccompanied the Rey. Mr. Hay to London, togive information of
the transaction, and I went with him to his Majesty’s Ministers, 1
am not a Magistrate. d :
Mr. Hont—Did you state the transaction to his Majesty’s
Ministers in the same way youhave stated it here this day ?
Wirness—Am [to answerthat, my Lord?
Mr. Justice Baytey—You may say that you gave trueinformation.
Do you mean, Mr Hunt, to alledge thatthe information the
witness gave to Ministers is different from that which he is now
giving on oath? ‘ }
Mr. Hunt—-I wish to know whether his former account and
that which he is now givingare the same.
Mr. ScarLerr cbjected to such a mode of examination. A
question of this kind was never allowed to be’ asked, except, with
a view to contradict the statement of a witness. In this instance
such a contradiction could not be effected, except by calling in one
of his Majesty’s Ministers to disclose a confidential communication,
which could not be done.
Mr. Justice BayLey wasof opinion that the general question
might be asked, that it might be known whether the witness did or
did not give to Ministers a different account —a matter which was
connected withhis credibility.
Mr. Hunt said rather than run the risk which might ullimately
threaten the virdict in this case, if he took a wrong course of examination,
he wonld wave the quéstion.
Mr. Scarxerr observed, that it could not affect the verdict.
Mr. Justice BAyLry—Nodoubt if a Judge reject evidence he
ought to have received, or receive evidence he ought to have rejected,
there is good groundfor an application for a new trial.
Cross-examination continued—Capt. Hindley is a nephew
of mine: he is a Captain in the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry
Cavalry: he was on duty onthe 16th of August.
Re-examined by Mr. LirrteDALE—The expression which
drew my attention to the Oldham division fell from a man who exclaimed,
‘“ Who says we Oldham lads durst not come here ?? That
was all I heard: Mr. Ellis wrote down the speeches which I have
stated. :
Mr. Josep GREEN, examined by Mr. Serjeant HuLLOcK,—
After confirming the last witness to the mode of marching to the
ground, and as to the language used by Jones, said—I heard no word
given: I saw no arms, no muskets; someof the people had sticks : the
meeting was calculated to produce the most alarming sensations. _It
certainly appeared to me morelike the beginning of a general rising
of the neighbourhood than of ameeting for any peaceable purpose,
especially for the purpose of deliberation. I conceive deliberation to
have been impossible. Inmy judgment, they were byfar too great
53
a body for any personto be heard from the middle to the extremity ;
therefore they could not deliberate. A's to the numbers, I estimated
those who formed the ring, who took off their hats, shouted, and
felt a lively interest in the business of the day, at about 40,000.
In consequence of what I saw, I joined in anaffidavit, at my own
instance, relative to the business. I went from the ground where’
I stood to’ the Magistrates’ house, for the purpose of making the
affidavit.
Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow—I did not think the speech
contained any thing extraordinary ; but an intimation having beeu
given to me, that undoubted information should be procured of what
actually took place, I caused the speechto be written down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—I am a manufacturer. T was
Boroughreeve in the year 1816-17. Several meetings during that
period, took place in St. Peter’s-field. That which took place in
March, 1817, attracted my particular attention for a variety of reasons,
especially the extraordinay nature of its ohject. I know of no
person being killed on that occasion. It was what was called «the
Blanket Meeting.” I know of no person being killed at that time
hetween Manchester and Stockport. I saw all the divisions march to
the ground on the 16th of August. The people had noarms. They
did not insult me, nor did I see theminsult any other person. I ré=
eolleot a meeting held in January, 1819, at which you presided:
It was a small meeting compared with that of the 16th of August.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Huttock—I saw the meeting
in the June preceding it was not to be compared with that of the
18th of August. The people on the former occasion went to the
meeting individually. I never heard that any of them proceeded
thither in bodies. I saw Mr. Hunt at the meeting in January ; he had
no property or covnexion in Manchester; he did not pay as a
householder when he was there : I believe heresided with Mr. Johnson.
Joun Exxts described the flags and the manter of marching
tothe'ground. I saw Mr. Hunt arrive, and observed him address
the crowd, but I could not hear what he said. I think there were
60 or 70;000 persons present. Such an assembly must have produced
a very appalling effect on the inhabitants in general.
Cross-examined by Mr, Hunt—I was a special constable ou
the 16th of August. 1 sawthe different bodies march in. They
crowded round'the hustings. A’s the parties caine to the field, they
had a most imposing appearance. EF believe the greater part of
them left the field before two o’clock, bat I do not particularlyrecollect
seeing any of them going away in crowds. I witnessed
the dispersion, and certainly the people did not go away-in the
same manner as they hadentered the field. I cannot deseribé thie
way in which they’ quitted it, because tle field is very extensive, F
could see but’ a small part of them. Nothing occurred to excite
my particular attention between oue and'two o'clock. My attention
was chiefly taken up by’a personof the name of Ashworth, whoa
crushed’ iu- the crowd. He was crushed, as TL cviiceive, by a
crowd, not of horses, but of men. I did not see’ the crush) but E
judged fromthe way in which he was hart. He'was? crushed on’
the breast.) I-saw‘no cut, neither did'I-see any blood: * Ashworth!
6
Ss

et
54
was not stripped in my presence. When I saw him he wasalive.
Hedid not speak to me. I don’t know whether he could speak or not.
Hedied soon afterwards. I did not see him when dead. According to
my judgment, if any persons swore that he died by cuts, they did
not swear correctly. I took down the inscription on the flags as
fairly as I think it was possible to do. I neither added to, nor detracted
from, any of them. I did not pay moreattention to the black
flag than to the others. I saw several capsofliberty at the meeting ;
Ihave not seen the capof liberty in front of the Court.
Mr. Hunt—Look at the button of the Nottinghamshire Militia;
is that a cap of liberty on it?
Witness—-I believe so.
Mr. Hunt—Thereis a sword to protect this eap of liberty :
were there any swords to protect those at the meeting ?
Wirness—No, sawsticks in the hands of the people: they
did not use them. I was, however, knocked down in the hurry of
dispersing the crowd. I was not knocked down by a brother constable,
nor by a horse, but by a person whom I did not know, who
struck me a violent blow.
W. Hutton, Esa.examined by Mr. ScartetT.—I am a Magistrate
of the county of Lancaster, and was at Manchester on the
16th of August. ©The Magistrates first assembled at the Star
Inv, and then adjourned to Mr. Buxton’s house, which overlooked
St Peter’s area. We assemble:! between ten and eleven o’clock, and
received information on oath relative to the approach of large
bodies of people. As Chairman of the bench of Magistrates, for the
counties of Lancaster and Chester, much of my time was taken up in
writing : but I frequently looked ont at the windew, and saw large
bodies of men approach. Theyfirst came by Mosley-street, towards
St. Peter’s-square, with banners and music. They were apparently
divided into sections, and had persous walking at the side, who from
time to time, seemed to give the word of command. This observa~
tion more particularly applied to the first body, for the others were
too far off to be so minutely observed. All the bodies, however, proceededregularly,
and in a remarkable mauner,for they did not march
straicht tothe hustings, but wheeled, when they received the word of
command. The persons in command wentup to the hustings and deposited
their colours. They were regularly received with loud huzzas.
The men appeared to meto be beautifully exact in coming up
to the hustings, but I could not mark their motions afterwards.
The division which advanced from Mosley-street, by St. Peter’s
square, marched with -particular precision. I could not see what
sort of erder was kept by the division which came with
Hunt. Ishould think, having seen regiments reviewed, the first
division consisted of 4,000 or 5,000 men: they had music, but I do
not know whether they had any drums. { observed the division which
escorted Hunt: he was in a carriage, in which, I believe, were also
Johnson, Moorhouse, and Carlile. The extraordinary noise which was
made on the approach of Hunt, induced me to walk to the window,
and mark what was going forward : the hustings were moved in the
_ oourse of the morning: this he knew, because it had been the desire
of the Magistrates to form a line of constables from the hustings to
50
the house where the Magistrates were: but I observed that a number
of men had rushedin, seized they arms together, and surrounded the
hustings. I could perceive from the window different people coming
forward, to address the meeting: from the situation in which I was
placed, I had a view over almost the whole of St. Peter’s area; the
numberof persons assembled was estimated at 50,000; the meeting
did undoubtedly inspire terror in the minds of the inhabitants. I
received depositions ou oath to that effect, and I myself marked the
extraordinary way in which the people approached.
Mr. Hunr—Idesire that those depositions may be produced.
The Wirness.—I have not got them.
Mr. Justice Bartey.—You must speak, then, as to your own
opinion ; you cannotstate the opinionsof others.
WiTNEss continued.—Many gentlemenstated to me, that they
were greatly alarmed;and, lookingto all the circumstances, my opipion
was that the town was in great danger. The population of
Manchester andSalford, according to the census of 1805, was 100,000
souls. Manchester was a large place, and contained many shops
and warehouses. The Magistrates, in consequence of these proceed:
ings, deemedit necessary to issue a warrant for the apprehension of
the supposed leaders, which was given to Nadin, either in the presence
of one ofthe chief constables of the town, orelse it was handed
to him by the constable. 1 cannot say whether the warrant was
brought back after it had been made out. In giving the warrant to
Nadin, he said he could not execute it withoutmilitary aid.
Mr. Huntobjected to hearing what Mr. Nadin said.
WITNESs continued.—Heretused to serve the warrant without
military aid, and madeuseof this remarkable expression—
Mr. Justice Baiey intimated to the witness, that he could not
state the observation of Nadin.
Witness continued.—The reason Nadin gave was perfectly
satisfactory. I then wrote two letters, the one to the commander
of the Manchester Yeomanry, the other to Colonel L’ Estrange,
requiring them to come to the house where the Magistrates were,
which they accordingly did. A troop of the Manchester Yeomanry
soon after arrived from the Mosley-street end. The troop came at
a quick pace, and formed ina line under the wall of the Magistrates’
house. The momentthey appeared, the crowdset up a tremendous
shout. They groaned and hissed, and those men who had
sticks shook them in the air. I saw those sticks lifted up ina menacing
manner. I had a full view of the whole. I can positively
swear that I saw the sticks flourished in this manner: and I even
heard the expressions of some of the people who were near the
military. Whilst the cavalry were forming, some of those persons
who were nearest to them turned or advanced towards them. After
the mob had set up this shout, the cavalry waved their swords.
They then advanced. believe the Boroughreeve was with them,
when they formed for that purpose. From the appearance of the
crowd, and from their general conduct, I conceive it was totally
impossible for the Constable to serve the warrant without the
assistance of the military. I wrote at the time to Col. L’ Estrange,
and the commander of the Manchester Yeomanry, and 1
ata a

56
—
supposed the two forces would have arrived at the same moment
on the ground; but { was informed, that, from the appearance
of the crowd, it was thought that it would be dangerous for
Col. L’ Esirange to Jead his men through a narrow pass, where
there was only room for a single soldier at atime. He afterwards
brought up two troops of the 15th Dragoons, and two of the Cheshire
Yeomanry. When the Yeomanry and Constables approached
the hustings, I saw stones and briek-bats flying in all directions,
1 saw what appeared to me to be a general resistance. In short
when Colonel L’ Estrange arrived at the Magistrates’ house, with
ihe 15th and Cheshire Yeomanry. I conceived the Manchester
Yeomanry to be completely beaten. The crowd closed the moment
the Yeomanry had entered; and when Col. L’ Estrange arrived
and asked what was to do, so convinced was IJ of their perilous si.
iuation, that I exclaimed “Good God, Sir, don’t you see how they
are attacking the Yeomanry?”’? My idea of their danger arese from
my sceing sticks flourishingin the air, as well as brick-bats thrown
about. I believe the Yeomanry went in about four a-breast, but
their horses being raw, unusedto the field, they appeared to meto be
in a certain degree of confusion.—They must penetrate through the
crowd to get to the hustings, and as fast as they advanced, the
crowd closed in around them. I saw distinctly from the window
where I stood an immense bedy of people between the house and
the Yeomanry, when they advanced to the hustings. Ina few minutes
some of the parties were taken into custody. On my saying
to Col. L’ Estrange “Good God, Sir they are attacking the Yeomanry
?—disperse the crowd!’ he advanced, and the dispersionof
the crowd took place. Iam not sure whether Col. L’? Estrange advanced
with the whole or only with a part of his force. Having
spokento him, I left the place. Ido not kuow how many prisoners
were brought in.
Cross-examined Ly Mr. Barrow.—There were four persons
Jn the coach which brought Mr. Hunt. There was a man and woman
on the dicky. ‘The woman waved something i
white pocket handkerchief. arteries
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt.—I declare that I have related
every thing exactly as I saw it. I could not see distinctly, so as
to know youon the hustings. I mean that I could not distinguish
your person from that of another. The hustings were, I believe
about 300 or 400 yards from the window where I stood : but though
1 saw amap of the place, with the admeasurement, I cannot speak
exactly to the fact. I could perceive the persons locked together
round the hustings, because they formed a complete. cordon, and
were hare-headed. i believe solemnly that those people near the
hustings were locked arm-in-arm. J saw them linked, I believe by
the arms. They were as close together as they could be, and
were distinguished from the rest of the crowd. Though the
distance was so great as to prevent me distinguishing an individual
gp ihe,sermpaaiipad, aol I, and others, could see the persons
eneath locked together. swear this fro ;
observation, and not from what I was teasSe
Mr, Honr.—Can you, Sir, standing in that elevated situa-
57
tion, and looking round on the comparatively small number of persons
now present, see whether their arms are locked ? :
The moment this question was put, some clapping tock place,
both in the body of the Court andinthe gallery. A person named
James Kellenbeck was pointed out and breught out before the
Judge as the man who commenced the clapping. This was proved
by two or three witnesses. Mr. Justice BarLey said he would give
him time till Monday to make an aflidavit in excuse. The prie
soner said he was ready to swear that he did not clap, but moved
his hands merely to prevent himself from falling. The Judge begged
of him, in the name of God, not to make such anaffidavit, for
he saw him distinctly clapping. After a severe reprimand he was
committed till Monday, that he might have time to reflect upon his
conduct, and draw up any excuse he might haveto offer.
Mr. Hunt.—You will now look round the benches, where
that crowd is elevated, one above another, and say whether you
can see what they are doing with their arms?
Witness—Must I answer that my Lord?.
Mr. Justice BarLey.—You may declare whether the opportunity
you had of viewing the meeting on the L6th of August was,
better than that which you have of seeing the people new present.
Wirness.—I had a much better opportunity of seeing the
persons at the Meeting than I have of observing those in the
Court
Ṁr. Hunt.—Could you see the arms of the persons then?
Witness.—lIcould see them wedged, and, I believe, linked
together.
Mr. Huntr.—Could you see any part of their arms?
Witness.—I could distinctly see the outside men linked.
Mr. Hunr—Then, from the appearance of the others, you
believe the rest were linked?
Witness.—I have no doubt of it. I described before, what
I will state again, that I saw a body of men ten deep, whom on
my oath, I believe to have been linked arm-in-arm, and many of
whom I had an opportunity of ascertaining were so linked. There
was a space within this circle, which admitted the hustings, and
also some of the mob. I could distinguish the circle from those
who were: nearer the hustings, because the men who composed it
were bare-headed. When you came upon the ground there was immense
shouting. I conceived it to be applause, huzzaing. I cannot
say whether the people were looking towards the carriage when
they manifested this applause. I did not see the people turn towards
the special constables, and applaud them; but many circum~
stances might have occurred while 1 was not at the window.
Mr, Hunr.—I speak merely of what took place ata time when
you stated that you were at the window. Did any portion of the
people, when I was advancing, turn round and give a shout of defiance
to the constables ?
‘Wrrness—Not that I know of. The shouts of applause that
were bestowed on you had great influence with me in signing the
warrant, because you brought with you a great accession of strength
to the numbers already collected,

Se
08
' Mr. Hunt—Yousay depositions were made before me, in the
singular number ; and a warrant issued, by me,in the singular number.
Were you Commander-in-Chiefof the Magistrates on that day?
Wirness—I was President of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Magistrates. I did not know that I used the singular number. The
warrant was signed by me and others. Thefirst deposition, not
against you, Mr. Hunt, but with respect to the alarm of the town
was made about half past 11 or 12 0’clock. The last deposition was
made immediately after you ascended the hustings; it was made by
a person named Owen; I could not swear to your person ; but it was
made after the carriage had drawn up, and the people had alighted.
I have not got the warrant ; I deliveredit into the constable’s hands;
it is often the case for a constable to return a warrant whenit has
been served 5 but as there were Mawistrates senior to me in age and
service, it was not returned to me. I do not know the exact terms
of that warrant, as I have not seen it since. It was placed in the
handsof Nadin, and directed him to arrest Hunt, Johnson, Knight,
and Moorhouse. Owen’s affidavit was made before the warrant was
granted, and after You had ascendedihe hustings. When the warrant
was made out, I had a very strong idea that its service would be
a task of great difficulty. Neither I nor any of my constables, to my
knowledge, called on the people to make way for the constables to
approach the hustings. I was not elected chairman of the Magistrates
on this occasion, because no one else would undertake the task: the
situation was offered to no one else. 1 was never in the army: I
was fora short time in the local militia. ,
i io Hunt.—I believe you saw very little service until that
ay! ,
Witness—I don’t call it service. The letters to Col. L’ Estrange
and the Commanderof the Manchester Yeomanry were sent
at the same time. The reason why the twoforces did not arrive at
the same time was, hecauce it was deemed prudent that instead of
Col. 1” Estrange proceeding through a very narrowstreet, he should
advance to the area by a circuitous, but more open route. I think
the warrant granted on the oath of Owen set forth: that you, Moorhouse,
Johnson and Knight, were proceeding through the town in a
car.
Mr. Hunr.—Then, as I was in a barouche, that is not correct.
Mr. Justice Baitey.-You cannot make any remark on the
warrant, unless it is produced in Court. .
Witness continued.—I did not say that when you approached,
‘the mobset up a shout of defiance. I said when the yeomanry arrived,
the people set up a great shout, groaning, hissing, and brandishing
their sticks. When I stated that I wished to convey my
opinion to the Jury that the shout was given in defiance of the
military. J also said, and I repeat, that that part of the crowd which
was nearest to the military faced towards them. They hooted,hissed,
and pointed at them, and brandished their sticks. I believe those
who were nearest to the Yeomanry rather approached them. Then
the Cavalry in forming. waved their swords, and advanced to
the hastings. If I were called on to state the particular pace in
which they advanced, I would say it was in something of a trot, or
59
rather prancing ; the horses were fidgeting in consequence of the
noise, and they were not in good order. I saw none of the cavalry
galloping. ‘he pace I wish to describe was between walking and
trotting. I believe they advanced to the right of the constables:
but the line of the constables had, I believe, been previously broken.
The letters I sent to the officers were written in conjunction withall
my brother Magistrates. The space which the cavalry made in their
approach was immediately filled up by the people. I canuot say
that it was filled up by the constables on the right, and the people
on the left, endeavouring to escape. [only know the space was immediately
filled up. I think decidedly the space wasfilled up for
the purpose of closing them, and cutting them off.
Mr. Justice Baitey.—Do you think it was done to pull them
off their horses, and injure them ?
Witness—lIcertainly do, my Lord. The impression made on
my mind, at the time, was, that the people closed in order to injure
the yeomanry. There might be someconstables that mixed with the
people, Icould not see them. I do not know that the closing was
effected by the rushing in of Nadin and the constables. I believe
the people wished to close on the cavalry. I will swear that many
of the people did not fly whenthe first body of the cavalry rode
amongst them. They fled when they saw the second. The moment
Col. L’? Estrange advanced with his squadron, the general flight, according
to my belief, took place. I saw very few children in the
crowd, I cannot undertake to swear that [saw one. There were a
good many women undoubtedly. I heard the women particularly
busy in hissing and hooting the cavalry when they first appeared.
When the yeomanry advanced to the hustings, 1 saw bricks and
stones flying. I have not stated that they were levelled at the peomanry,
nor can I swear il. I wish to convey to the Jury: those
stones and bricks were thrown in defiance of the military. I saw
them attacked, and, underthat impression I desired Col. L’ Estrange
to advance. I said, “ For God’s sake, see how they are attacking
the yeomanry—save them,” or words to that effect. There was
not time for me to consult my brother Magistrates as to sending in
more military, but they were with me at the window, and I should
certainly cocneive they heard me. I will not take the responsibility
on myself. They at that moment were expressing fear themselves.
Mr. Hunr.—What fears? Fears that the people would hur
the yeomanry, or the yeomanry destroy the people?
Wirness.—I have answered that. They saw the perilous situalion
in which the yeomanry were placed. Ido not recollect how
many of the Magistrates were with me. Someof them endeavoured
to, getinto the crowd, but without effect. I and my brother Magistrate,
Mr. Tatton, tried to get into the crowd, and were repulsed,
That. was after the body of cavalry had arrived, and proceeded with
the constables towards the hustings. The ,attempt was made before
the dispersion, and subsequent to the advance of the cavalry.
Neither he nor any ofhis brother Magistrates had attempted to persuade
the people to disperse. I saw some ofthe parties marchinte
the field in beautiful order.
Mr. Hunt.—Andthis thing which was so beautiful, created
alarm in your tender heart?

60
Witness—That body, which marched so beautifully, did cre~
ate great alarm in the town. Several of those persons had large
sticks, I won’t say shouldered like muskets, but they had them up
to their shoulders. This applied principally to the party that entered
from Mosley-strect. The others I-could not see. :
Mr. Hunr—Whydid you leave the window?
Wirness.—Because I gave my orders to Col. L’ Estrange.
BHunv.—Was ihe carnage too horribleto leok at ?
Wirness.—ti would rather not see any advance-of the military.
Mr. Hun?.—Then you gave orders for that which you had not
the carnage to witness ?
Witness.—I_ gave orders to Col. L’ Estrange’ to advance to
the support of the Yeomanry: ]T never thought it would be necessary
to disperse violently, as I thought they would disperse it by
the apprehension of those named in the warrant; and I will add
that. we had no previous intention whatever of dispersing the crowd:
I witnessed none of the scenes that took place after. I. went down
stairs just as Mr. Hunt was brought prisoner. I did not see any
of the killed; I believe I did see one man wounded who was brought
into Mr. Buxton’s house, but I would rather not swear it. I saw
none at the time, but I have some faint. recollection of having
seen a wounded person—a woman—carried on a chair two or three
hours after. I saw a woman brought in Mr. Buxton’s house ina
faint state, but not wounded, as I-can recollect I was so busy looking
at you, Sir, (to Mr, Hunt.) I do not recollect having said to
Col. 17 Estrange, in: Buxton’s house, “This Sir, is your prisoner;
march him off to the NewBailey; I commit him-to your care,”
{ do not believe I did. I do not recollect some person pointing out
to me the danger which there would bein sending you (Mr. Hunt)
among the Yeomanry and Constables. (“Who had been already attacking
me,”” added Mr. Hunt.) 1 wished to send you in‘a coach.
I did not think it safe to send you among the crowd. I had heard
that Mr. Hunt had been struck but I will not swear it.
By Mr. Scartetr.—I and another Magistrate (Mr. Tatton)
attempted to force our way into the crowd, but could not effect
it. We had’our horses ready saddled, to have ridden in if it were
possible; and then we attempted it-on foot, but could not succeed.
{ possitively swear that we had had no previous intention of dispersing
the crowd: or, if other Magistrates had such intention, it
was not known to me. Ourfirst thoughts of dispersing the crowd
was when we found the Yeomanry in'danger. We found it absolutely
impossible to execute tle warrant by the aid of the police
alone. Weconceived at first that. Mr. Hunt was not: sufficiently
identified with the multitude, till’ we! had depositions to the active
part he was taking'in the Meeting. Our reason:for ordering
the execution of the warrant was that for the information we had
received'and our own observation, we considered the town in im
minent-danger from the crowd, and that the men named were the
leaders. I think Isaw one man brought into Mr. Buxton’ house,
wounded.
By the Court.—I have acted as Magistrate for nearly’ nine
or ten years. I have acted as such since I came of age. I-do not
61
Jive at Manchester; I live at Hulton, twelve miles from it. There
were ten Magistrates present. It was a large meeting of Magistrates.
The Magistrates of Cheshire and Lancashire were called
on to act together on this occasion, Nothing but a conviction of
the existence of imminent danger could have induced me to order
Col. L’ Estrange to do what he did. I think that I ought to have
been struck out of the commission, if I had acted otherwise. I
should not have discharged my duty if I had not done so. If the
constables had not informed me that it would be impossible to exe+
cute the warrant, I should not have ordered the Manchester Yeomanry
to advance.
By the Court, at the request of Mr. Hunt.—Had you heard
that a warrant had, under similar circumstances, been peaceably
executed at a large mecting in Smithfield ?
Mr. Hcirow.—Icertainly had, and this was one reason which
induced me, when I had consented to sign the warrant, to order its
execution at the meeting. And, my Lord, I beg to add, that I also
wished the public should know that it was the leaders of these proceedings,
and not the people, who were objectionable. I never heard
till this moment, that Mr. Hunt had, on the Saturday preceding
the 16th, offered to surrender himself if there was a warrant against
him. I had heard that Hunt had called and asked whether they had
@ warrant against him, but no more.
By Mr. Barrow.—Inevergaveit a thought whether the warrant
was to operate only on those who were on the hustings. It
was against Hunt and others. ;
By the Court.—I could judge by the motion of a large body
whether they had their arms locked, without actually seeing their
arms.
Here the gentleman’s examination closed; and Mr. Justice
Batvey observing to the Jury that they must now befatigued, he
would have the Court adjourned to Monday.
Monday March 20.
The Defendants began to make their appearanceat nine o’clock,
and at ten minutes after nine the Judge arrived, and the proceedings
‘were immediately resumed.
Joun WALKER, ewamined by Mr. Scartett—Wasan attorney
at Manchester. He described the proceedings ofthe 16th of August,
at St. Peter’s-field. He saw Wild heading the division which he
commanded, and forming it round the cart on which the hustings
were formed. It was called the Ashton division. A capof liberty
accompanied it. He saw other divisions arrive on the ground from
various places in the vicinity of Manchester; and, as they came up,
Wild, and a taller man, who was with them in the cart, directed
them to form in the rear of those who came first. Mostof them had
banners and caps of liberty. Wild addressed them, and said,
« Stand firm to your post—If you have a leader of ever such strong
nerve, it is impossible he can do, if you do notstand firm. Witness
took down these words on the ground. Thetaller man desired
them “to link their arms, every man who was staunch to the
vause, and by that means they would keep their enemiés at a dis-

t
!
i
62 63
| tance from the hustings.”’ Witness took down those words on the fasion. These were his feelings; and there were 30 or 40 gentle- |
men at the Police-office at the time, who all concurred with him.
words were used. Could see distinetly that the arms of those then
Pwelve or twenty of them might join him in making the affidavit. :
before him .were linked. They were ordered to fall back, and did
Might have got considerably more of them to join it if necessary, \
so alittle. The taller man said, “ The word of command has been
but they left the place to go to the Mecting. Onrecollection, more
| given to fall back six yards from the hustings; uuless you obey it,
than the number he had mentioned signed the affidavit. There
| you will give your enemies an opportunity of letting in: the cavalry
might be thirty, forty or fifty. His object in making the affidavit
H among you.”—He added, ‘ I do not see any of your enemies among
was, that the Magistrates might have power to stop the bodies on ‘|
ground. The crowd stood fourteen or fifteen deep at the time those
.
|
|
'
you; if I did I would tell them so, and probably they would wish their march. This question had been discussed at the Police-oflice
themselves in another place.’ They then fell back a little more,
| At one o’clock the crowd had increased, and Hant and Johnson
were there. Hunt desired them not to call silence, and said, “« If
an their enemies would not keep order, put them down and keep them
eC” down,” or words to that effect. The. crowd could not he passed
a i
through but by absolute force, as the people formed one solid body
han: between the line of constables and the hustings, and he could see
no opening ; there might be 50,000 persons present ; thought that he
had seen as many persons assembled at the races; the persons
assembled were of the labouring classes. ‘The crowd seemed to
him calculated to overawe and intimidate the town of Manchester,
and create fear and alarm. Witnessfelt fear and alarm, and thought
a disturbance might be expected,
Cross-examined by Mr. Wunt—Had always been an atiorney
at Manchester. Was a special constable on the 16th of August.
Hadleft the field for a short time to take some refreshment. Saw
none of. the Magistrates during his absence at that time. Saw some
of them at Mr. Buxton’s in the course of the day. Was not employed
hy the Magistrates: went there as a special constable to
perform his duty to the town. Did not consider himself to be employed
by the Magistrates, but acted under the controul of the
ehief constable of the town. The Magistrates had sworn him in,
and they might give the chief constable his directions; did not go
as an amateur reporter ; he took down the words on the back of
an old letter, as it strack him they were very remarkable, addressed
to such a meeting. Did not know Mr. Orton; might have seen the
Magistrates at Mr. Buxton’s between eleven and twelve o’clock ;
did not consider that during his absence, as Mr. Buxton’s house
was on the ground; he saw there Mr. Norris, the stipendiary Magistrate
of Manchester, Witness communicated his fears to
Mr. Norris; he merely said that he was afraid there would be
a disturbance. Had before thought it necessary to make a deposition
of what he saw in the morning, and drew up an aflidavit on
the subject. He was thus occupied at ten o’clock or little earlier.
Deposition was not shown to Mr. Sergeant Cross that witness knew
of, This was the affidavit he had sworn to when he went to
Mr. Norris. There was no conversation between him and Mr. Norris
on the releyancy of the affidavit. It was drawn up at the Policeoffice.
He had been induced to makethis affidavit, in thefirst place,
from a knowledge that large bodies had been training in different
townships round Manchester, and from information that those persons
were marching thither to overawe the town, and create a disturbance,
that he eonesived would be productive of riet and con»
on the day before. None of the Magistrates were present on the
Sunday or the Monday, that he saw. alfa dozen, ora dozen,of
the forty or fifty persons at the Polic-office on the Monday, might
be there at noon on the Sunday. Witness declined making any
affidavit then; at least’ he was not asked nor urgedto do so, and
he made none. Those gentlemen who were there, and who drew out iq
statements of what was necessary to be done on the Monday, were i
respectable inhabitants of Manchester.
Mr. Hunv desired witness to mention some of their names.
The JupGE objected to this. Witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Henrthen stated his motive for putting the question.
The Jupax allowed the question to be put, to ascertain names
of the persons present on the Sunday.
f
Examination resumed—Witnesshad not recollection that Mr.
Green was at the Police-office on Sunday. He was there onthe Monday.
Mr. Jonathan Andrew he did not recollect to have seen at the
office on the Sunday. Thought (but was not sure) that he was there
onthe Monday. Thought Mr. Francis Phillips was not there on the
Sunday. No conversation took place on the subject of theaffidavit
which he drew up of himself. Mr. Phillips was there on the Monday,
but thought he was not present whenthe deposition was sworn.
Mr. R. Entwistle was not there on the Sunday or the Monday.
The drilling and training, and the way in which the persons coming:
to Manchester were to come, induced him to make the affidavit.
Wasunderconsiderable apprehensions of danger on Monday morning,
before ten o’clock, from what he knew of his own knowledge, and
from what he had heard from others. He knewof the training, not
personally, but from those who had seen them. He had seen considerable
numbersof persons come into the town that morning, and these
connected with what he had been told of the training, created the
apprehension of which he hadspoken. » Saw nothing particular in the
manner of those who came towards Manchester that morning to excite
alarm. Those that he had then seen (before nine in the morning)
did not march orcarry flags, banners, or revolutionary emblems.
His affidavit he had sketched and left at the office, that it might be
copied and brought to him to be sworn. Some alterations were
made init afterwards by witness at his own suggestion.” The dozen
gentlemen did not sign it at the Police-office, but afterwards, at
Mr. Buxton’s house. He stopped at Mr. Buxton’s house but a few
minutes, and then he returned to the field where he had beenbefore.
The affidavit. was to this effect :—‘That having been informedof the
irainings in the nighbourhood,andhearing that great bodies of men
acre marching to Manchester, and he was of opinion that if they

64
marched into the town with revolutionary emblems, &c., he thought
it would go to overawe the town, and create confusion. This was
to put the Magistrates in possession of his opinions, and thoseof
other gentlemen, leaving them to take their own measures, for
the purpose of enabling them to prevent them from coming into
the town. This he thought might be properly done, but did not
suggest it to the Magistrates: he left them to act on their own dis.
cretion Saw a numberof persons standing before him at the meeting
with sticks. One man near him had a bludgeon witha large
knob, which he held over his shouldertill a man nodded and pointed
to it, and then he. dropped it down. It was not shoulderedlike a
musket, The man that pointed had also a large stick in his hand.
Witness was not insulted or assaulted. Could not say whether the
divisions that_he saw march to the ground were generally armed
with-sticks. The words he had heard Mr. Huntsay at that time
were, “if our enemies won’t keep order, put them down, and keep
them down.” Thought this was before the military came, but was
net quite sure. Did not know that any body was particularly
pointed at when the words in question were used.
Re-examined by Mr. ScarteTt.—Mr. Hunt might be ten minutes
addressing the people; did not catch all that he said; could
not see the military from the position in which he stood; madehis
deposition before from information that he had received of the character
of the intended meeting, but did not swearto it till after he
had seen the multitude arrive in the way which he described.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt.—Rememheredthe placard calling
a meeting for the 9th, ‘contained a proposition for someelection ofa
legislatorial attorney. .
: Mr. Scaruetrbelieved thatit was to elect a legislatorial memer.
f
Mr. Hunr said, it was to elect a legislatorial attorney, and
requested the Judge to keep Mr. Scarlett decent.
The JupGE was not aware that he had permitted any thing
indecent, on the part. of Mr. Scarlett.
Mr. Scarterr hoped his conduct had not been other than decent
from the beginning of the trial, but he had submitted to
what he thought was not decent from Mr. Hunt. °
Joun Wituis, examined by Mr. Serjeant Huttock.—Knew
Johnson, had conversed with him on the subject of the meeting:
Johnson had said the big men of Manchester thought putting
it off from the 9th to the 16th would doit away entirely; bnt they
were under a mistake, for by the 16th, they (the Reformers) would
be ready for any soldiers that could be brought against them) this:
was said in a public-house on the 6th of August. Talking of the
ludding and, the, shooting of Mr. Horsfall, Johnson had said
that he knew that My. Horsfall would he shot, fora party of men
had determined to go to London and upset the Houseof Commons,
or something of that sort; but they didnot go. then, because they
were not yet strong enoughto provide for their wives and children,
if they should be taken prisoners, or come to any harm.
Cross-examined by Mr. Jounson.—Was a butcher; never
acted as a spy in his life, Mr, Johnson had conversed. withhim, ag
65
he had previously stated. Never said to the Magistrates, Mr.
Johnson was going to take the barracks by storm. fae
By Mr. Hunt.—Wasnot drank when the conversation in question
took place; did not recolleet.any other particular conversation.
Said after Johnson was gone, that if Nadin had been there he would
have taken him up. Did not know Johnson,till he was told by the
landlord that that was Johnson, the brush-maker, the great Reformer.
Took no measures to have him apprehended. Never bothered
his head with any such like. Johnson, though a stranger, told all
this to witness, and Slater. Part of it was addressed to witness,
while Slater was out of the room. It was that part about their
« being ready by the 16th for the soldiers.” Slater and witness had
talked over this matter. Had heard Slater say that he was out
of the room while that assertion was made. Had wanted to hear
what they could get him (Johnson) to say. Never informed Nadin
of this. Believed he did nottell the landlord of it that night. The
landlwrd was waiting on his company, and did not tell him of it.
Could not say whenhefirst told Slater.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Huttock.—Had been sentfor
by Johnson, when passing Johnson’s house one day, after he had
been before the Magistrates; went into his (Johnson’s) shop, where
there were three or four persons, and Johnson: said, ‘* What,
you’ve been before the Magistrates ?” Witness said, “Yes.” Johnson
then told him he wasa fool for going with the beadle who had
been sent for him before the Magistrates, without making him shew
his authority. He then asked what had taken place; witness would
not tell him there, but wouldtell him in any private room, or at the
York Inn, where they could be by themselves. Johnson said he
was not ashamed of any one hearing about it. Witness said he
thought Johnson used himvery ill, to call him into his shop before
people whom he believed to be a lot of spies, and would not tell him
any thing.
JasupH SLATER, evamined by Mr. Sergeant Cross.—Remembers
Johnson being in his house with last witness on the 6th of
August. Witness began by saying, that he ‘understood that Johnson
and Nicholas Whitworth were to be returned to Parliament.
Johsonsaid it was all nonsense. Witness shortly after left the room.
Johnson remained -with Slater. On hisreturn, they were conversing
about the murder of Mr. Horsfall, when Johnson said, “Do you
know, Mr. Slater, that at that time there was a set of men determined
to go up to London and disperse the House of Commons?”
Witness ridiculed the idea. “ O, but,” said Johnson, = I know it
for a fact, and it would have been done, had the subseription been
large enoughto keep their families while they were away, or, in case
they failed”—(witness laughed)—* O, but (says Jolson) do you
récollect when, Bellingham shot Mr. Percival, what confusion tl.ere
was? Here was Lord Qastlereagh scrambling out of a room, and
Mr. Canning out ofanother; and when Bellingham was taken, they
were all ready to tear him to pieces ; and if one could frighten
them so, he (Johnson) was sure that it could be done. Johnson
ewed by gestures how they (the House of Commons) had acted in
their hurry on thatoccasion. Saw Johnson last Saturday week at

_
66
his own house in Manchester. He (witness) was first coming te
York. Johnsonsaid, “You will recollect that I said that I heard it for
a fact.’ Witness replied, « No, you said you knew itfor a fact.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunr.—Witness kept the Bay-Horse,
Johnson had told witness that there would be a meeting on the 16th
of August. Willis said, when Johnson was gone, that “if Nadin
had been there, he would have had him.” Had spoken to Willis on
the subject repeatedly since, but never told witness what he (Willis)
had to prove as to what Johnson said while witness was out of the
room. Knew nothing about Johnson’s saying they should be ready
for the soldiers by the 16th of August. Thought what he had heard
from Johnson a foolish and wicked story. Johnson wascertainly
speaking in earnest. Witness did not inform the Police ofit. If
he were to communicate. every foolish conversation that passed in a
public-house, he should do nothing else. Witness and Willis had
never compared notes.
: By Mr. Hunr—Johnson went, on that occasion, to witness’s
house, to look at a sow that was about to bring some pigs, one of
which Johnson was to have. Johnson then treated the report of
being about to become a Member of the House of Commons as
being false. On Saturday week Johnson called on witness again
about a pig, and then told him (witness) that if he said nothing
but what he (Johnson) had said, he (Slater) would be a good witness
for him. Never heard him (Johnson) declare that he would
overturn the House of Commons, but he said that he knew something
of the kind had been intended to be done about the year 1812.
Witness had been but once or twice to Mr. Norris and Mr. Milne
since his deposition; went for his deposition, that he might see
what he had sworn, but was told that it was gone to London; had
never seen it since he signedit.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Cross—Johnson said he knew
that it had been intended to overturn the House of Commons; had
no reason to believe that Johnson said there was to be no election.
Joun SHaweross, examined by Mr. LirrLepaLE—Had purchased
a newspaper (produced in Court), at the Office of The
Manchester Observer, on the 31st of July.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wunr—Was Clerk of the Policeoffice
at Manchester; saw placards advertising the meeting called
for the 9th of August. Believed, in consequence of that meeting
being prohibited by the Magistrates asillegal, that the design was
abandoned.. The meeting called for the 16th was not called in exactly
the same words as the former; he believed that someof the
bills calling the latter had been taken down. A numberof sticks,
stones, pikes, flags, banners, and caps of liberty, had been brought
to York; they were in the care of Mr. Nadin.
Micnart Firzparrick, examined by Mr, ScarLert—Attended
a meeting held in Smithfield on the 2Ist of July. Mr.
Hunt presided. Certain resolutions passed in the presence of Mr,
Hunt. Witness recollected receiving the resolutions handed to
him from Mr. Hunt. Witness was a Reporter for The New Times;
stood on the left of Mr. Hunt: received them from Mr. Hunt’s own
hand. He went with two other gentlemen, one of whom got so
67
soused in the mud, that he was obliged to retire. Witness was
politely accommodated with a place in the waggon by Mr. Hunt,
who said he was very glad to see him, as he thought witness
would give a fair report. The resolutions wer. passed the most
yiolent were the most applauded.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hunt—Wad considerable difficulty
in getting to the hustings. Was so alarmed that he put on his
worst coat, but did not know that he felt any personal alarms.’ Saw
no violence. Had been at many meciings where he (Mr. Hunt)
had presided, and no acts of violence had come withinhis personal
observation. Recollected the arrest of Mr. Harrison. Those in
the waggon, or that side of it by whichthe officers entered, saw it,
but thousands there, he was of opinion, might know nothing about
it, it went on so quietly. Could not say whether or not Mr. Harrison
had previously spoken; believed that he had. Recollected
Mr. Hunthad said. “ there’s Brown or Wontner cometo arrest Mr.
Harrison—will youlet him go?” and with a good-humoured shrug,
told Mr. Harrison that he had better go quietly, or words to that
effect. Recollected that Mr. Hunt had said, he would go if they sent
for him. Not the least violence was offered. Harrison, witness believed,
asked advice of Mr. Hunt, and was told to go quietly.
Received the resolutions from Mr. Hunt, who was particularly.
desirous of accommodating witness as he came from The New
Times. Witness had noidea of producing them against him (Mr.
Hunt) in a Court of Justice. Thought he had asked fora copy,
and that he received them while they werein the act of being read.
Would not say that any of them had then been pnt singly. Could
not recollect whether or not they were read from a printed copy.
Knew Mr. Orton. Never heard him communicate what he had seen
of the proceedings at Manchester.
Re-examined by Mr. Scanterr.—Had. often attended meetings
where Mr. Hunt presided, andretired before they concluded.
Violences might have occurred which he had not seen, Believed
that the Spa-fields meeting was the first of them that he had
attended. It was impossible for the resolutions at Smithfield to
be heard by more than a tenth partof. the meeting.
The resolutions were then read from a newspaper of the
23d. July, 1819.
Witness had the copy of the resolutions given to him, while
another copy was being read to the meeting, and found them te
correspond exactly.
Mr. Henr objected to the printed paper being received as
@vidence, as he had been served with no notice to produce the
ériginal manuscript.
The Jupce held that they could be received, as no evidence
had been given of the existence of the original manuscript; but.
ke noted the objection.
Here the ®use for the Prosecution closed.

68
69
\
THE DEFENCE.
Mr. Barrow, whois retained for Moorhouse and Jones, then
proceeded to address the Court. He submitted to his Lordship
whether the evidence which had been adduced, asit affected hig
clients, was sufficient to implicate them in such a wayasto render
it necessary for their case to be sent before the Jury, or whether
his Lordship would not direct the Jury to acquit en imme.
diately. The charge in the indictment did not seem at all sustained
by any part of the evidence. The Learned Counsel here read
over the indictment, which charged the defendants with maliciously
and seditiously conspiring to bring into hatred and contempt
the Government of his Majesty, with intending by force and
menacesto disturb the peace, and with exciting to riot and tumult;
and contended that the criminal charge was not countenanced by
any part of the evidence—There were only two counts that were
at all applicable, even in appearance, and these were not substantially
proved.
Mr. Justice Batzy thought the case should go to the Jury.
It was only necessary to prove, in a mixed indictment of this
kind, as much as constituted a crime. There was evidencethat
Moorhouse and Jones were at the meeting of the 16th. That
meeting was charged with being an unlawful assembly. If they
werethere for the purpose of strengthening the meeting, and extendingits
powerofintimidation, they were guilty on someofthe
counts. It remained with the Jury, then, to decide whetherthe
two defendants were present as innocentspectators or active partisans.
He could not, therefore, direct an acquittal in the first
instance.
&
Mr. Barrowacquiesced without further observation.
The Jury retired for little, on the suggestion of the Learned
Judge; and, ontheir return,
Mr. Barrow continued his address. The evidence, as it
affected his two clients, applied to the fourth and fifth counts};
the former charging them with assemblingmaliciously on the 16th.
of August, with 60,000 other persons unknown, for the purpose
of moving the subjects of the King to hatred and contempt of his
erson and Government; the latter with maliciously assembling
ina formidable manner, with inflammatory banners, &c. against
the peace of the King, his crown and dignity. The second count
charged with riot, and with inspiring terror and alarm. It was
now the duty of the Jury to apply the evidence which had been
brought forward in support of those charges to the case of his
clients, and to determine whether upon any of them his clients
were implicated. Before, however, he stated what he had to say
on the evidence, he must make an observation or two on the
speech of the learned Counsel (Mr. Scarlett), who so ably supported
the case for the prosecution; in“many of the sentiments
which he (Mr, Barrow) entirely concurred. He heldin his hand a
copy of The Times newspaper, in which that speech was reported,
and he could not help, in passing, paying ahigh complimentto the
reporter
for the accuracy and fidelity with which it was given.
‘He would appeal to the Learned Counsel himself, whether the
report did not contain almost word for. word the speech as it was
delivered.
Mr. Justice Barmey.—I am extremely sorry that it should
have been published till the proceedings had beenclosed.
Mr. Hunr.—The whole proceedings, my Lord, are published.
Mr. Justice Barrey—I am aware of that: but I hope the
Jury will not allow themselves to be influenced by such publication.
Mr. Barrow said he was not alluding tothe report for any
other purpose but to refresh his owa memory with what his learied
friend had said. He then read various passages from the report of
The Times, in whichhe said he entirely concurred with the learued
Cowisel. One was recommending to the Jury to dismiss from their
minds whatever they had previously heard or read on the subject of
the trial, and to judge by the evidence alone which should be laid
before them. He read another passage, in which Mr, Scarlett had
expressed his satisfaction in the choice which had been made in send~
ing the defendants before a Yorkshire Jury. In this expression of
satisfaction he (Mr. Barrow) concurred. Another passage stated
that the object of the public prosecutor was outy to try and punish
the leaders of the conspiracy, or the tustigators to the unlawful assembly
of the 16th. This he (Mr. Barrow) highly approved of. If the
assembly was declared to be what it was stated in the indictment,
let the leaders suffer what the lawsof the country awarded5 but what
was the evidence that implicated Mr. Moorhouse as a leader? when
was he introduced into the conspiracy? where was he introduced ?
and how had he conducted himself ou the 16th of August? The
first conneetion of Moorhouse with.the case under trial was by his
taking a ride out to Bullock’s Smithy, on the Sch of August, to'meet
Mr. Hunt, who. was coming to preside at a Meeting to be held at
Manchester on the 9th. He did not there see Mr. Hunt, but he met
him at Stockport, where he asked him to his house. Mr. Hunt accepted
the invitation. On the 9th Mr. Huut proceeded to Manehester,
and’ Moorhouse accompanied him in one ofhis own car
riages. The Meeting had been put off, owingto an objection which
the Magistrates stated to the objects for which it was called. It
did not consequeiitly take place on that day. But if the object of
Mr. Moorhouge had beento attend an unlawlul and riotous assembly,
why wasit postponed, and why did he afterwards proceed to another,
accompanied by his wife ? Mr. Moorhouse had long been a married
man; he had eleven children, and his wife was six months pregnant
with another. Now, could it be believed for a moment that he would
proceed to an anticipated scene of riot and confusion, accompanied by
his wife in this condition? Mr. Moorhouse therefore could not have
formed a conspiracy, the objects of which were to be carried into effect
by means of the tumult and dismay created by this Meeting.
He could not then be one of the leaders of such couspiracy ; ee it
then be charged to him as a crime that he was at the Meeting? if
this was the case, all the 60,000 mentioned im the indictment were
guilty as well as his client. Was the company of Mr, Munt suffi-
1
i
{ |

a
70
rowed the boards, and wished to protect them; therefore, he said
Gentlemen, I beg you to be peaceable, and not break throughthis
work. The people assembled on the hustings were in personal danger
from the slightness of the work. Nay, on a former occasion,
the hustings were invaded, and the carts gave way, and downfell
the stage with Mr. Huntand his friends upon them. This happened
in this very placeof St. Peter’s-field. Mr. Scarlett had drawn a
arallel between the constitution of England and the democracy of
Athens, which he called a perfect specimen of a republic. He had
said that 30,000 cilizens could there meet to discuss public business,
‘though even in Athens a great part of the people were consigned
to slavery. But where were the slave of England? Every man
here could meet, and discuss public measures. Here then was
a collection of people so assembled. It was said there was no danger
in Athens, because they were in the habit of meeting. So were
the public of this country in the habit of meeting. Numbers therefore
could not make what was lawful unlawfulif perfect order was
preserved. If they had a right to assemble in numbers, who could
determine the amount of those numbers? Who could shat the gate?
There was no gate. Who could shut the barrier? There was no
barrier. Who could count them, and limit their numbers? Jones,
entertaining those ideas together with Mr. Moorhouse, went to the
meeting —Athens had its Demosthenes. Law andpolitics were
always interesting. Here was a meeting where there wat to bea
contest of law and politics between Mr. Orator Hunt (he meant no
offence to Mr. Hunt), the Demosthenes of England, and the Manchester
Magistrates. Poor Jones tookfire at this idea, and thought
he could be an orator too. He spoke; and was no doubtcheered.
Hedelivered the behests of the committee, and probably expected
to mount to a higher sphere in discussing public law, and descanting
on public grievances. He had however, verified the old adage,
that “a cobler ought not go beyond his last.” Under these circumstances,
the Jury would consider it as almost fanciful to implicate
the defendants Moorhouse and Jones. He would read a narrative
from Mr. Moorhouse himself, which would show his knowledge of
law and powers of composition. The Learned Counsel here read
a paper of Moorbouse’s, in which he denied a {knowledge of most
of the defendaiits, and stated tke peaceable conduct of the people
onthe 16th, giving an account of his own conductnearly as it appears
in the Learned Counsel’s speech. Such being the case with
his two clients, he would leave it with confidence to the Jury.
Mr. Hout said, he had to address them on the part ofthe defendant
Saxton. It was not till the third day of the trial that his
name was mentioned in the proceedings. It was then mentioned by
“a police-officer who endeavoured to connect him with riotous conduct.
Then the Counsel for the Crown should have moved his acquittal.
The case with regard'to him was still-born, it had in it
from the beginning no principle of life. The Jury, he wassure,
would not extend the net further than it ought, to include all the
defendants. Those who originated this prosecution had no desire to
implicate persons who were not active and industrious in convening
the Meeting. They did not want to inclade those in this conspiracy
cient to implicate hin? To say this would be monstrous, when it
was connected with that individual. A witness, however, who was
in dreadful terror and alarm, had stated that he saw Mr. Moorhouse
leading the Stockportdivision to the Meeting of the 16th? How
was he leading it? Why, he had no other character of a leader than
that of being two or three steps in advance of it. He was a proprietor
of stage coaches, and one ofhis coaches beingfilled with passengers,
he had got on the top of it. The coach was in its regular
course to Manchester at the stated hour, and arrived at the White
Bear in due time. This could he proved. But it was said hisclient
was with Mr. Hunt, on his way to the hustings. This was easily
explained. fle was passing the street as Mr. Hunt entered, and,
being seen by Mr. Hunt, was requested to mountbeside him. He
did so, but was never on the hustings. He was charged with riot.
‘The defendanthad noriotous intention in coming to Manchestet that
day, as could be proved. A Meeting had been advertised for the 9th.
It wasput off in consequence ofthe legal advice of a lawyer of Liverpool.
Mr. Moorhouse, agreeing with Mr. Hunt, did not concur
in the opinion of the Liverpool lawyerasto theillegality of the Meeting.
He went to Manchesterto hear the question decided... He had
not seen Mr. Hunt from the 9th to the 16th, and therefore could not
have conspired with him: but he was anxious to hear Mr. Hunt
against the Magistrates on the question of the legality of the Meeting.
Mr. Moorhouse was an auctioneer as well as a coach proprietor,
and a Lancashire auctioneer would be very much affronted at the
imputation of not understanding law. He had heard that Mr. Hunt
meantto discuss a question of law with the Magistrates, and he was
anxious to hearhim. He had imagined ihat it was a sort of challenge—that
it was thetrial of a feigned issue, or legal wager between
Mr. Hunt and the Magistrates, in which the Meeting wasto be the
Jury, and to decide, without appeal, whether the postponed Meeting
of the 9th was legal, as he and Mr. Hunt thought ; or illegal as
the Magistrates and the Liverpool lawyer contended. If there had
heen any apprehension of tumult or confusion, would he have brought
hisWife to the town of Manchester? He might therefore, contend,
that there was nothing in the conduct of Moorhouse, from beginning
to end, that implicated him in the conspiracy. The learned Counsel
pressed this argument at considerable length; and then went on to
the case of Jones, which, he said, he hardly knew how to deal
with, so little did he appear implicated. Mr. Orton took notes of
what he had said. That witness was on the scaffold with. Jones.
His words amounted to nothing but that he was anxious not to see
the scaffolding, which was his work, demolished by the pressure of
the crowd. He exhorted the people to keep a free space of five or
six yards, and to keep their enemies out. Mr. Hardman saw him
erecting the hustings. After he had finished them, he thought be
might as well turn speaker; and what did he say ? “I beg you to be
peaceable, by order of our committee. If you do not stand fast, you
will be broken in upon’ But. the reason why he thus addressed
the meeting was easily understood. He was. the architect of the
stage of carts’ and planks: he could not make a railing to keep
off the crowd, for he received on the whole only 26s.3 he borv1

{2
who had made. no effort’ te disturb the public peace. Even inthis
ease, with this temper of the prosecutor, he had great cause of
alarm in conducting the defence. The temper, of the country—the
alarm that had) been spread—the prejudice that had been excited
againstall the defendants, leading to a belief that they ought to be
punished whether guilty, or not, inspired him) with anxiety. He
trusted, however, this place would be free from prejudice. The
change of placefor. the trial had been determined on, that the administration
of public justice might not only be free from blemish,
but entirely unsuspected; The Jary would determine on the justice
of each individual, case, and if he could shew broad and palpable
distinctions, the Jury would not. overlook them. They would observe
that this was a mixed case of conspiracy, and if he could shew
that his acts were not bad in themselves,or acts of riot, he would
trust for the acquittalrof his elient. The indictment contained three
charges: the first. was that. of conspiracy to overturn the Government:
this was the heaviest charge of all, and little» short of treason..
They were aceused of bringing an immense mass of! people to
Manchester, inorder, by a display of physical force, by intimidating,
banners and flags, to prove their power and inclination not only
to intimidate the Government, bat to prodece general ruin and confasion:
The next charge was that of seditious assembling, without
conspiracy. The third, laying aside the conspiracy, and. sedition,
stated a case of riot. anditumult only. These were the. three
charges. Now as to, ihe conspiracy; A case of! conspiracy
was seldomproved in'its, origin, and the aets given in aid of proof
should be ofa. broad and palpable charaeter, which not only, proved
the criminal design, but whieh should establish the fact itself. He
meant to say, thatiit was not a mere casual or incidental act which
couldprove a conspiracy: it must be proved by strong evidence.
Now, applying this to Saxton, it did not appear. that he was
known to Hunt, or any of. the others who were indieted with him. It
could not therefore be concluded that he had been in concert with them.
Ji did not. appear that Saxton was at Smithfield, nor at’ Bullock’s
Smithy. It was notproved that he-was at Birmingham at. the election
of the legislatorial attorney, or had any connection with it: he
was not.evem mentioned inany one of the transactions till the 8th of
August ; he was not at White Moss, nordid he take any part in the
circumstances of what occurred at that place. It was not his wish
to go into the question of the.illegality of the Meeting, but it was
tempting to any man who recollected what occurred within the Jast
three months, when his learned friend, Mr. Searlett, had stated in
one of the houses of Parliament, that his mind was not made up as
to the legality of the Meeting of the 16th of August.
Mr. Justice BatLey.—You may discuss the question of legality
ou legal grounds, but not by argumentatum ad hominem.
Mr. Hottsaid he did not intend to urge the private opinion of
his Learned Friend, or to say any thing which for an instant:could
wound his feelings ; but he only wished to show that the opinionsof
many great'men were not made up upon this question three months
ago.He did not agree with his Learned Friend in some poiuts which he
73
had laid down. He (Mr. Holt) would not go into the qnestion of how
many might meet, and whether all the people of England had a’
right to meet altogether in one place, for every right depended on
the reasonableness andjustice of it. It should be recollected, that
when these public meetings began, in 1S17, they were not considered
as illegal. Immense assemblies were held in Spa-fields and other
places, and continued without interruption until the Parliament, in
its fear for the peace of the metropolis, passed an Act—for what?
To put'downall such meetings? No; but to prevent their assembling
within one mile of Westminster Hall during the sitting of
Parliament and the Courts of Justice, so that the right to meet wav
only restricted 'to a particular spot, the general right being left as’
before. But if those meetings were thenillegal, why was it. that
they were not so declared? For, without meaning to cast any per=
sonal imputation any where, he would say that if those meetings
were illegal, those. whose duty it was to advise the Crown had been
guilty of a very great neglect of that daty. His Learned Friend
had spoken of Athens, but the question was not of meetings at
Athens, but of meetings at Manchester, at Middleton, Oldham; and
other places. It was'to’this he should confine himself. He would
now, after having released his client from the charge of conspiracy,
come to the charge ofa seditious or unlawful meetings It
was the right of the people to meet and discuss proper subjects ;
and inthe county to which he belonged (Norfolk), he had no doubt
that, if a question of not repealing, but increasing, the duty on
the importation of corn was proposed for discussion, there would
be thousands-attending at the meeting for such discussion. The
people at’ Manchester, he contended, had an equal right to meet
and discuss questions of reform; butit was said, that this meeting
had assembled in military array ; he knew no reason why the
regularity of their march should not be called civil as well
as military array. His Learned Friend said, that they were
soldiers in every thing but not having arms; but how was that
proved? why, that some of them had sticks: but were anyof those
sticks produced ? His Learned Friend has said, that when the im:
mense multitude was’ dispersed, numbers of their bludgeons, and
clubs, and staves, were taken. Why were they not produced ?
why had not Nadin been called to produce some of those despet
rate weapons? where were all the flags and banners which it was
said were captured? Not one of them was however, produced; and,
for auglit of evidence there was, it might be very fairly concluded,
that the clubs and staves which were taken were only sticks ot
the ordinary kind. The Jury should recollect, that the fear and
alarm which some of the witnesses had sworn to, referred, not to
weapons or arms which the people carried, but to their numbers;
and as he contended that they could not condemnthe defendants on
account’ of the numbers alene, it was not, therefore, fair to infer
that the regularity of the march of these people was a proofof sedition.
‘But it was said, that they had banners with several seditious
devices on them. He would not praise some of those banners,
or their inscriptions, but there were others which could not bé cousidered
as criminal, though they, might not be very proper. It was

74
said, that some of those were for Universal Suffrage and Annual
Parliaments. He himself condemned those doctrines as much as
any man, as he thought that if they were successful, they would
prove most destructive to the Constitution, But this was a point
on which the opinions of some great men had been different. It
might be remembered, that at the trials of Hardy and Horne Tooke,
a letter from the Duke of Richmond was read, in which that doctrine
was publicly avowed. The same had been supported by a
Learned Gentleman, a bencher of that Inn of Court (Lincoln’s-inn),
which had produced his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett). He alluded
to the opinions and doctrines of Mr. Jeremy Benthem. This he
mentioned, to show that the defendants, in advocating such doctrines,
had not taken up any new opinion, or broached a doctrine
not heard of before. It was a matter of historic record that Parliaments
were triennial in the last century; and several persons
maintained, (though he was aware that the contrary opinion was
very strongly supported,) that at one period of our history it was the
practice to assemble Parliaments annually. It could not therefore,
be maintained, that the mere advocacy of such a doctrine was in
itself criminal. But it was said that one of those banners bore the
inseription “ Equal representation or death.’ This, however, had
not been bronght home to any of the defendants. It was not shown
that the wife or sister of any of them had prepared it; and, for
aught that appeared in evidence, it might have been introduced inte
the meeling by an enemy. If the meeting were assembled lawfully,
could it be said that it would become unlawful by the introduction
of such a banner? The people had a right to assemble; and, if any
person wished to do an unlawful act in the meeting, it would not beillegal,
except the otherparties present were sanctioning and supporting
such illegal act. It had not appeared that any act of riot had been
done by any of those now before the Court. There was no evidence
that any voilent breach of the peace had been committed by an
of the persons assembled. It was not as in the ease of the Spa-fields
meeting, attended with such mad acts as had been attempted by
young Watson, and those who went with him to the shop of the gunsmith.
How, then, in the absence of such acts, or of any act of violence
could the meeting be termed a‘seditious one. The Court and
the Jury had heard of the fears of several witnesses on the occasion;
they had heard from Mr. Halton, the opinion, that if the meeting
had remained togethertill the night, Manchester would not have
stood the next day. He (Mr. Holt) would, however, declare, that
from ihe evidence, it did not appear that Manchester was in any
greater danger than London had been at the time of the Smithfield
meeting ; and that it had been in no danger was happily proved.
Some of the defendants had made speeches, bat was not the tenour
of all those speeches that of advising the people to be peaceable?
Why should any other construction be put on those words than what
their common import conveyed ? Why should a man who advises
order be supposed to mean disorder? ‘I'he words used by Mr. Hunt
—“if any one shall attempt to disturb the peace, put them down,
and keep them quiet,” could only refer to the preservation of order.
As to the bauners which were carried, he had already spoken of
~
75
them, But Saxton was not connected with any one of these banners
whatever. The evidence against him did not amount to any inflammatory
words or seditious acts, or any participation in them: bat
this he would cometo afterwards. He would now come to the third
charge, that of riot. Aud if he could (as he hoped he would be
able to do) save his client from the charges of a conspiracy and seditious
assembling, be would have no difficulty in defending him
against the third charge of a riot. To prove a man guilty of riot,
he must be shownto have done someactin approval of a riot committed
by others. [t did not follow by any means, that all who happened
to be present at a riot were guilty of a crime., Now as to the evidence
against Saxton. The witnesses against him were Platt, Mills,
and Orton.—-Mills could not positively say that Saxton was
on the hustings before Mr. Hunt came. It was said by another
witness, that Saxton sppeared to address the people, but he could
not hear him. Suppose he was in the cart with Mr. Hunt, that did
not constitute guilt. It would be proved that Saxton was a Reporter
for a paper in Manchester, and attended to take notes of what passed.
Mr. Orton was present as a Reporter, and he was not considered as
having acted improperly; he was even locked with others. If Saxton
was guilty from the mere circumstance of his being on the hustings,
why then Mr. Fitzpatrick was guilty, for he was on the hustings
at Smithfield, and in the cart next to Hunt himself; but Mr.
Fitzpatrick was there as Reporter for The New Times, and would,
no doubt, be far from joiving in any improper conduct. Why, then,
should it be said that Saxton was culpable, who was a Reporter for
a paper on different principles? He should prove the facts with
respect to Saxton, he had no doubt to the satisfaction of the Court
and Jury. Of the other defendants he had nothing to say, and it
was fortunate for himself and them, for he had not strength to go
through their cases. If the Jury should be satisfied that Saxton
had had no other connexion with the meeting than in his capacity
as a Reporter to a paper, they would, he had no doubt, give him
the benefit of it.
Mr. Samuet BAamrorp addressed the Court as follows :-—
My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury—Before I enter into a detail
of the evidence which I intend to produce in my owndefence, I think it
necessary. to notice some expressions used by the Learned Counsel for the
Prosecution, in the speech which he addressed to this Court on the opening
of these proceedings. IT allude to that part of his harangue where he
said that ‘ Bamford was seen training a body of ten thousand men onthe
morning of the 16th.’ Ifthe brief which the Learned Gentleman had before
him instructed him to make suchassertions, so muchthebetter ; and
I sincerely wish, for his 6wn honour, that it may be so. But your Lordship
and the Jury cannot have failed to observe, that the testimony of
Morris contains no such proof, and he alone has appeared against me as
to the transactions which took place at Middleton previous to the processions’?
movement towards Manchester. Indeed, the evidence of Morris
states, that he knows not who formed the people into section, division,
and square; that they were formed, but by whom he does not pretendto
say. The Learned Gentlemen also, in commenting upon some of the
banners and theirinscriptions, describes one as bearing the words “ Annual
Parliaments,” and “ Universal Suffrage ;” andtheninsinitates that such
was accompanied by a demand, from whencehe infers a design to subvert
our constitution and government. Now the mottoes upon the banners
————

76
which he so erroneously described were nothing more than an avowal of
what we considered, anddo still consider, as our political rights. There
was no such thing as a demand about it. Why should we demand that
which we were going to Manchester to petition for? The Learned Counsel
begun his speech to the Jury very smoothly andvery cooly, desiring them
to disiniss from their minds all feelings of animosity which they might have
previously imbibed against the parties accused, and what to me appears
very strange, in a few breathings afterwards he makes the above statements,
so erroneous andso well.calculated to prejudice. His motives for
so doing I cannot tell. Ifhis own conscience acquits him, I do so wilfingly.
On the subject of drilling, I have in,common with my neighhours
heard much, seen some, and could have seen more; for it was,
to .use a common, though very memorable phrase, ‘as _notoriaus
as the sun at noon day.’ If it be not trespassing too much upon
the time of the Court, I will endeavour to give a brief account of
its origin and intention, and I am the more anxious to embraco
‘the present opportunity, from having my mouth closed when I
wished to have been heard at the bar of the House of Commons at
the commencement of the last Session of Parliament. In the course of
the last six years, Manchester has witnessed many public meetings, to all
of which, with the exception of the last, great numbers of people from
the surrounding townsandvillages, proceeded in groups premiscuously,
aipon which occasions they were uniformly styled by the illeberal and
venal press of that place, a mob; a riotous, a tumultuous, a disorderly
‘mob ; they were ridiculed asilliterate, dirty, and mean, having chapped
hands and greasy night-caps ; they were scandalised asbeing drunken
and disorderly, and they were denounced as being libelous, and
seditious, dividers of property, and destroyers. of social order. And
was it not then very natural that these poor insulted and vilified
people should wish to rescue themselves from the unmerited imputa-
‘tious, which were wantonly cast upon their conduct? It certainly was
natural to give the lie to their enemies ; to shew to the nation and
to the world that they were not what they had been represenied to be,
they determined to give one example of peace and good order, such as
should defy the most bitter of their accusers to triminate, and for this
_purpose, and this alone, was the drilling, so styled, instituted. Only one
witness for the prosecution has sworn to having heard amongst the drillers
the word “fire,” all the others swear only to their facing and to their
marching in file and in line, which evolutions were certainly most suited
todamiliarise them to that species of uniformity of motion which would
be necessary to preserve due order and decorumin their progress to the
place of meeting. But as to these facts I do not tender to your Lordship
and to the Jury my own assertions, unaecompanied by corroborating
evidence. Ishall produce from the papers laid before the House of Com-
‘mons, relative to the internal state of the eountry, what I consider as
a conlirmation of my statement {See No.13.p.11.) This document is dated
the 5th of August, which is only four days previous to the first proposed
meeting at Manchester, which should have been on the 9th ; so that if we
suppose the drilling parties to have been in existence a weekjor a fortnight
before the day on which this letter is dated, the ground of my argument
is strengthened thereby. That military gentleman whé did us the honour
to stand so long before us on Saturday evening, and whose services, I trow,
consisted in marching with Ralph Fletcher from Bolton to Manchester,
and from Manchester to Bolton, talks of midnight drilling,.and of the+parties
coming to the meeting in beautiful order, the former is not, I presume,
legal evidence, and of course will not appear on your Lordship’s notes ;
the Jatter confirms what'I have said, respecting the wish of the people to
preserve the strictest decorum. Your Lordship and the Jury will find by
the evidence which I shall produce, that by nine o’clock on the morning
of the eyer-memorable 16th ef August, numbers of persons assembled at
Middleton ; that they were formed into a hollow square ; and that whilst
so formed I addressed them, earnestly cautioning them to be on their
guard against their enemies, representing the advantage which would be
taken of their numbers to create a riot by persens employed for that sole
77
purpose; that I advised them toinsult no person, but rather to suffer ay
insult on that day, as their enemies would be glad of a pretext to accuse
them of riot and disorder ; that I entreated them to bear towards every
one a spirit of good will; in token of whichI distributed amongstthem
branches of laurel, emblems of purity and peace, as described, by Morris
and Heaton, and having heard that ifI went to the meeting, the police of
Manchester would uponiis own responsibility arrest me, 1 cautioned the
people againstoffering any resistance, if such an attempt should be made,
as I preferred an appeal to the laws of my country to the use offorce;
that [ insisted nosticks should be taken, and that in consequenceseveral
were left by the way; that we went in the greatest hilarity and good humour,
preceded by a band ofmusic playing several loyal andnationalairs ;
and that our fathers and mothers, our wives and children, our sisters and
our sweethearts, were with us. And this was the dreadful military array
which the Learned Counselhas, in the strain of a celebrated Don, described
as one vast army bearing fromall points to the invasion of Manchester—poor,forlorn,
defenceless Manchester! These are the so!diers ready
to fight for Mr. Hunt, with bare heads and with arms locked(a fighting
posture forsooth,) who terrified that immortal author of given books, Mr.
Francis Phillips; and of these persons, O, dreadful to relate! was composed
that cordon impenetrable to every thing save the new-ground
sabres of the Manchester yeomanry cavalry!””
Grorce Swirr then addressed the Court in his defence. He admitted
having been at the Manchestermiceting, but utterly denied that he
was there for anyillegal purpose. He corroborated the statementin evir
dence of his adressing the people to be peaceable ; andyetfor all this he
had been confined in close custody, and exposed to the opprobrium ofthe
world, as guilty ofa serious offence. He had no connexionwiththe reformers
; and he left his case with the Court and Jury.
Mr. Josrru Heatey (commonly called the Doctor) had the following
paper read by the clerk of the Court, as he was himself prevented from
reading it by a severe cold.
“ My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury.—Permit me tooffer a fewprefatory
remarks to your serious consideration. I stand here accused of a
crime against the laws of my country ; but.I should wish to impress upon
your minds that just and equitable maxim, that every man is considered
innocent until proved guilty by good and substantial evidence ; and I
therefore hope that what I shall think proper to introduce for my defence
this day will be duly weighed and reflected upon by you. You are sworn to
well and truly try and just deliverance makeofthis case, to which honourable
end I beseech you to lay aside party feeling and interests, unrobe
yourselves ofall party spirit and prejudices, if any you have, and let
nothing weigh in your decision but what you hear well substantiated, on
oath, from creditable witnesses, who are completely disinterested. In
our political opinions and feelings we may perhapsdiffer, but as you are
Countrymen and Englishmen, I will not believe but that you gloryin fair
play—youglory in suffering every man to think for himself—andin short
in suffering every man to enjoy that privilege you would wish to enjoy,
fulfilling that beautiful saying of Scripture, ‘doing to others as you
would wish others to do to you.”’—Liberality of sentiment is the greatest
proof of a well cultivated mind. Having premised thus much, I shall now
come to the subject of the indictment. It is divided into such a tissue of
repetition as never before occurred. We are charged witha conspiracy,
which is said to have commencedin July, and been consummated on the
16th of August. At once I deny the charge altogether—neither has it, ncr
can it be proved against us. If meeting my fellow countrymento petition
Parliament or the King for a reform in the representation in the Tlouse of
Commonsbe a conspiracy, then I confess I am a conspirator, and ami
ready to bear chains, racks, and dungeons for such conspiracye
But, Gentlemen, I trust I shall convince you that neither I nor
my fellow prisoners merit such aseyere name. 1amunskilled in the forms
of law; it strikes me that ne act or acts can be considered as a conspi-
K

SEDANTS
78
racy unless such acts are tended to further and mature unlawful matter,
and I wish to keep this in view through this all-important trial—atrial in
whichthe liberty of yourselves, children, and country, are atissue. I apprehend
if mere association, and communion of ideas, constitute conspiracy,
then are you very conspirators—for from distant places, for one purpose,
you mustconsult, devise, and associate; and why not, while doing so,
Be conspirators? Design can alone constitute criminality, and bere unless
it ean be shown by good and irreproachable evidence, that we intended to
break the peace, and bring the Constitution into contempt, itis clear we
have committed no crime against the then existing laws of the land. This
meeting as well as others I have attended, wascalled by public advertisment
(which he had here read). The document will speak for itself. You see
it is for the purpose ofconsidering the most lawful means of obtaining reform.
The day arrives—[Here he described the meeting to consist of a
romiscuous assemblage of men, women, and children, with music.|—You
ive been toldof the military array of the people, but did the laws of the
Jand then point out in what mannerthe people should go to the meeting ?>—
I fearlessly say, No. Then any method was lawful. You are told ofthe
people carrying walking-sticks, but it will be proved they were very rare
on that day. It was said the people bad flags amd devices. Were they
forbidden by the then law? I say, No; itis said they came with music,
was that forbidden? It is said that meetings called for a lawful purpose
night become unlawful by their numbers. Did the then laws specify how
inany made an lawful meeting? I say No. St. Paul has laid down, that
where there is no law there is no transgression ; and, thank God! the laws
of my country say the same. That you will think with the great Apostle
of the Gentiles Iam confident, and therefore expect an acquittal. { am
anxious to inform you, that in Lancashire, where military habits are almost
interwoven with the people, the scholars walk in procession with music
and flags, It may be attempted to be said that the Reform we sought was
not constitutional ; this was a new doctrine imported from Algiers. IT apprehend
the right of petition or remonstrance is a chartered right, anteriorto
all forms of government, being planted by God in our very natures,
anda right enjoyed in the most despotic States, in Constantinople as well
as London. Itis expressly laid downiu the fundamental laws ofthe land,
that every body has the liberty of petitioning, and adds,that all committals
for it are illegal. If the people had the right of petition, they must also
have a right to meet and discuss grievances. The laws of the land are
conclusive for us. Would petition for the repeal of the Septennial law
be penal ?—orfor the disfranchisement of Gatton, Old Sarum, &c.? He
then referred at large to the Act of Settlement, &c. and said, if this be not
so, farewell reason and justice, and Duke of Richmond, Earl of Chatham,
Fox, Pitt, Sir William Jones, Grenville Sharpe, Sheridan, and
thousands of other great men. I trust the meeting is now provedlegal.
The Magistrates, I wish to impress upon you, do not appear to have
discovered the meeting to be illegal until twelve o’clock; if they
Knew it before, they were criminal in not giving notice of it.”
Who then impeached many of the witnesses for the prosecution on account
of their connexion with the police, and eulogised the witnesses he
had to adduce, and then concluded thus:—“And now my Lord Judge, I
pray younot to say any thing to prejudice the minds of the Jury, but
leave the matter with them ; ‘and to you, Gentlemen of the Jury, I would
suggest a word of advice, namely, that, the law considers youthe Judge
in this case; and therefore you will judge for yourselves, without taking
any notice whatever of what may be advancedas this opinion or that opinion.
only seek to repair our old constitution, and make it a fae simile
of the sentiments of the people at large.
Mr. Justice Barty smiled at the allusion as to what might be his
charge to the Jury, and turning to them, hoped they would attend to the
Defendant’s request.
Mr. Jounson, in his defence, said he had been induced to attendat the
meeting by desire of some persons who thought he had influence overthe
people, and to
79
maintain peace and order. He then asserted that what was
sworn respecting himself was not true and arraigned the conduct of the
police of Manchester.
The Court adjourned until ten o’clock to-morrow morning.
Tuesday, March 21.
At ten o’clock Mr. Justice BaiLey took his seat on the Bench,
and Mr. Hunrose, and addressed the Court, amidst the most profound
silence and attention, nearly as follows :—
My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury—Rising, as I do, under very peculiar
and multifarions difficulties, Ihave to entreat your indulgence,
while I lay my case before you, in answerto the serious charge attempted
on thepart of the prosecution to be substantiated against me. I have in the
first place to inform you, that 1 arrived at York labouring under a heavy
cold, which has since been increased by the draft of the door behind me,
and by my anxiety and attention, until it has placed me in a situation, in
point ofhealth, of great difficulty and no little danger. It was on this account
I made that application for the Court notto sit until 10 o’clock this
morning—an application which was unleclingly opposed bythe learned
Counsel opposite—
Mr. Justice Barrey—Pray, Mr. Hunt, don’t use the harsh term
‘ unfeeling :’ let us refrain from personalities”.
Mr. Hunt—“ I was in hopes that I should have been able, step by step,
to read the evidence through before I came to my defence ; but when left
this Court last evening, I was so indisposed as to be obliged to call in an
eminent medical man, who recommended mebyall meansto abstain from
any business which might cause anxiety or irritation, and to keep myself as
quict as possible. This, Gentlemen, prevented me from reading over the
evidence with that care which I should otherwise have devoted to it. If
under such discouraging circumstances, I shall be under the necessity of
taking up much of yourtime, I hope the delay will not create in your
minds any prejudice against me, but be attributed to the real and only cause.
WhenI put in this claim, I doso on the score of health ; I claim not, E
want not to excite improper sympathy. A consciousfeeling of rectitude
has always dictated my motives and governed my actions and intentions,
and will now, I feel confident, enable me to bear up against multiplied difficulties
with honourte myself, and,I trust, with satisfaction to you. When
you heard, Gentlemen, the opening speech of the learned Counsel, I am
sure you must have felt that you were aboutto try avery different question
from that which has since been detailed to you. I am sure you thought you.
were about to try some monsterin human shape, who, devoid offeeling, of
integrity, and of character, sought the overthrow of all good government,
and ofall the mostsacred institutionsin the country. You have heard the
evidence which followed the speech for the Prosecution, and I now ask
you whereare the proofs that any man hereis such a monster?) To your
oaths and your consciencesI calmly leave that appeal. The learned Gentleman
set out with expressing to youhis congratulations at the remoyal
of this trial to your county from the neighbouring one, and at the pleasure
it gave him to find it about to be tried in a plave where local prejudices
were not liable to have particular operation. He made this congratulation,
as he said, on the part of the cause of justice, as well as in behalf
of the Defendants. But with whatsincerity, Gentlemen, can youreeeive
that congratulation, when I tell you that that learned Counsel himself,
with the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, Mr. Raine, and the whole array
ofthe Crown Lawyers, employedall their combined talents and legalacumen
to deprive youof having the performance of that duty on which he now
congratulates yon, and to prevent my having this opportunity of obtaining
an unbiassed Jury of the county of York. Hasit also come to his knowledge
that’ unfair means have been resorted to, even with a Jury bere?
This Jury he knows were struck withthe Sheriff at the side ofthe selector.
. Doeshe believe that no improper means have been resorted to? Does he

80
believe that no improper means have been used by the Under Sheriff, ortliat
holetter has been written to an individual called on the Jury but who has
not attended?”
Mr. Justice Barrey—“ Mr. Hunt, Imustinterfere. This is quile extraneous
matter. If any such interference were used, there is another
way of investigating it. The party making that interference is answerable
for it, but it is foreign to our present business.”
Mr. Hunt—“ If state, my Lord, what Iaminformed I can prove. I
amwell advised upon it, and I do not hesitate to say, that it would form
a good and valid ground of objection to any verdict tainted by
such means. But I here confess I have no such feeling. If any such aitempt
has been made uponany individual in your box, Gentlemenofthe
Jury, Iam sure, that instead of creating an undue impression against me,
it will operate in my favour—and that you will feel no leaning towards the
man who has dared to do it, and who shall hereafter, face to face, answer
for his conduct. I must, however, say, that much prejudice has necessarily
been inbibed against us. The opening speech of the Learned Counsel
has gone forth through the London Papers to the world, while we are yet
upon our trial. They have been here circulated in a public coffee-room
by some of the witnesses conyened for the prosecution; a false impression
has been thus created, and nineteen. out of twenty of the people
of England have ere now been exposed to its operation. I amnot only
charged in this opening speech, which has been disseminated throughout
the world, with being a man onhis trial for an attempt to overthrow
the constituted authorities of the country, but also to extinguish in the
flame ofinfidelity the altar of our holy religion. It has been industriously
proniulgated that I was connected with Mr. Carlile; it has been propogated
that I ama manof his principles—where is the proof? Withoutit
why should the imputation have been cast ? I shall not advert to the conduct
of Mr. Carlile, because the law has imposedits punishment upon him,
and he is nowenduring the reward of his temerity. It would be therefore
improper, and imprudent, and unjust for me, in open Court, to toueh
upon such a subject ; but why was the topic introduced? I will tell you,
Gentlemen—to connect our cause with that ofirreligion, and to identity
that of the reformers with Mr. Carlile’s. I am not here, I openly avow,
either by evidence or my speech, to convey in the slightest degree,
any intention of disavowing the appellation of being a reformer. Tan
not a man to hold one opinion in private, and another in public, with regard
to my political sentiments. Ihave no crooked expediency. I profess
to be areformer, but not a leveller. I profess to be a lover ofliberty, but
not of licentiousness. Sweet, lovely liberty, Gentlemen, is pure and ainiable
as sacred truth. Licentiousness is as disgraceful as darkness and falsehood.
Liberty is as contrasted with crime, as truth is with some of that evidence
which has been given in that box on the part of the prosecution. Who
that read the Learned Counsel’s speech, and heard his allusion to a bloody
dagger, encompassedand surrounded by the people of the Manchester meeting—adagger
too which has now been seen through the public prints by 19-
20ths of the empire—who, Tsay, but must not think,that the vile criminal so
impugned,is a monster, a low-bred, vulgarvillian, a desperado of low
life, plodding violence and rapine, treason and murder—instigating his
fellow creatures to hurry on with himin his career of desperate andatrocious
criminality ! Whatproof is there in evidence to entitle the Learned
Counsel to draw this ‘air-drawn dagger,’ save indeed the evidence of one
uncorroborating witness—a man, too, bearing the rank of high life, a Gentleman,
and.a Magiserate ; he, ofall, only dared to utter this breath of
slander, andto implicate us, ot any part of the meeting, in any acts of
tumult or violence.” This having been done, it is incumbent upon us
here to repel by evidence, this false and infamous calumny, which the
Learned Counsel, though he uttered, did not dare to prove by one corroborating
evidence,—”
hisaens Batuey.---< Pray do not use approbrious epithets, I cannet
81
Mr. Hunt.---My Lord, it is charged upon me that I have been criminally
eonnected with public Meetings, at which, among other emblemsto instigate the
people to acts of bloodshed and violence, I was a party to bringing the emblem of
a bloody dagger ona flag.---Where, I ask, is the dagger? Whereis the flag? I
answer, no where but in the perverted imagination of the man whouttered it to
excite a prejudice against us in the minds of the Jury. He smiles (Mr. Scarlett
was observed by Mr. Hunt to smile).---He may smile, but let him rememberthat,
like the story of the boy and the frogs, what was fun for him may be death for me.
If there was this emblem, Gentlemen of the Jury, you would haveseenit here, for
you recollect Shawcross said that the banners, the revolutionary emblems, the implements
of war, were all here. Why did not the learned Gentlemen, whose witnesses
had them, call for their production( No, no, Gentlemen, his observation
at that moment was, ‘Let us close the case.’ Where was their witness, Nadin,
who is here? Why not got a single witness to prove the existence of this
bloody dagger? Where are the dreadful ensigns? Why not produce them here
to justify their clients? See the effect they were calculated to produce, and do
you think the Prosecutors would have lost it, if it were possible to be obtained ?
Where are the bludgeons that were shouldered like wooden muskets? They were
part of the captured spoils; Mr. Jonathan Andrews saw them four feet in length ;
where are they? No, notone is here. The bludgeons then, the stones that were
hurled at the yeomanry, Mr. Scarlett’s bludgeons, Mr. Hulton’s bludgeons, brickbats,
and stones, are only to be found existing in the mind of the learned Counsel
and his solitary witness. They know well that they had no other existence. The
learned Counsel said he knew-Mr. Hulton better than Ido. I dare say he does,
and I give him joy of his acquaintance. Mr. Hulton was about 3 or 400 yards
from the hustings. He is yet the only man who dares to swear to the flinging of
stones and brandishing of sticls, to the face about of the people against the military,
their being attacked, and, as it were, cut off. He only speaks to the hissing
and hooting. I shall contradict that man. Why was he not corroborated by his
brother Magistrates, nine of whom were with him in the room where he saw all
these indications of violence? Why should testimony so important, want the
confirmation of his brother Magistrates, who could, if the story be true, have
corroborated every word of it? We knowthat the whole of the other nine Magistrates
were here on the first morning of the Trial, we know that Mr. Hay was
here, and Mr. Norris; we know that when witnesses were all ordered out of Court
they went out among the rest, from that box where they had taken their places.
All went out; for what? To enable themto be called as evidences; and yet not
one was brought to corroborate the most strong ofall. All Lancashire did not furnish
a brother Magistrate to corroborate Mr. Hulton: of the whole Police, who
take oaths by the hundred every year, there was not one to prop up such an assertion
of our guilty acts; no, not one soul could be found to swearafter Mr. Hulton!
Gentlemen, if this question were merely the simple one of my guilt or innocence;
my moral guilt or moral innocence ; I declare to God, that, knowing
as I do, the Judge whotries this cause, his high character, his great integrity, I
would let the evidence go to you as it stands, and demanduponit your verdict of
an honourable acquittal. To that Judge whose character. ey
Mr. Justice Bartry.—‘‘ Let me beg of you not to allude to it in this man-
2”
ner.
Mr. Hunr.—‘‘ Well then, Gentlemen, I cannot give vent to thosefeelings
which it would gratify me to utter. I shall only say, that out of all the evidence
brought forth on the part of the Crown, there has not been a single one whose
cross-examination did notelicit a contradiction of the charge brought against us,
I have said that if my private interest were alone concerned, I should leave the
evidence to you as the: Prosecutionleft it with you. But there are geat national
interests involved in it, and which must here be decided. I feel, then, I must
combat the tissue of misrepresentations that have been sent forth against us; I
feel that I must undo the criminalforce of the learned Counsels accusation, which
has now gonefarand wide throughout the Country. When see, therefore, the absolute
necessity of calling evidence to rebut such gross and unfounded imputations,
I must crave your indulgence to allow me the opportunity. It is, Gentlemen, no
part of my eharacter to be the flatterer of any man, orto fawm before any*persoh-
1} i

eras
82
83
SS eere ee
a eeiad! = omy
age. Tosuch language, or such sycophancy, Iaman utter stranger.
approach the learned Judge with the humble tribute of my praise — ”
If I then
Mr. Justice BaiLey.—‘‘ Mr. Hunt, you must not, I cannot. bearit. Pray
forbear.”
Mr. Hunr—‘‘ Gentlemen, I said I could not be a flatterer; but I meant to
speak the honest language of truth, not of adulation. If I said else, I knowit
would have only the effect of exciting in your minds a prejudice against me. During
the whole course of the Trial, the learned Judge (and I hope I maybe permitted
to say it) has exercised a patience, has shown a temperoften tried, and I will
admit, perhaps, not alittle by myself, as well as by others “4
Mr. Justice Barney.—‘*‘ We must not suffer these allusions to be made; |
thank you to say nothing about it. Go on to what is material for your defence.”
Mr. Hunr---‘* Well, Gentlemen, I must desist from gratifying my feelings;
his Lordship’s hint of disapprobation shall ever induce me to desist from pursuing
any course that may be disagreeable to him. After those preliminary observations
Task yourpatience, Gentlemen, while I go through, as well as I can, the principal
parts of the evidence for the prosecution. But first I must call your attention to
the nature of the indictment. It was for a conspiracy ; a very fashionable and
conyenient mode now-a-days of proceeding by indictments; for by so proceeding
there is no limit to inquiry, every action of aman’s life may be scanned to shewhis
character; his whole career may be raked up.---Eyery possible degree of criminality
may be left to be inferred from the animas with which he transacted anyaffair
of his life. Now, Gentlemen,in this indictment they had this wide scope. I ask
you, then, what proof of evil intention have they adduced against us ? None---none
whatever. Iwas, you have heard, at Stockport, where I received the kind and
hospitable treatment of Mr. Moorhouse; I went from Stockport to Manchester
on the Monday, and yet Chadwick who was the whole week watching from Manchester
to Stockport, and from Stockport to White Moss, can only bring out this material
fact that has been so much dwelt upon, namely, that as I passed along the
road I said, ‘ Let us give one shout, lads.’ Is this a conspiracy? No.. What,
then, is it mean for? Why for this purpose, to excite a prejudice against me, by
attributing to my popularity the collection of this great meeting. 1 will bring a
wititess to prove the circumstances attending this shout. I will put into that box
alad who has been in myservice for. seven years---a simple country lad, who has
attended me at all public meetings for the last seven years. Get out of him,if
you can, any act of criminality. ‘The Learned Counsel, who will, I know, condescend
to any thing here, can enter the recesses of my stable and myprivate
chamber ; let him, through my’ servant, scan every event in my house. ‘Thefact
of that shout is this: 1 am, as it is known, long accustomed to meet crowds of
people, and whenever I saw the least disposition in the multitude to hiss, and give |
offence of any kind to any individual, it has always been mypractice to draw their
attention from the object of their dislike by proposing three cheers, or a,shout of
some kind to divert their attention and exhilarate their minds. If I see a wish to
hurt the feelings of any body, I always say, ‘ No, no3 give them three cheers,’
What a contemptible vanity am I not charged with!---To excite a shout
from the people!-what did I want of it? I needed no such stimulus to
-them if I were weak enough to resort to such means. They always gave
me enough of shouting when I appeared among them, without using
any foolish means to obtain their applause. When I got to Bullock’s Smithy,
I found that the meeting of the 9th of August had been prohibited by the Magistrates,
and declared illegal. Mr. Hunt you hear, called this meeting. No---it
was not Mr. Hunt whocalled it---it was the inhabitants ef Manchester, who called
it by public adyertisement, A requisition had been sent. to the Boroughreeve,
signed. by from seven to 1,700 householders of Manchester, each name having the
trade and address of the party annexed to it, desiring that a meeting of Manchester
and the vicinity. should be convened---for what? ‘ to adopt the most legal
and, most effectual means to procure'a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament,’
This requisition was published in the papers, with the names of the inhabitants
who subscribed, to it.. The Boroughreevewould not call the meeting,
and they then called it themselves.. This was on the.7th of Angust, two days before
I at all arrived in the neighbourhood, and yet this was. the meeting said to
have been called by a man who had neither residence, property, or connexions im
Manchiester---a man who was in fact out of the town for two days after. I was
invited to preside at that meeting, because I imagine they knew I had presided at
others where peace and order prevailed. There was not one public meeting I ever
attended in the course of mylife that was not so conducted. I tell you frankly
and freely, that I was never invited by my countrymento take a part in any public
meeting at which I did not attend. This may be attributed to my vanity and ambition.
What vanity ? what ambition? Wasit the ambition to do evil?—No; it
was the ambition to do that good which I thought it in my power to accomplish.
When did I shew a disposition to do evil? The hustings are described as coniposed
of cordons and martial array, and all prepared to fight against any one, and- for
me 3 and where did I misdirect their power?—I keep no notes of my speeches; I
trust to the feelings and dictates of my heart, which are foreign to violence; and
I speak what I feel. I ask, then, on what meeting in the whole course of mylife
did I by even any single casual expression, dropped in the heat of the moment, use
one single word that had a tendency to excite the people against their Constitution
and Authorities of the State? If I had attempted so bad a course, I do not believe
the people would, in any instance, have followed my example. I never entertained
such sentiments. It has ever been my desire to induce the people to uphold
the honest, noble, dignified free-born character of Englishmen; to make
them lovers of their free Constitution, its Authorities, and its Laws; and perliaps
in only two or three individual instances have I ever seen a single being who was
’ desirous of doing unlawfulacts. I never wished to remedy any imaginary or real
evil by any other than legitimate means— the most legal and mosteffectual means,”
as are specified in this requisition, always constituted the doctrines EF sought. You
have heard of burning mills. What mills did I ever point out for conflagration ?
What farms did I point out for partition ? What butcher’s or baker's shops did I
ever designate for plunder? None. If I ever had so misconducted myself, do you
think, Gentlemen of the Jury, you would not have heard of it during this trial ?
Do you not think that the prosecutors, with the whole Treasury of England at
their back, would have found it out, and made me answerable for it this day ?
I never in the whole course of mylife used a single expression that had a tendency
to induce the humbler walks of life, or the lower orders, as they are denominated,
to obtain a single farthing, except from the fruits of their own honest industry.
The Reporters who have been examined, all prove that I never used a single phrase
but what was an exhortation for peace and order. Roger Entwistle alone says,
I pointed to the soldiers, and said, ‘ there are your enemies, get them down, and
when you have them down, keep them down.’ Mr. Horton says, this was not
addressed to the soldiers, and I will prove to you that I could not from position,
have seen the seldiers at the time. So much for Roger Entwistle’s fact.
Next came the charge of martial array and wooden muskets—the symptoms
of violence and disorder. Not a single bludgeon is produced—nota single individual
in that immensecrowd offers an insult to any one. Mr. Green, Mr. Phillips,
and Mr. Hardman, come here and declare their dread of the meeting, without
hearing a single expression used to justify their alarm. In this immense population,
consisting of 60,000 or 70,000 people, you have only spoken of in evidence
four or five verbal insults, and the principal of these too used before the people
entered Manchester. One man said, ‘Manchester would be made that night a
second Moscow ;’ and yet see the impression this awful denunciation made on the
witness who heard it, a man who had at the time his wife and children in the
very town that was so sooy to be in a state of conflagration, and yet whateffect
did it produce upon him? hy he remained pursuing his’ ordinary occupation in
the factory where he was at work; he felt thatit was an idle and a ridiculous phrase,
and being under no alarm for his family; he never cared about returning to
Manchester until his regular hour at night. Do you think, if the man thought
thé observation any thing but a vain boast, he could not, unless he were a
monster, have refrained fromflying before that populace, and rescuing his wife
nad children from the impending dangef ? Then comes Mr. Francis Phillips. He
rode out to Stockport, and eyeing a man very close, gota stroke of a club in
return, and therefore denounced the meetingas illegal. This was the author of
the celebrated pamphlet, aman who had done more to circulate the grossest
misrepresentations respecting the Manchester business than any other man in the
country Va
4

esas opeenae
84
Mr. Justice Bartey. ‘* Take care, and do not go out of the way to cast
&spersions.””
Mr. Hunt. ‘Then Mr.Phillips tells you he returned, and made certain depositions
before Magistrates. But yet from ‘what had fallen from the other witnessees,
it would appear, that so far from the dangerarising on the morning of Monday,
in the eyes of the Magistrates, they had actually met on the Sunday, totry and
frame depositions upon the subject ; but not being able to agrée upon the point,
had deferred the matter until the following day. And yet they tell you they never
felt alarm until the morning of Monday, so that their alarm appeared in the result
to be, not sudden and imminent, but the counsel of two days. The great discussion—the
great arrangement was ‘how to break up the meeting without
reading the Riot Act—the famous Riot Act. The Counsel for the prosecution
did not bring a single witness to prove that it had been read; they knew very well
that if they attempted to do so, the evidence of the individual would have been
Kicked out of Court. They knewit was never read. I did not put the question
to Mr. Hulton, because I knew his answer would have been ¢ Yes,’ bang 3
Mr. Justice Baivey. ‘* You cannot know what his answer would be, Mr.
Hunt.”
“« But though I did not put the question, I got full enough from him in the
¢cross-examination, that no such thing had been done. I made himtoall intents
and purposes swear that no Riot Act was read. I asked him, ‘ Did either you. or
any of your brother Magistrates go forth and caution the people that their meeting
was illegal? Did you give them anynotice before you dispersed them ? Did you
ty to persuade them to desist from what you thought was their object, or make
them in any way believe, that you intended to drive them away by force?’ ‘No,’
said Mr. Hulton. I, continued Mr. Hunt, knew that the Riot Act wasa notice—
that it was a proclamation to the people. I put my question, therefore, so as to
get the answer without hinting to the witness the fact I wanted to extract from
him. I knew that no Riot Act had been from first to last read. Mr. Scarlett
knew that, and he did not venture to ask the question. He knew the impression
produced in the House of Commonsbythat circumstance, and how it reverberated
throughout the country. Whynot call the Rev. Mr. Ethelstone? Did not the
Learned Gentleman know that Mr. Ethelstone sent in a message to the Oldham
Inquest, that he could prove he had read the Riot Act? He sent in the message
but he could not dare go before a Jury and swear to the fact. Where were Mr.
Trafford, Mr. Tatton, Mr. Hay, Mr. Norris, Colonel Fleteher, Col. L’Estrange,
and all the other gentlemen who werepresent, to prove the reading of any Riot
Act? They knew what Mr. Hulton had sworn, why not these have come forward
either to corroborate his testimony, or supply his deficiencies? Mr. Hay, indeed,
did not wait; he put himself intoa coach, and drove off from York instantly ; we
were, I suppose, expected to follow him with a subpeena. I am too old a soldier
to be caught by such a manceuvre. Nature has given me common understanding,
andI have seen a great deal too much of the consequences of biinging a
hostile witness into the box for an examination in chief. . But if they had put
him up at the other side, as they must have at first intended by bringing him
here, then, indeed, I should have given a Jew’s eye for his cross-examination.
‘This was the Mr. Hay whogota living of 2,5002. a year for his conduct in
this business. If Mr. Hulton gets his reward for his share in the service, there is
no gift the Crown can bestow too great for his deserts. M1. Hulton is truly a
Gentleman ; the boldest man I ever saw. I know and feel that when a man of
Yank and character speaks before a Jury of Gentlemen to facts, his evidence is
necessarily calculated to make a stronger impression on their minds than when the
same information is derived from persons of meanerconsideration. True, the rich
and the poor manare equalin the eye of the law ; butstill I can see the different
impression which will be made by the same circumstances reaching your ears
througha different channel. It is, perhaps, natural and proper that more weight
should, in such a case, attach to what falls from a man of rank and property,
The common feelings of our nature, in a certain station in society, induce us to
give a preponderating weight to the testimony of our equals, in preference to
ethers, and makesus reflect that a person so placed has a great stake in maintain-
85
ing his integrity, and that if he forgets what he owes to his own conscience and
his God, he must expect, as the consequence,to forfeit the rank and consideration
he holds insociety, and that when such a man, be his rank what it may, becomes
perjured, hefalls to the earth. I shall bring the most unequivocal testimony
before you that Mr. is a man. That he has told you that asa
truth which has not the least shadow of probability. I know that you will not
take this from my mouth. Iam aware you will require the strongest evidence to
convince you that a man of his station could be guilty of that which I charge
him with. But if I do not prove what I now say, let me be the villain that I
am not, and he the innocent man. ‘To prove what I say, I shall put in the box,
not men of humble station, but men in the higher ranks of life ; men totally unconnected
with the Manchester meeting ; men of equal rank, and character, and
education with himself, and of ten times his property ; men who cannot in any
manner be pointed out as partisans of the people, assembled on the I6th. of
August. They will prove that they had every means and opportunity of watching
that meeting, and that they saw no brandishing of cudgels, no flinging of brickbats,
no facing about upon the military, no cutting off the yeomanry. Not one
of these acts did they see ; not one of them, if they had been committed, could
haye escaped their attention. Not one finger did they see raised against the yeomanry
when they advancedto arrest the persons on the hustings. When Iprove
all this, and not until then, but ¢hen I shall call upon you to dismiss from your
mind the whole of Mr. Hulton’s evidence upon this point. I repeat, that if the
case merely concerned myself individually, I should have this evidence rest upon
its own improbability ; I’d let it stand as it does, totally uncorroborated by the
whole weight of a Treasury prosecution. But the question involves more than my
individual fate ; it comprehends more than a verdict of guilty or not guilty upon
the Defendants now ontrial: it will decide no less a question than this—whether,
hereafter, there shall be a particle of rational liberty left in the country? You
will decide whether the meetings of the people, or of Gentlemen like yourselves,
shall in future meet under any other better security, that you shall not be cut
down by sabres, than the discretion of any hot-headed young Magistrate. You
will have to say whether in future it shall be lawful for any such person to send
among a mixed meeting of men, women, and children, a set of drunken, infuriated
yeomanry, to inflict upon them, while peaceably assembled, military
execution. Iam charged with being guilty of the grossest misrepresentations
uponthis subject. You have nowtoascertain at which side the grossest misrepresentations
have been given.
‘

;
———
86
meeting in 1812 did not take place, because the Boroughreeye heard that some
independent man meantto oppose the thing, and the authors of such a delusion
uponthe public. If to convoke such a meeting, was pot a conspiracy in the Boroughreeve,
howcould it be in the people last year? They had heard what the
learned Counsel said in allusion to the Corn Bill, and the banner, ‘*No Corn
Bill.” He well knewthat you were country Gentlemen, who might perhaps have
certain strong impressions upon that subject; he well knew how to make use of
this impression though he was himself an opponent of the Corn Bill. I have myself,
Gentlemen, been at one time oneof the largest farmers in England. I am
a landed proprietor, though I have been held asa raggamuflin, as a man, without
any meansof existence, except that which I can drawfrom the pockets of the
people. I tell those calumniators, that I never got one halfpenny from the pockets
of the people---I never got oneshilling except what I have honourably earned,
and my own patrimony. I am Lord of the Manor of Glassonbury, in Somersetshire.
That is no credit to me; it came to me asa patrimony; I shouldrather
have acquired it by my own exertions, I should then have been more proudofit. An
attempt, Gentlemen, has also been made to chargeirreligion to my account. Now
Thave, in the course of my life, lived in seven or eight different villages, andin
every one of them the clergyman of the neighbourhood was of my acquaintance. I
have had the honour of knowing and frequently the pleasure and delight of conversing
with such characters. Where is one of them to impute: anirreligious notion
to me?. I mention this to you asa duty I owe myself, to shake such an opprobrium
from off my shoulders---you see it has been attempted to be thrown upon
me. You have heard the miserable attempt to fix upon me an irreligious connexion
with Carlile. I know the man, and if I do not say what I think of him,
it is because he is now suffering the sentence of the law, and therefore not a fit
subject for any body’s animadversion. Of him I shall say nought now ; but I shall
say, that none of the principles, professions, or doctrines he is said to haye
espoused, were ever, at any moment of mylife, imbibed or believed by me. In
the face of God and my country I most solemnly declare, that I never read
one line of the Theological Works Carlile published, until Doctor Studdart’s libel
upon me first put them into my hands, in the following mannet :—Mr.Scarlett
was then employed, as he is now, against me, in the Court of King’s Bench;
Carlile’s trial was going on, mine was the yery next, and I was bound to watch
it, or else expose myself by one moment’s absence when it was called on, to a verdict
for the Defendant. Such was my unfortunate case, or else I should not have
been in London, muchless in Court when Carlile’s trial was pending. I here
further declare, in the face of heaven, that among the Reformers, rich or poor,
Inever recollect to have seen oneline of the Theological Works of Thomas Paine.
So much for the Reformers. Why then identify them so groundlessly with such
doctrines ?—Is not sedition bad enough, without blasphemy being tacked to it ?
Whereis the proof of our being such characters ? Was it from Mr. Moorhouse’s
servant, who proved himguilty of the treason of giving me a bed in his house, and
who added, that his master was in the constant habit of reading the Scriptures to
his servants? Is that a proof of blasphemy? Good God! was it not enough to
charge us with crimesagainst the King and their fellow-men, but that also we
must be designatedas infidels against our religion and our God ! Reverting to the
Corn Laws, I must tell you my opinion, as the subject has been introduced. I,
as a farmer, opposed them with all my might, from principle as well as policy.
They were never intended to protect us, but they were passed to enable Ministers
to screwtaxes out of the pockets of the people e
Mr. Justice Baikey—* To impute an improper motive to the Legislature in
passing an Act is not lawful.’’
Mr. Hunresumed, and continued thus :—* I know the effect of the Corn Laws
has beento enable a portion of the Ministets to collect taxes from the pocket of the
farmer to pay some extravagant salaries, sinecures, and grants, all of which I
heartily condemn, but which I never would oppose by force 1
Justice Bartay—“It may be as well to abstain fromthat ”
Mr. Hont—“ However wrong I may have thought upon the subject,
however wrong 1 may consider many acts of the Government, where is the
proof that I ever urged others to get rid of them but by loyal means? I
have joined in petitions and prayers of the people, we have prayed, and
57
prayed in vain; our petitions were not merely thrown under the table,
bul they were kivked out of the House ee: ! :
Mr. Justice Bartey—Pray do not enter on such a subject: it has no~
thing to do withthis trial. ba ‘
Mr. Hunt—Surcly it’s no crime, no conspiracyto join together in prayer,
or, if it be, it would be as mucha crime for you to go to church and offer
up your prayers tothe Supreme Being whom we adore. Weare, indeed,
allowed to do this, we are allowed to offer up our prayers; and are we to be
accused of treason, and sedition and blasphemy, because we pray relief
from those afflictors whom wefeel to injure us? his is the height of
our offending. ‘The learned Counsel for the prosecution has told you,
Gentlemen, that it would be illegal to assemble great numbers of people togelher
in one great plain. Why perhaps it would be illegal, but it is certain
it would be absurd nonsense—anutter imposibility. Why whatwould they do
there? Tis all a hobgoblin story, and never was intended that they should
be so assembled. Ifall the men, women, and children, in England, were
to get together in one great plain, I should be glad lo know what would
become ofthe learned Counsel—I should like to see what a pretty figure
he would cut. Then he tells youa story from a picture of Hogarth’s. He
was not satisfied with any thing he could findin print; and hetells you,
that we ask for things of whose nature or whose uses we know nothing. 1
know not where he has made this discovery, but most likely it was at some
electioneering borough town, where I could wish Hogarth had been, for
he wasso clever, that he would have very ably described Lewes about two
years ago, when the learned Counsel met so prominenta defeat. If the
learned Counsel had finished his climax about the picture and the eleven
days, he would have thought something of Hunt and his companions, who
were confined for eleven days and nights; and ifthey were, in a moment of
desperation, to ring in his ears “Give us_ back our eleven days of sweet
liberty,” there would have beensomesense in his making restitution for the
loss and compensating us for being robbedofourliberty on the most groundless
and false pretences. Nothing would have been moreapplicable to our
ease, than the intreduction of Hogarth’s picture of the Eleven Days , or of
a County Election. ‘Then, from this we are carried to Smithfield, and
there I must say a word or two. How comesit that the learned Counsel
for the prosecution is placed in this situation, when one of the most important
questions ever agitated in a Court of Justice, or submitted to the consideration
of a Jury, is brought forward? How comes it that neither the
Attorney General nor the Solicitor General are here? Perhaps you will
not be told because the defendantis little better than a country bumpkin,
not worth while to combat, orsome mere country squire; and they say,
“

88
89
guard the Jury arin taking his assertions or facts which have not been
proved. IfI make any improper complaint on this head, I amsure I shall
be excused, when the condition in which I am placed is taken into consideration.
I applied yery recently tothe Court of King’s Bench on the subject
ofthis trial, perhaps it was an improper complaint, but on that occasion
he was arraigned with other learned Gentlemen against my application.—
“Mr. ScarteTr—Ifit is necessary, I have no objection to give Mr,
Hunt an opportunity of explaining that transaction. If I had been applied
to as Counsel, I would certainly have accepted the application.”
Mr. Hunt—“ We know there are two great political parties in this
country, who have given their epinion on this subject ; and as itis well
known that the learned Counselis attached to one of these parties, was he
not selected in case of any little leaning—little leaning, I say, being
found in any of the jury who were at the same side towards me, to take
from me the benefit of their good opinions? Lam sure, Gentlemen, it could
not have escaped your observation, that the princpalpart of the care on the
side of the prosecution has been to connect the persons who met at Manchester,
with the atrocities, the dreadful atrocities, committed at White Moss,
J knowifit could be proved that such a connexion existed, we would be
legally and rightly responsible for the conduct pursued there. Forthis
purpose, Chadwick, the witness ofall truth,is brought before you: and he
swears he never knewthe solicitors for the prosecution until about ten
days ago, until within ten days of this trial: but what docs he prove
aflecting us? Why, because the learned Counsel in his opening, said
something had been at the dead hourof night, and someting must be done;
and sohe sets off by night from Manchester, and arrived by day light at
White Moss. Well, he travelled at all events at the dead of night. He
swears that what oecurred there could be seen by all who passed, and that
there were from two to three hundred spectators present—Then a second
witness—is he there at the dead of night? no, but he sets off from Manchester
about twelve o’clock at night, and arrives at White Moss between
two and three o’clock in the morning ; but he arrives at the other side of
the Moss,and not at the side where the drilling was going forward. Shaweross,
another witness starts off about the same time 3 but it comesout, in
his cross-examination, that he did not arrive at the place ofdrilling until
four o’clock in the morning. Theyall travelled in the dead hour ofthe
night, and staid there till about seven o’clock. Next comes Hayward,
whoarrives between six and seven o’clock ; but neither of them saw what
Chadwick saw ; they heard no firing whatsoever ; they only saw marching
and training, &c. Well, how is all this to connect us, who are the Defendants,
with the drilling at White Moss? Oh! says the learned Counsel,
Pllinform Mr. Hunt, andshall tell him how grossly and criminally I
can connect him with it. How is it done, however? Why the only
possible proof given of any person’s being at the Manchester Meeting,
who were seen at White Moss on that morning, was the man who headed
the Middleton division, and when I asked him who that man was he could
tell me Bamford ; but when Bamford was sitting in this Court—oh, then,
he knewnothingat all of him. Why,the truth is, the fellow knew very
well no such thing happened ; and no such thing did happen. But if there
exists the shadowof a doubt onthis subject, either inthe mind of your
Lordship or of the Jury, we will prove to you that Bamford was at home
and in bed until nearly ten o’clock that morning (I believe it was on Sunday
morning, which, perhaps, made him lie there so long.) Bamford, 1
admit, led up the Middleton division 3 but did that connect him with the
characters at White Moss? certainly not. We have here a witness, by accident,
a cousin of Bamford’s, a girl 15 years old, who lives with his family,
and who was one ofthose that went with Bamford’s sister and othera to
Manchester arm in arm, on the day ofthe meeting, who saw Bamford pull
off his shoes, throw them underthe table, and then go to bed. She went
to bed at eleven o’clock, got up the next morning at six, and his shoes and
the clothes he had taken off were thenin the same situation in which she
had seen themthe night before. The transactions at White Mossflew like
wild-fire through the county, and well they might ; and they produced all
that disgust and horror which every honest man should feel on such an
occasion. At six o’clock in the morning she saw Bamford with his wife in
bed, andtold him of the occurrences that had takenplace. Has found out
that witness ofall work, Chadwick, he has discovered who and what he is—
he knowshe is a character not to be believed upon his oath, and we have
evidence to prove, that in the presence ofhis fellow shopmen he declared
he would swear for any man who would pay him. We know himto be a
manufactured witness, and have sent for people to prove him unworthy of
credit. The next thing is Hayward, whosaid he saw the Middleton division
go towards Smedley Cottage, and why? because he wastold I was there.
$o that, Gentlemen, yousee, ifthe dove-tail did not fit one place of the machinery
it would surely fitin another. But in his examination it turned
out that the cottage where I was was a mile out of the road to town, and
so muchfor that connexion. Butsomebody who was at White Moss was
going to Manchester ; I do not doubt it; perhaps his own companions ;
perhaps the very persons who attended before the Grand Jury at Lancaster,
when the Bills were found against us. Another attempt to connect the
link, and what isit? Why, that the multitude at Withy Grove stopped my
carriage, and that I commanded the people to hiss at the house of Murray.
Where is the proof of this? What does Murray say ?—that the carriage
halted ; that I looked out of it while the hissing proceeded ; and if I did
what was more natural, what more natural than to stop and ask why the
people hissed? Then I also bid them cheer ; and what was that for? was it
to please my vany ?—No; but seeing the people so disposed, it was to divert
their attention, and to prevent the continuance of that line of conduct
they were pursuing. No witness confirms that most important
of allimportant facts, that Hunt stopped his carriage, looked out of the
window, took the commandof the people, and desired them to hiss. Murray
says, when they hissed no carriage was there; and of course I could
not have taken the command. ;
Mr. Justice Basruey—You are wrong, Mr. Hunt, as to the evidence of
Murray. : : on
Mr. Hunt—I suppose Murray to have said a carriage was there, Is ia
prove to you his memory to be very-incorrect ; I shall prove to you. that
on Sunday the 15th, in which he alleges a Magistrate to have taken his deposition,
no such deposition was sworn to, but sworn to several days afterwards,
namely, on the 2Ist. He did not swear positively that the person
in the carriage pointed up at his house; but suppose he did; if I saw a
disposition of the sort manifested, it was but natural that I should look up
and see what had attached so much of the hostility of the people. Suppose
it true, was that halting—was that taking any command—was be
desiring the peopleto ill-use Murray? I hope, Gentlemen, in what Is al
have to urge to your consideration, that I will not make the slightast misrepresensationeither
to save myself or the Defendants who are now joined
with me. When Murray was askedif he said “ he’d be better pleased to go
home ina boat rowed in the blood of the Reformers, than to walk home on
the pavement,” he feared to say so. When asked if he ever said Wero
he a General on the 16th of August, he’d destroy all the b y Reformers
he recollected Chapman’s going to Liverpool, when he found there many
persons who were here that knew him, he answered “ No.” First he “ners
that he was quite sober ; and then, as such expressions might not suitah
a sober man,he was tipsy ; he was a drunken fellow, he was any thing t Bt
could seem to palliate the oath he had taken. If, however, the point to ¢
made by Murray’s evidenceis goodfor any thing, I am sure the Hakan
his testimony will destroy it in the minds of any twelve honest men. is
cannot put a maninto that box to prove his expressions ; I know it vo
not be legal, and is not therefore competent tous to do so. Bot. ug
man, Gentlemen, is one of the partisansof those who said they would no
believe the Reformers on their oaths—This is the amiable, the enlightened
language of those who are evidence against us. Well, on goes Mr. Bint,
he comes to the Exchange, and then he is taken up to the Star, whic
name Ino more knew to be the Star, than I knowthe different stars of

90
the firmament. The people hissed at the house of a respectable man 5 but
there was no proof of Hunt’s halting, taking the command, and urging the
people to continue such a conduct. Is there any proof1 did any ofthese
things ?—no ; but there is proofof the reverse. A respectable Clergyman
swears that the Magistrates were not then there; Hulton says they were
not there ; so it falls to the ground. Gentlemen, I would here entreat you
to divest yourselves of thosefalse impressions whichhave beén so falsely instilled
into you; you have seen and you mustsee, not only that an attempt
has been made to destroy me, but to impose upon you, andto get} by these
false representations, twelve as honest and as honourable menas eyértrod
the earth to violate their oaths.
Mr. Justice Barrey—That is very wrong Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt—Ichallenge Mr. Scarlett to shewhis brief.
Mr. Justice Barrexy—That cannot be done.
Mr. Hunt—I hope your Lordship will excuse me, but a man_ having
so muchat stake as I haveand placed in my present situation, cannot always
measure his language, or methodise his thoughts. But, Gentlemen,
youshall see, and so shall his Lordship see by my conduct onthis day’s
trial, if I be that violent demagogue, that cruel, deceiving man I have
been represented to be. Yes, Gentlemen, you shall sce if aught that occurs
this day can justify this calumny. I feel myself incapable of doing any
thing contrary to the feelings of a man, an Englishman and a gentleman;
and if I do, let thevhole weight of sucha conduct come against me. If
Igo out of the course, if I give any resistance to authority when fairly administered,
I beg you will let it go against me—(Herehereferred to the
speech of Mr. Scarlett, as reported in one ofthe London Morning Papers,
in which he was charged with stopping at Murray’s andthe Star Inn, and of
abetling the hooting at the house where the Magistrates were assembled,
and continued—Look at the respectable Clergyman who stood in that
box, and the same you will recollect I treated with that becoming respect
due to his situation ; but what did he say, did he say that the people in the
eoach hissed? certainly not.
Mr. Justice Baitey—Hesaid the coach stopped and the people hissed.
Mr. Hunr—Butnot, my Lord, that those in the coach had hissed ; he saw no
military car, that has now become a barouche ; but that respectable gentleman,
if I had got up and halted, and pointed te-the house, and hissed, would certainly
have seen it; and on that he says not a wordin contradiction. Then, Gentlemen,
again I entreat you notto trust to those misrepresentations of my conduct, which,
have been so profusely laid before you. Then came Barlow, who proved, that
when passing Deansgate there was a shouting by the people. A shouting! that is
also made an offence ; but where is the proof that those in the carriage joined in
the shout ? Whyare chargeslike this to be accummulated ? What can be their object,
ifmot to misrepresent him and the other Defendants ? Edward Simpson, who
lived near that place, did not hear any noise at a quarter before one o’clock: but it
is searcely necessary to go much into his testimony, it amounts to little any way.
Then as to Matthew Cowper, and those who follow him. You have heard of a
poor fellow who was a lunatic, confined ina lunatic asylum; of the mushroom
serjeant, who acted in sucha mannerthat his oath is not to be believed, and who
told the fine story of his having gone to Ireland, when, in point of fact, he said
so merely to disguise his being a deserter ; and next of Cowper, who admitted his
being turned off from his employment about fourteen years ago, for the robbery of
his master, but who, within the last few monthssince this prosecution commenced,
was employed by a Committee of those who gave their evidence against us, and
since then, and not till then, was able to repay what he had stolen. You have
heard of these men, Gentlemen of the Jury; yes, these are the three men who
haye been brought up in one day for the purpose of supporting this prosecution.
A lunatic—I say not so todegrade him; It is much to be lamented, itis a great
misfortune to him—butsuch is the mancalled upon to proye some expressions of
Dr. Healey. If the proofs that such expressions were used was deemed matter of
any consequence, why was not his wife, who was always sane, who knew so much
of these transactions, why was not she called to prove them ! They were not used,
or, if they were, they were ofno use. Thus Gentlemen, to prop up the cause,
91
you have a lunatic, a deserter, and a confessed thief. The Learned Counsel may
say what wonderful discoveries we have made ; he mayaffect astonishment at our
finding out what we have done. I can tell him we have no public purse at our
back, enabling usto discover them, but that they were recognised by persons who
knew their characters, and then sent me in the account on a slip of paper, of
which I haye not failed to make some use. Cowper knew he dare not contradict
the fact of his having robbed his master, for we had a fellow servant of his to
prove it. When he comes as a Reporter to the hustings, he tells you first that he
went there of his own accord; but that wasa sort of under-play, and then it
comes out that he went there for The Courier. He and his friend Roger Entwistle
are at variance, and they again differ materially from another of their amiable and
proper associates. All who reported on that occasion differed except in one point,
that I said to the people, ‘* Put them down, and when you have‘them down,
keep them so.’’ What says Roger Entwisle? that I said, as the yeomanry were
advancing, ‘* There are your enemies, if they attempt to molest you put them
down, and when downkeep them so,’’ The others did not goso fars no, they
would not swear so well. Next comes Mr. Platt, the Gentleman so intimately acquainted
with the fimsies. All he has proved has been contradicted over and over
again, but whether it has or not, we shall be able to disprove it. He swears at
one time he saw Saxton on the hustings for half an hour, and at another time for
an hour and a half. Then as to Bamford’s being on the hustings after myarrival,
we shall prove it to be false, and that he was standing in the midst of the crowd
during the time I was there. It was necessary, however, to connect him with the
proceedings, and of course he wished to have him on the hustings.—Healso swearshe
saw Moorhouse on the hustings—a man who never was there, who never intended
to be there (not that I admit for a single moment there was either disgrace
or ckime in being there), and who, I believe, did not even think of attending at
the meeting. Here there is one circumstance which I must beg leave to recal to
the attention of your Lordship, and of you, Gentlemen of the Jury, as to the testimony
we extracted aboutthe flimsies. I allude to an occurrence that took place
in this Court—an occurrence that never should be tolerated in a Court of Justice,
upon a question which I asked Mr. Hulton. A general sensation then pervaded
the Court, and one man, whoclapped his hands, and made some other improper
demonstrations, was taken, but not hurried to prison, as I have seen men treated
on other occasions, very often indeed, but upon oath taken as to the fact. Well 5
bat itis not alittle remarkable on this occasion, to see who appeared to state the
facts. Now who comes forward—why Mr. Platt. He hears it said, the man had
clapped his hands, and he instantly comes forward to swear it. These are the sort
of men we see who come forward against us; but this is not enough ; another affidavit
might be necessary to the fact, and he looks up to the gallery, and there he
finds anotherof his brother witnesses, for whom he vouches that he can also swear
it. Worthy witnesses indeed! Why, Gentlemen, when such persons are employed
in any prosecution, can you rely upon the motives that have produced or
given youbelief to the instruments engagedto sustain it ? Platt, you see, was not
tired of swearing, and I don’t know if he’ll be as successful here as in his prosecution
of the#imsey business, forin that he neverfailed of nailing those against
whom hehad appeared. Ellis and Cowper, and another Reporter, differed in their
accounts of what occurred, and for one, certainly, if his levity did not induce him
to send forth all that was said about the cavalry, would not fail to do so from his
malignancy. Then Ellis swears to what Mr. Green and Mr. Hardman tell him
they saw, yet he was on the ground, but his testimony amounts to nothing. I
am placed, Gentlemen, in the very unpleasant and unfortunate situation of being
obliged to answer and explain as to Moorhouse, what a Learned Counsel took a
very considerable time to mystify. The Learned Gentleman usually mistook, or
he did perhaps what was worse, but quite usual with Counsel to do, endeavour to
make the Jury mistake. He appearedas if he had in his hand anissue
Mr. Justice BayLsy—This commentis unfair; it is not allowable; it is uncalled
for.
e
Mr. Hunr—MyLord, if the mode of defence adoped by the Counsel for Mr.
Moorhouse tends to commitme, I consider myself entitled to comment upon that
procedure. I felt a thorough conviction in my own mindthat the proposed meeting
of the 9th was not illegal. I felt assured, because I knew my owndisposition,
Pale
atesea

. 4
92
that if I presided nothingillegal should take place. Presiding as Chairman, [
should not have allowed it. What could be the object of endeavouring to connect
the meeting of the 9th with that of the 16th ? The former was given up. The
thing was quite at an end. How, then, would it be represented by the Learned
Counsel, asa question of law between me and the Magistrates of Manchester, as
a subject to be discussed on the 16th, which Mr. Moorhouse was desirous of hearing.
It seemed as if such observations were calculated to convey to the Jury the
samesort of impression sought to be produced from another quarter. Iam accused
of staying a whole week in the neighbourhood of Manchester after the 9th. This
is evidently intended to shew, by implication, that I was concerned with the other
parties in a conspiracy, that I was connected with all those plans, all those secret
meetings and drillings, all those horrors which are represented as certain to arise
from the meeting of the 16th, had not that meeting been dispersed. With respect
to the placard issued by the Magistrates, for preventing the meeting of the
9th, no person who saw it, and had the slightest acquaintance with grammar,
could deny that it was foolishly worded, that it was perfectly ridiculous. It was
to this cireumstance I alluded when I spoke of the nine tailors. I can prove that,
two days before the 9th, the meeting was called by 700 of the inhabitants of Manchester.
Under such circumstances I no doubt expressed regret that it was put
off ; but so far from intending to be present at that appointed for the 16th, so far
from remaining, as was represented about the country for the purpose of presiding
at it, I can bring witnesses who will leave no doubt on your minds, Gentlemen of
the Jury, that I was determined not to remain, that I stated distinctly it would
not bein my power toremain. I went to Smedley Cottage, and my servantwill
prove to you, that when I came to Bullock’s Smithy, it was my intention to return
and proceed homewards. The manner in which I was induced to stay shall
appearin evidence ; thesolicitations that were used, the persons who used them,
and the motives that prevailed on me to comply, I feel pride in this heart, I am
delighted at the thought of having remained. I should to the close oflife feel
compunction, I should ever accuse myself had I not performed that duty to the
public, to my Manchester friends, and to that great body’ of people who assembled
upon the occasion. I should for ever blame myself had I not stayed to exercise all
the influence I possessed for preventing those dreadful consequences that followed,
and the still more dreadful consequences that might have followed. I suffered in
my own person ; I suffered mostseriously ; that I do not regard. I was placed in
solitary confinement; I wasassailed, even while in custody, with the most violent
blows ; and being immured for eleven days, while endeavours were making to
trump upa charge of high treason. Idemanded that the warrant under which I
was detained might be shewn me. It was refused. I frequently asked for it, but
it was not produced. At length it turned out that the charge against me amounted
only to a misdemeanor. A bailable offence, Gentlemen of the Jury. I offered
two bail; two most respectable men, a Mr. Grundy and a Mr. Chapman, the
former an independent man, a person of the highest respectability ; it was refused
; I was hurried down to Lancaster, and confined unnecessarily for 24 hours.
Whatever were my sufferings, had they been ten times greater, had I undergone
the worst that malice and persecution could inflict, it shall never
deprive me of the satisfaction I feel at having done my duty, at haying
done my duty, at not having acted in such a manner, at not having acted
in such a way as must have placed the people of Manchester in sucha situation
that they could not now have me making their defence asI do. I
can bring forth witnesses who shall prove to you, that during the week I
remained at Johnson’s, I never went two miles beyond the house, though
Thad manyinvitations from various Gentlemen of respectability in the
neighbourhood. IfI went neither to Middleton, to Rochdale, to Bury, or
any other part of the neighbourhood of Manchester, from which the various
divisions were said to have marched on the 16th, how canit besaid, *
howis it possible for any twelve men to say that I was, during all that time,
arranging the ramifications ofthis great conspiracy ? Another circumstance
that proves most clearly the innocence of my intentions is this :—On the
Saturday previous to the meeting, I got intelligence that a warrant wasissued
for my apprehension ; I went to the Magistrates of Manchester ; I
informed them it had come to my knowledge that a warrant had been
93
granted for some offence, or supposed offence, the overturning, as I heard,
ofa woman with a basket of eggs by some persons. I wastold that there
was no warrant against me; Mr. Nadin was called; the question was put
to him, he said there was no warrant against me, no intention of issuing
it. I mentionedthat the information was brought to me by one of the Police,
and the answer was, Whois it? Tell us his name that he may be pus
nished.”” Upon hearing that there was an intention of apprehending me,
a friend of mine, a manof opulence and respectability, went to ‘he office,
and avowedhis readiness to give bail. He was informed that tere was no
such thing, no such intention, nor any groundfor it. Did I not, by acting
inthis manner,treat the Magistrates with respect? Did this shewany disposition
to insubordination, any wish to disturb the public peace? Did I
not on the contrary, by thus acting, give proof of the manner in which L
was disposed to treat the Authorities? { have been for manyyears an extensive
farmer, occupying 5,009 acres of land, engaged in a variety of business,
in the course of which, whenever the occasion arose, a Magistrate
had nothing more to do than send me anote, and £ always attended. Was
this to treat the Authorities with disrespect? I could not shew themgreater
respect than by going immediately when I heard there was any charge
against me, inquiring what the nature of it was, and professing my readiness
either to give bail or to act in any way most conducive to the ends of
peace and justice. Is such conduct a proof howI could treat the Authorities?
Yes, it isa strong proofin my favour. What have I done after the
meeting appointed for the 9th was prevented? I confess that circumstance
occasionedgreat agitation ; it produced a strong impression in Manchester
and the neighbourhood; and did I leave the neighbourhood uponthis occasien?
did I fly to avoid any inconveniencethat might arise ? No, I remained ;
and mark, Gentlemen of the Jury, this was imputed to me as a crime—
I remained, and for what purpose? LIshall prove it by undeniable evidence,
that I stopped to do every thing in my power, to exertall the influence
I possessed, for quieting the minds who wereirrilated, on finding
that the mecting of the 9th was prevented. This I shall shew, as weil from
the advice I directed by letter to the people, as from oral testimony.
[Here Mr. Hunt read from some newspaper an address to the people of
Manchester, exhorting them to peace and order, andcalling on the Magistrates
to disabuse themif they were in error. ]
This is the way in which I treated the authorities. Timvyited them.
Ibegged of them to come among the people when they assembled, to watch
their proceedings, to see whether any thing improper was said or done, to
instruct them ifthey were wrong. I can now,after all that has occurred,
lay my hand on my heart, and say, with pride and pleasure, that there is
nothing connected with the mecting of the [6th, for which I feel a moment’s
regret or remorse, except that which ensued from the violence with which
it was dispersed. You, Gentlemen of the Jury, have heard the evidence
of many persons, some of them no doubt honourable men, stating that they
felt alarm. One of them, a Clergyman, Dr. Smith, did, however, under the
influence of such a feeling, one of the most extraordinarythings that could
be easily conceived—a thing which, I imagine, must prove to the mind of
any unprejudiced person, that his alarm could not have been very great.
After Mr. Phillips and others had given in their depositions as to the fears
they felt for the public peace, Dr. Smith sends hometo theirfriends through
the streets of Manchester, the children under his care. Had he felt any
apprehension ofserious danger; if there was any likelihood ofhostile invasion,
any fear that they must encounter on their way homesuch difficulties
as might have rendered it, I will not say perilous, but even greatly inconvenient,
was it natural to suppose thathe wouldallow them to go into the
streets to encounter the hazard ofa mob,or to mingle withthe atrocities they
might commit. Some ofthe witnesses were intelligent and respectable. It
will be my business to produce witnesses equally respectable, equally intelligent,
and perhaps equally nervours, who shall prove to yeu, that upon
this occasion, they felt no alarm at all. I now come to Mr. Jon. Andrew,
with his large sticks, mounted on the shoulder, like muskets. He and Mr,
Hulton were the only persons who deposed to this circumstance of the
M

94
sticks. Mr. Andrew spokeparticularly of the Lees division, consisting, he
said, of three thousand, most of whom hesaid had sticks four feet and
halflong, which they bore upon their shoulders. Next came Joseph Tra.
vers, who was, it would appear, appointed to count the division. Hesaid
that he felt no alarm, and he did not speak a single word about the sticks
being shouldered—As to Mr. Jonathan Andrew heis an opulent man,ina
respectable situation; no person could suspect him of misrepresentation;
what he said, however, with regard to the sticks, the black flag, and the
party that bore it, was contradicted by every other witness. I shall therefore
say no more about him—Asto the last gentleman, connected with The
New Times, who gave evidence upon the present occasion, it is nol neces.
sary to say much about him. He wascalled only for the purpose of proving
a fact ; but, Gentlemen, you will please, to observe, that he provedhis
having attended many mectings at whichI either presided or was present ;
that he never heard meurge to violence or breach of the peace ; that nothing
of the kind ever occurred upon any of these occasions. You saw
the mannerin which the other gentleman connected with that Paper gaye
testimony, and I beg of you to attend to the way in which the account of
~ this transaction camebefore the public. It was first sent home bythe reporter,
and then manufactured or doctored just as the Editor pleased.
Lhope this sort of testimonywill have but little effect upon your minds.
I shall prove to you by another reporter, who was present merely by aceident,
to whom IT was utterly unknown, whomI neversaw before that
day, that the representations made by the other reporters are in many
particulars totally false. I shall showyou,bytestimony, of which you can
entertain no reasonable doubt, that the motives assigned for locking arms
and removing the hustings are completely unfounded. You will see that
Jones was employed to errect, with the assistance of two carts, the
best and most convenient hustings he could. I will distinctly shew that
‘at a former meeting, in conseqence of the pressure round the hustings
they were broken down, that much mischief ensued in consequence, and
that the only object they had in locking arms was to preclude the recurrence
of similar accidents, not, as was stated, to prevent the cavalry
or corruption from coming in. For myself, I declare, I never saw or suspected
any thingof the constables ; I had no idea that they meant to arrest
any person present ; not the slightest suspicion that there would be the
least tumult or disorder of any kind. I can prove, that neither at the
time I arrived onthe field, norbefore it, did I entertain any suspicion
that the military would act. It never entered my head I can prove. I
can prove that all those who surroundedthe hustings were locked together,
except at that part where an approach was opened forthe constables.
There was at the back a bodyof constables, from the public house, called
the Wind-mill, up to the hustings. They kept a free passage, and there
also it can be proved, that there was no locking of arms in such a way
as could interrupt them in their approach. They passed easily up and
down ; I can prove that any number of constables, however small, one
two, or three, might come up, and arrest whomthey pleased without the
smallest difficulty. They could come, at farthest, within fifteen yards
of the hustings, and anyintimation oftheir intention communicatedto
me would prevent further trouble. Had I known that there was a warrant
in existence, I should, without hesitation, have acted in such a manner
as to prevent the dreadful consequences that followed. Mr. Hulton de-
“posed, that he saw the first of the military who advanced assailed with
stones and brick-bats ; that he obseryed sticks waved in the air to
resist the approach of thosefifty drunken soldiers who were sent forward
for no other purpose than to provoke the multitude to trample
women and children under foot. It can be proved that they were
seen, with their eyes closed, cutting at all those around them. If I can
bring forward menof the highest respectability, totally differing in politics,
men who were as near to the hustings as £ am to you ; Gentlemen,
whosaw every thing that occurred, my. word is not worth a farthing unless
they prove that not one brick-bat, not one stone was thrown ; unless they
prove, as I stated, that the military cut to right and left, without any such
provocation. They were even observed urging ontheir horses to jump
over the heaps of unfortunate beings that were lying before them, and to
force a way through a solid mass of poor wretches that were desirous to
escape, but had it not in their power.
Mr. Scartetr submitted that the conduct of the cavalry formed no
part of the case, :
Mr. Hunr thought he hada right to shew that the meeting was peaceable
until the cavalry began to act, and that they were the aggressors.
Mr. Justice Bairey—I cannot allow youto call evidenceas to the conduct
of the cayalry, as it forms no part ofthe caseat present. You may
bring evidenceto provethe quiet disposition of the people.
Mr. Hunr—After the observation which has fallen from the Learned Judge, I
shall not endeavour to proceed with the detail of those horrible proceedings. I
shall confine myself as much as possible to the direct case before you; and although
I amfree to admit that I will at all times most willinglylisten to any admonition
from the Court, yet thatI will as boldly assert any thing thatis likely to
strengthen my case. I ought to apologise to you, Gentlemen, and his Lordship,
for the indulgence you have shewn me in the course of this day, and the attention
which you have exhibited to the evidence produced before you. I hope you will
not think that I amtrespassing upon you with anylight or trivial circumstances,
or that I have introduced any irrelevant matter. I will, however, trouble you
with a few other observations. The Learned Counsel, in his opening speech, in
describing the transactions at Middleton, stated, that Bamford was seen at the
head of 1,000 men, who bore all the appearance of a military body. But where
is the proof of this assertion? Hadthey anypicl-axes, battle-axes, or fire-arms?
Had they any dark lanterns, or combustible matter ? A fewsticks, I understand,
have been brought to York from Manchester, that were said to be taken on the
field. But why are they not produced? If they had done so, there might. have
been some pretexts for the Learned Counsel’s asserting it ; it would have produced
a conviction on the minds of the jury, that such had been brought aud
used ; not one of the flags with their seditious and inflammatoryinscriptions ; not
one of the revolutionary emblems, as they are called by the Reporter of Zhe New
Times, have been produced, andyet they are in the possession of the prosecutors!
Where is the black flag, that emblem on which so muchstress has been Jaid ?
They have been all taken from us, and we were most anxious that the latter
should be produced. I shall lay before you, Gentlemen, a model of that flag; I
will produce to you the person who bought the calico ; I will produce te you the per=
son who painted it, and he shall state to you, that he paintedthe inscription on
it while white, but finding that the letters shewed through, and disfigured the
others, the mottoes being written on bothsides the flag, he found the onlyalternative
was by painting the flag one colour, and the letters another, and such was
the reason why this flag was painted black ; but I conceive the colour is of little or
no importance ; a blackflag, I believe, is the colour of a pilot’s flag, as a warning
to all the world, and could any harm be construed from that? The motto, I
allow, may be tortured into any thing, but I will tell you, Gentlemen, that
*¢ Equal Representation or Death,’’ as used in this instance, did not mean that
they would have it or death, but it meant that unless they had equal representation,
starvation already on their heels, death must ensue. Howdid it happen
that in the statement of these mottoes the Learned Counsel had not the candour
to tell them that one of the banners represented Justice holding in one hand her
scales, and the other empty. If Justice had been represented in her proper form,
with scales in one hand, and the sword in the other, that would immediately have
been seized hold of, and painted to the Jury as acrime ofa black and heinous nature.
As to the capsof liberty, look, I say, Gentlemen, at the emblem on your
own Hail; there is representedthe capofliberty’and the Romanfasces. Are these
emblems of Revolution?’ If I understand the meaning of a cap ofliberty, it is an
emblemof a most sacred nature. In Rome, when a slave had performed any great
act for the benefit of his country, be was usually rewarded with a cap, to signify
his freedom, which wasthe gift for such act, and he wore his cap among the freemen
as anemblem of his emancipation. The rewards given by our Saxton forefathers
were of a different nature ; they were rewarded with a sword and spear.
Howthen could the representing of these emblemsbe considered of a revolutionary
nature? Ancient custom had handed them down to us asa sacred trust. The
people of Yorkshire had thought so by placing them on the front of their Hall ;
95

96
97
and surely what was considered a pride in Yorkshire, could not be esteemed a crime
in Lancashire ; if so, where were the boasted rights of Englishmen ? I only contend
forthose fair rights andliberties which are the birth-rights of Britons ; I
agree with the poet, who says—
“* He who contends for freedom
” Canne’er be deem’d his Sovereign’s foe’’
Inasserting that right of freedom, I have done nothing that indicated any desire
to destroy the Constitution or the Executive Authorities ; Ihave used my bumble
endeavours in the sacred cause of mycountry’s welfare, and will still continue to
exert them to the utmost of my ability. As to the subject of Reform when we had
agilated that question, we weretold that it was confusion and disorder that we were
seeking; the doctrines of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage were ridiculed
as wild and visionary ; but I assert, that every Englishman has a right to demand
what we ask, we do not want equal representation of property, but an equal
representation of right ; what we demandis, that we maynot be taxed beyond a
fair proportion to the produce of our labour, andthat in the imposing such taxes
we may have a voice by our own representative in the Legislature, chosen fromthe
free voice of the people, and whowill attend to the fair rights of the people. I have
for the last ten years been a public advocate for these principles, during which
time Ihave been most scandalously vilified and calumniated; Ihave {been stigmatised
as anitinerant orator, aud by none more so, than the employer of one of the
witnesses produced against me, I mean Dr. Stoddart.
Mr, Justice Baitey here said, Mr. Hunt, Dr. Stoddart is not in the cause.
Mr. Hunr continwed—You must all recollect, Gentlemen of the Jury, those
worthy men who spentanage in going about, endeavouring effectually to abolish
that horrible system the Black Slave Trade. I mean your once worthy Representative,
Mr. Wilberforce, and many others. I have never heard it attributed to them
that they were guilty of crime, and why should it be imputed to me? IfI am
wrong, shew me howI am so, and endeavourto set me right, but don’t construe
my error into crime. I am pursuing those principles which will not suffer a man
to be dragged from his bed, wife, or home, and sent to fight for his country, without
his having somevoice in that Legislature which enacts the Jaws by whichhe is
thus dragged from his domestic felicity and retirement. I advocate those princi~
ples which were strenuously pursued by those patriotic Statesmen the Duke of
Richmond, Lord Raymond, Sir William Jones, andseveral others. The Dukeof
~Richmond’s exertions were crownedby the highly-merited reward of his country,
he wasin consequence created Master of Ordnance.
Here the Learned Jupcx again reminded Mr. Hunt that ke was travelling from
the question, and thatthis could not be received in evidence.
Mr. Hunt bowed and thus continued—
_ In 1817 I was called upon by some veryrespectable individuals to attend a public
meeting at Spa-fields ; I knew nothing of the persons so requesting me, but I
felt myself bound to attend their call. At this meeting Resolutions wereadopted and
petitions agreed to, one to the Prince Regent, and the other to the Commons
Houseof Parliament. Itfell to my lot to have the honour of presenting the one
to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, through the mediumofthe Secretary of
State, and the other to the House of Commons. The venal and corrupt press in
its invective has branded us with vulgarity, and accused us of being illiterate. The
progress of these petitions falsified those most false assertions ; they were received
by the House of Commons, read, and orderedto be laid on the table. From that
time the seed of corruption had shot forth, and flourished with additional strength.
The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in order to prevent the people from meeting
; when that was renewed, a Bill was brought in to prevent their meeting, but
on certain conditions, namely, that no meeting should be held within one mile of
Palace-yard during the Session of Parliament, or while the Courts of Law were sitting.
Meetings, however, werestill held at distant parts without any objection
being made to them, and without declaring their illegality, until the late Bills
passing, which entirely put an end to all public meetings. (Mr. Hunt here read
extracts from Lord Sidmouth’s speech on the Seditious Meetings’ Bill, which he
styled as no mean authority, although his Lordship was not a lawyer. Among
other things, he called upon the House to adopt some measures for the suppression
of multitudinous meetings; that it was impossible to secure the Constitution from
inroads without entirely putting them down, and further stated, that under the
lawas it now stood there was noprovision against meetings convened under the
most alarming symptoms, bearing banners and flags, and accompanied by bands of
music, &c.) There, said Mr. Hunt, Lagree with his Lordship, I join issue with
him, and wish to impress on your minds, Gentlemen, the nature of the obseryvation
; it affords you a criterion by whichto direct your verdict—it decidedly shews
that the meeting was legal, and that at the time it took place there was no law
which made it otherwise. You have not to give a verdict which shall have the effect
of putting down meetings of this sort, that is already done. It might certainly
be an inducement in the minds of many honest men, to give a verdict which
should act as anexample in future, but here none was wanted, the possibility of
meeting under such circumstances was entirely taken away, and you have only to
try the great question, whether or not the laws of the country had been offended.
Mr. Hulton has told you in his evidence, that he thought it proper in this case,
to make an example of the ringleaders; the people were deluded by them, and it
was owing to their vile machinations alone that they were induced to attend these
meetings. Now, Gentlemen, I shall have the gratification of placing some of
these deluded men before you in the witness-box, and I think you will find they
are not quite so illiterate as Hogarth’s eleven days’ men, mentioned by Mr. Scarlett.
Mr. Hunt again read extracts from Lord Harrowby’s speech, on the subjec
of the Seditious Meetings’ Bill, in which he declared the right of persons to meet
and discuss grievances was admitted, and that there was no Statute against it.
Indeed, said Mr. Hunt, his Majesty’s Ministers were of opinion that the laws were
not sufficient, and had in consequence enacted fresh ones. I will just refer you
to some observations of one of the LawOfficers of the Crown, I mean Mr, Warren,
the Chief Justice of Chester. In describing the Manchester meeting, he says, that
among the banners, one bore a figure representing a woman, bearing a bloody
dagger. This had been echoed also in the opening speech of Mr. Scarlett ; I have
made all the inquiries human head can divine, I have sent to the persons painting,
carrying, and making, the banners for the 16th of August, I have applied to
every one I knowwas there, and cannot obtain the least information of it; but
hearing Mr. Scarlett mention it, I thought we should certainly be provided with
some proof; and what must the Jury think in the absence of such proof? It was
acircumstance whichis calculated to prejudice my case most seriously with you,
andis contained in the most eloquent part of the Counsel’s speech; what, I again
say, can you think, Gentlemen, of such conduct ? It could be only done, and
Mr. Scarlett knowsit was done for no other motive, than to connect me with blasphemy.
and assasination, and with that detestable plot lately discovered in London,
when the Counsel well knows that I was singled out as one of their victims. I
firmly believe that this dagger never existed but in the tortured and fevered brains
of Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Warren. Mr Hunt was here proceeding to read a paper,
which he said had been circulated in the town, not sold, but given away, containing
the substance of Mr. Scarlett’s speech on the subject of this dagger;
but the Learned Judge again interrupted him, and said, that if the papers had
been improperly circulated, the person doing it would be subject to future punishment;
he could not suffer it to be produced ; indeed, the Jury by their oaths, were
bound not to hear it. Mr. Hunt,after stating to the Jury that they were
circulated with the most malicious motives, and with a view to prejudice
him in the minds of the Jury, concluded to the following effect :—Having
said thus much, I think I should not discharge my duty to you, Gentlemen
of the Jury, and his Lordship, did I not return you mysincere thanks for
the attention you haye shewn me; andI hope, if, through the immense
mass of evidence produced, I have omitted any important observations,that
theywill not be lost on you. Indeed, I cannot contemplate that twelve
men of your stamp and condition, could, even ifselected as the organsof
corruption, entertain this question, and make up your minds to return a
verdict of guilty. I take to myself the whole merit of bringing the
case before you; Lsought you with confidence, and nowleave my case
with you with equal confidence ; even if I could obtain a fair Jury
in Lancashire, I feel such conscientious satisfaction in my course that
T wouldwillingly have left it to you; but when it was probable that Mr.
Hulton himself, or some of the yeomanry, without affording me a
fair pretext to challenge them, might be called on the Jury, it would

98
have been, indeed, sacrificing my owninterest in submitting toit. A trial
in Lancashire, under such circumstances, was synonimous with a verdict
of guilty. He was about to passsome personal observation on Mr. TWulton
when the learned Judge again stopthim, by observing, that “ Mr. Hulton’s
was asituation of a very distressing and serious nature.” Mr. Hunt continued:
As Mr. Hulton’s evidence is totally unconfirmed by any witness
evena police officer, and withall its contradictions, forms the material
part ofthe case, Ishall be able fully, by unquestionable evidence, to disprove
every wordhehas said, I hope, to your entire satisfaction. As respects
the banners and training, I have already told you the nature ofthe
evidence IE intend to produce ; with respect to the music, it shall appear
to you that the greater part of the persons employed have been inthe
habit of playing in churches, and that the tunes they played wereofthe
most loyal character. I knowthe learned Counsel has the opportunity of
reply: I won’t give him more credit than his talent deserves! I knowhe
possesses great influence here ; but I conjure you not to be led away by
his eloquence, and before you pay any attention to his observations,
let him produce testimony to corroborate what Mr. Hulton has advanced
andlet him explain what he meant bythe dagger.
é
Mr. Hunrsaid that Wild, who had not yet madehis defence, was very
ill, and that he declined addressing the Court.
The following witnesses were then called :—
Epmunb Gronpy, examined bie Mr. Hunr—I am not in any
business. I live at Billsworth, near Bury, in Lancashire. I wasa
calico printer, but have retired from business. I have not made any
depositions. On Tuesday the 10th of August, I was at Smedley
Cottage. Isaw you there. I recollect a conversation relative to
the then approaching meeting. Yousaid you were returning home
immediately. I endeavoured to prevail upon you to remain till the
meeting of the 16th took place. You said you would considerofit.
I think Tleft you then, Nothing positive was decided on at the
time. I left a printed letter for you on the next day (Wednesday).
I_next saw you on Saturday, the 14th of August, at Smedley Cot
tage. I recollect communicating to you that there was a reportof a
warrant being out against you, and you said it was so. In the
course of that day I waited upon Mr. Norris, the Magistrate, in
company with Johnson, the defendant. Mr. Norris is, I understand,
the chief acting Magistrate. I told him if there was any
charge against Mr. Hunt, I would put in bail for any time which
he chose to appoint. Mr. Norris said there was no information or
warrant against you, nor any intention of issuing one. JT reside
about seven miles and a half from Manchester; I was not in Manchester
on the 16th of August; I saw some persons going there,
but not so many asare represented to have gone. I saw nopersons
armed. I have property in the neighbourhood, but nothing which
occurred that day inspired me with any fears for its safety. I have
several relatives and friends residing in Manchester. I saw nothing
on that day which gave me any apprehensions for their safety.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scarterr—I was not in the Court
to-day before. I knew Mr. Hunt about twelve months since. I
dined at the Spread Eagle in his company. { saw no one with Mr.
Hunt at Smedley Cottage on the 10th, but Mr. Howard, who went
with me. I went to pay him visit, but did not remain long. I only
knew from general report that he was there. I saw letter posted
up in the town. I was subsequently his bail.
James Dyson, examined by Mr. Bamrorp--I am a weaver
and reside at Middleton. I was on the Barrowfield on the 16thof
99
August last, betweennineandten o’clock in themorning. There were
600 or 700 people, both men, women, and children, there: I saw’ you
there; you were walking about when I first saw you. I did not
hear you say any thing until you got upon a chair and addressed
the people ; you said, “ Friends and neighbours—Those of you who
wish to join in the procession will endeavour to conduct yourselves
orderly and peaceably, so that you may go as comfortable as possible.
If any persons insult you or give youoffence take no notice
of them. I make no doubt but there will be persons who will make
it their business to go about in order to disturb the peace of the meeting.
If you should meet with any such, endeavour to keep them
as quiet as possible; if they strike you don’t strike them again,for
it would serve as a pretext for dispersing the meeting. If the peace
oflicers come to arrest me, or any other person, offer them no resistance,
but suffer them to take us quietly. And when youget there,
endeavour to keep yourselves as select as possible, with your banners
in your centre; so that if any of you should straggle or get
away, you will know whereto find each other by seeing your banners,
and when the meeting is dissolved keep close to your banners,
and leave the town as soonaspossible; for if you should stay drinking
orloitering in the streets, your enemies might take advantage of
‘t; aud if they could raise a disturbance, you would be taken to
the New Bailey.””? That is as much asI recollect; it is, to the best
of my knowledge, the substance of what you said. I think I recollect
something of your saying, “I believe there will be no disturbance.’
I neither expected or believed, from the tenor of your uddress,
that any disturhance would ensue on the return of the party.
I saw somefew withsticks, but none with those who vere not in the
habit of using them. I thought tohave taken a stick n ys: If, baving
experienced the fatigue before, but i was prevented. Itook one to Barrowfields,
and there I lent it to a man named John Barlow, who was
also going to Manchester. The procession had not gone more than
a quarter of a mile before he returned it to me again; and this being
observed, several cried out, “No sticks shall go with us.” They
said it had heen agreed that no sticks should go. I said one stick
could not make much difference; and they said I was as wcll able to
go as they were, and I must leave it behind, and so I sent it home
with my father-in-law. I went to Manchester with the procession.
I saw nothing on the way but peace and good order. We walked
four abreast. There was no disagreement on the way.. Saw no insult
offered to any one; there were some jeering words used, but nothing
worthnotice ; they were used to the by-standers who were looking
on. We wentin this order to Peter’s-field. You led the party
up, and got uponthe hustings yourself. This was before Mr. Hunt’s
arrival; [saw himarrive. You were then standing near me, about
forty yards from the hustings—You did not go upon the hustings
afterwards to my knowledge. When Mr. Hunt arrived I removed
about 15 yards from the hustings, and I saw you no more that day:
I did not see you upon the hustings after that period.
Cross-ewamined by Serjeant Huttock—I can’t tell where
Bamford went after [left him We were net joined by any party
before we left the ground. The Rochdale people passed us, but
ee

100
we met and joined with them in the town. Abouthalf the meeting
were men. I cannot exactly say how many personsjoined in the
procession—perhaps 1,000. Somepersons had laurel. Thad none,
I know not whether those who wore laurel were officers; those
who were in front wore it. There was no one in particular to
give the word of command. I don’t know that Bamford was commander-in-chief
on that day. Iwas not a Serjeant. There were
men by the side to keep order, and when the step was fost it
was recovered again by theircalling out, “ Left—Right.? When
we met the Rochdale party they felt in behind us. f do not know
how many persons were in the Rochdale procession. Perhaps
there was not much difference between their numbers and ours. It
was said to be agreed uponthat no sticks should go. We had two
banners that day, one of which was left on St. Peter’s-field. Upon
a green flag we had the words—* Parliaments Annual?’?—« Suffrage
Universal.” Upon a blue one we had—* Liberty and Fraternity”’—*
Unity and Strength.” We never had been mustered
hefore to my knowledge. Ona Sunday morning, a few weeks
before, a party of Middleton people marched down through the town,
and I went by the side of them. After going through the town
they dispersed. It was said they had assembled on the Sandel Hill,
It was after six o’clock when I met them. They were not all Middleton
people. I might have remained near an hour on the hill,
looking at what was going forward. There were several men drilling,
as it is called. I never was drilled in my life. 1 marched to
Manchester as others did. Bamford was not present that day not
There was 2,000 or 3,000 persons assembled. I think this was on
the Sunday week before the meeting of the 16th; but I will not
swear it. There were women and children present. The women
were not drilling. I never saw a drilling party before.
The Rochdale party had banners, but I do not recollect the
inscriptions upon them. We did not go from Middleton to St.
Peter’s-field by the nearest road. I do not know the reason
whywe went round. We had musie onthat day ; we had a drum ,
they do not use it in church music unless at oratories. ‘We have sacred
music sometimes in church, at Middleton; we also have bazoonsand
clarionets, &c. occasionally on Sundays. The bazoon, in
our party, belonged to the man who played it; the drum belonged
toaman who keeps a farm. Weleft Middleton about ten o’clock. On
arriving at St. Peter’s-field, I saw many flags and banners on the
hustings ; ours were taken to the hustings, but Mr. Bamford ordered
them back again; we joined the other parties on the ground; our
line was broken, and every man went where he liked. I neverheard Mr.
Huntspeak before that day. I was not at the meeting in January.
I did not write down Mr. Bamford’s speech; I took it from memory ;
I suppose it has been in my headever since I made a deposition to
Mr. Pearson, and then sawit.
Mr. Serjeant Huttock—-Howlong is it since you saw your
deposition ?
Wirness—How long? Why you seem to want to know the
time particularly. I saw it about the middle of the week before
last, at Samuel Bamford’s honse. After the words, “ If they strike
101
you, don’t strike again,’ were the words, ‘‘ for it would serve for
a pretextfor dispersing the meeting.”’
Mr. Serjeant HuLLock—Goon.
Wirness—Mast I go on ?
Mr. Serjeant HuLLock—Yes; you scem to have forgotten it.
You had better begin again.
Witness —No,1o; but you seemto hurry one on like. [ Witness
went on to repeat the speech, nearly in the same words as
before; but not precisely in the same order as before.}—I canmot
exactly recollect the words Bamford put to me.
Re-examined by Mr. Bamrorp—I know Thomas Ogden, a musician;
he did play in church, but Udo not know whether he does
so at present. I know Thomas Fitton; he and Ogden played
ith our party.
¥ To hecsetsaite by the Jupee—My wife did not go with me on
that day, but the wives of several of the party accompanied their
husbands. There were several hundreds of women with our party
and the Rochdale party. I saw many of them in Manchester; =
veral boys also accompanied us; I saw several on the ground that
Iknew; I saw no Middleton women on St. Peter s-field thatI i.
collect ; it appeared that the women did not wish to press so far
into the crowd as I did; the women who accompanied us were relatives
of the men who marchedin the procession. Itis customary
at our wakes and rush-carts in Lancashire to have bannersand music;
the rush-carts are held on a Saturday, and on the following Monday
the men walk in procession, but they do not keep the step.
Mr. Justice Barney asked an explanation of the term rushcarts.”
:
Mr. Bamrorpsaid, that it is an annual custom to-have a cartin
which rushes are neatly placed ; this cart is drawn bya _—
decorated with ribbons, and preceded by young women, music, &c.
Joun Bartow, examined by Mr. Bamrorp—I am a ee
residing at Middleton ; I am a married man; I recollect the ee
assembling in the Barrowfields on the 16th of August a a :
dressed them. You commenced by calling them, “ frien -
neighbours.’—[ The only difference between thisss oe ro
last, respecting Bamford’s speech, was, that the ong eo =
(Bamford) exhort the people to proceed to eae “ Soy -
performance of a solemn duty.| 1 went to the ee ins you.
[ saw no oneinsulted by the way, nor on St. Peter s-fiel - si—
on the ground ; when we gotonthe field you went upon the hus=
remained there about five minutes, and then came down again _
stood not far from me, opening an avenue between elie “
saw Mr. Hunt arrive; at that time you were not uponthe ore
you stood near to me; you were not upon the ao : ame
Hunt remained. I stood at7 fifty yards from the hustings.
The Middleton party had two banners. ’
Cpdeananied by Mr. Serjeant Cross—lIhave os phang
of any Committee. We did not meet the day before : acne:
the 16th. I had no connexion with any meeting. I ha pepo .
do with the Oldham party before that day. I was once on : e
del Hill—it was on the Sunday but one before the meeting.
N

102
went. there between six and sevenin the morning. There might
be 600 or 800( persons present, D or perhaps more. They were what
I call being in companies when I saw them, possibly about 30 in
each company. 1 do not know how many companies there were
Ido not think there was 100 companies, perhaps there might have
been so. Those who passed me had companies. I heard the words
“march ?? and “halt.’ I waited until they were dismissed, which
was about eight o’clock. Before that they were all in one line, I
do not know who gave the command when they formed in line. [
do not know any of the leaders. I do not know) whether the
man who gave the command was in our party to Manchester
on the 16th. I heard of drilling, and I went to Tandel-
Hill out of curiosity. I rather doubted that there was anydrilling
before I sawit. They had no sticks. I have been in the Local Mi
litia, and have seen soldiers drilled. The drilling there was the
same, as far as marching and halting. I did not see much countermarching.
[fell into the ranks at Middleton. I cannot say who
the man wasthat formed the hollow square. I have never seen him
since. When the word of command was given, I had no occasion
to move. [1 heard from rumour that there was to be a muster on
the Barrowfields on the 16th. I live there. I saw Bamford before,
I saw him mount the chair, and tell us how to conduct ourselves,
T.do not know that he assumed the command; those who werenot
commanders got laurel, as well as those who were. I got none.
Those who wentto the chair got some. We gotno instructions from
any one but Bamford. The man by whom the square was formed
did not mount the chair. I took no notice of him. I do not kuow
who formed us into line again. I understood that we were to meet
several other divisions at Manchester. I do not recollect Bamford’s
saying, that if there was to be any thing to do, it would beafter
we got back. He cautioned us against going into public-houses.
I did not take my wife with me. I must have gone to Manchester
on an errend, even had there been no procession on that day. We
halted at Harpur Hey, and after that we did nothalttill we got
uponthe ground. We joined those whom wefound there, and remained
stationary.
Re-examined by Mr. Bamrorp—Barrowfildsis a public place.
There were 200 or 300 womenandchildren standing by as spectators
on the morning of the 16th, There were many spectators on Tandel-Hill.
The training was quite public. There appeared to be
no secresy. As we came back from it we came by the high road.
The peopl who were on the hill marched through Middleton.
Weproceeded a mile and a halfat least on the public high way. It
was between eight and nine in the morning. There were many women
and children attending the party to Manchester on the 16th. I
knew some of them to be related to persons in the procession; it
seemed to be a pleasure to them.’ I never before appeared in a
Court of Justice to give evidence.
_ To questions by the Jucpe—I did not see any of the women
in Manchester, but I saw them near the town. I had no thoughts
about taking my wife there; she had something to doat home. She
did not express a wishto go.
Witt1am KENDALexamined—Before I quitted my honse left
103
my wife and child there with my son at home. 1 saw nothing particular
in the movementsof the people, except their passing to and
fro. I saw no bludgeons among them, but a few old persons walking
with common walking sticks. I saw them from an eminence, from
which I could watch them. They went on with adeal of women and
children, and seemed very joyful. Isaw no symptomsof alarm on
the road. Iam no Reformer. I don’t profess to be one of any political
knowledge, though I am a member of the Loyal Orange,
Cross-eaamined by Mr. LarrLepate—I knew a good many
of them; they were doing no harm at Middleton, and marched off
regular. Women, some by the side of them, and others after them
joined in the procession.
James FRANKLAND, examined by Mr. Bamrornp—I reside in
Middleton, I amaclogger and leather-cutter, and farma little by
keeping a few cows. I have eight children and a wife. I remember
the people assembling in Middleton on the 16th of August, and
afterwards going on. IL looked after them. They were on the
way to Manchester. I heard the substance of what you said,
which was, that they would be conducted to Manchesterin a body:as
they were, and when they got to the place where the meeting was
to bé held, they would remain in a company by themselves, and not
intermix with others, and return in a body also, when this meeting
was over, without straggling in the multitude. You also recommended
them not to mind any insult, nor be induced to resentit,
if offered. The people wereall quite peaceable. I do not belong to
any body of Reformers, nor did [ go to Manchester with the procession,
though I had asonnearly 18 years of age who went. [knew
of his going, and gave no orders to prevent him. I believe he
marched in the procession, and did not apprehend any danger or
riot, or I should not have allowed him to go.
Cross-examined by Mr.Scartett—lIhave known Mr.Bamford for
a great many years, but I did not know who was to take the command-of
the party. My son did nottell me he wasto go. I saw him
in the procession, and it was mentioned in the family he oorie go.
There have been several public meetings of the Reformers im our
neighbourhood, but my sonis not one of them. I know nothing of
private meetings. I don’t know whether my son took either refreshment
or moneyin his pockets for the march to Manchester.
Joun Turner, a tailor and draper at Middleton, examined
by Mr. Bamrorp—Recollected the procession there on the morning
of the 16th August, and its music and banners. I saw a number
of women andchildren among them. I saw no largesticks, but
a few old men carried their common walking sticks. I was no ways
alarmed while they passed, as I had no occasion to be alarmed. [
saw none drunk or riotous. Iam not a Reformer. 1 gave never a
penny to the concern, nor eyer did I see Mr. Hunt in my life, unless
I see him in this Court, and yet I do not know him. I felt no alarm
for Manchester by any means. :
Mr. Serjeant HutLock—Well, then, you have had the pleasure
of seeing Mr. Hunt by coming to York.
Mary Lines said, she resided at Middleton, and hadfive children.
Her husband was a plumberand glazier. Recollected the
procession passing her house on the 16th of August. She was

y
f
]
i
i
104
then standing with her children at the door, and was afterwards
assisting the mistress of the public house opposite in filling liquor
for a great many who called as they passed, They all seemed
quiet and cheerful. They paid for what they got. These people
came from Rochdale, with a great number of women, both young
and old. [ heard them drink several toasts, and among the rest
“* God save the King,” which though not a common toast, is made
use of by the country people. I saw many of the people return in
the evening while I was again called upon to assist at the publichouse.
Many of them burst into tears, and others remained silent,
Cross-examined—* God save the King” was not a common
toast. ‘Hunt for ever!” was often heard; but she did not know
whether this was good orbad.
In answer to questions from the Court, she said she saw Middleton
women go with the procession, and return back again in the
evening. She did not know whether they were relatives of the men
who went, but they (the women) were persons of good character.
The Court adjournedto nine o’clock to-morrow morning,
Wednesday, Murch 22.
At nine o’clock this morning the proceedings were resumed.
Wm. ELtson, examined by Mr. BaMrorD.—Was a farmer,
residing at Chatterton. He was at Middleton on the morning of the
16th, and described the assembly there to have been perfectly peaceable
and to have heard Mr. Bamford address the people, advising them
to conduct themselves in an orderly manner, and to molest no one ;
and if any one came to take him, or any who might be called leaders,
he desired the multitude to suffer them to be taken, for, said
he, “what we have in view is a Reform, and let us pursue it peaceably.”
Witness described the distribution of the laurels. Saw
nothing but what was peaceable. He went, and three children of
his went also, two boys and a girl.
By the Jupce.—Hewent. as a spectator; his daughter was
aged 17, the boys 14 and between 12 and 13; he went to Manchester
amd Peter’s Field. Some of the party talking tumultuously on
the road, they were desired by some of those to whomthe laurel
had been given not to talk so loud. Was not uneasy thoughhis
children were at Manchester; felt no fear till the yeomanry came;
would not have suffered his children to goif he had thought there
had been danger, .
Cross-ewamined by Mr. Scaruetr.—Mr. Bamford said Slit
any body should take him, or any of those who were called leaders,
so let them be taken.” Do not know who were called leaders.
Wasnot oneof the committee. Sprigs of laurel were given to four
or six, and ten or a dozen. had an odd leaf to put in their hats.
Mr. Bamford called those out of the square to whom he gave the
Jaurel, Had not heard that Mr. Bamford was one of the committee.
He (Mr. Bamford) went to London once on reforming business,
as witness believed ; he (Mr. Bamford) was noticed for reading
news papers, and so on. Had heard himread the Manchester
Observer in his own house. Knew Knight. Did not recollect in
whose company he had seen him. Had attended a Reform Meetmig
al Middleton some years ago, at which Mr. Bamford was present,
105
By the Sudc¥.—Would not have gone, or suffered his children
to go to Manchester, if he had thought that there would have been
any riot. Every thing on the way to Manchester was very peaceable.
Had no motive for going but curiosity.
EDMUND NEWTON, caxamined by Mr. BamrorDd.—Resided
al. Mills Hill. Was a cotton weaver. Laft his stick behind (having
first taken it out with him,) on the morning of the 16th, because
it had been desired on the preceding day, that none of those
going to the Meeting should take sticks, or any description of weapon,
with them. Did not know of any being taken, or of any intention
to take any weapon, He had set out with his stick, in the
first instance, to assist him by the way.
Cross-examined by Mr, Serjeant HuLLock.—Had heard from
his brother that sticks were not to be taken, but witness and three
persons had set out with sticks, which they left behind at the first
neighbour’s house. Could not say who had desired that sticks
should not be taken. Had never attended any drill meetings. Had
seen people together, hut did not know what they were doing. Had
seen them marching at ‘long. Could not say when this was. It
was in the course of that summer. Could not say within a week or
a fortnight. There were not a hundred men present. There were
twenty. Did not see whether they were in companies. Could not
swear that he kuew any of those who commanded them. He was
never in a marching division. Had heard of the meeting called for
16th, from its being advertised in the Observer. Had been at a
former meeting at Manchester, and heard Mr. Hunt speak. Heard
Mr. Bamford on the 16th advise the people to go peaceably and
quietly. Had no apprehension of danger. Women and children
were up and down where he was.
By Mr. Bamrorp.—Thesticks left behind on the way were
common walking sticks.
By the Junge.—Did not walk in the procession; went to hear
what there was to say; did not expect that any of the people who
went from Middleton would behave in a riotous manner: could form
no idea of the number of women and children; saw nothing in the
advance at all calculated to create alarm.
JACOB DEAKIN (examined by MR. BAMFORD)—Wasa calicoprinter
of Middleton, in the employ of D. Burton and Sons; saw
the procession pass from Middleton towards Manchester, on the
morning of the 16th; saw nothing but what was very peaceable and
uiet.
i Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Cross.—Sawnothing alarming;
remembered a procession paying Mr.. Burton a visit. Those
who formed that procession were very quiet at first, but they got
a throwing stones and sticks, and in the énd burnt downone ofhis
Master’s houses.
Re-examined by Mr. Bamrorp.—It was about four years ago
that the outrage described was committed. ‘There might not be so
much said of Reform at that time as had been said of late. At
that time (the time of the Judding) Messrs. Burton ‘were obliged to
guard their premises with an armed force; believed, on recollection,
that this was in 1812. The premises had never been guarded by

|
}
_
|
106
an armed force sinee. Did not know that any of the works of
Messrs. Burton were stopped on that morning. Believed there was
a special constable in Middleton of the name of Lees. There were
no soldiers quartered there.
Lucy MorviLte, examined by Mr. Bamrorp.—Wasa widow ;
went to Manchester on the 16th of August, with perhaps about
twenty other women; walked by the side of the processionpart of
the way. Hadthree children; one girl that was married, and two
boys that live with her. Her boys (one nine, and the other twelye
years of age) went not with her; but on before her. She overtook
ihe younger, took him by the hand, and went forward; she afterwards
did the same by the other. She went on, and waited on the
road till Mr. Hunt came from Smedley Cottage. She went bya near
way to Peter’s Field with her children. Did not offer to get very
nigh the hustings, on account of her two boys. Stood by theside
of a body of men that was formed in a line, These were sworn-in
constables, whom she was not allowed to pass. She stood theretill
Mr. Hunt came on the ground. A man, in black clothes, rode off
from the body of the people. When he went off, the constables
looked at one another, and smiled, and one said, “he shoouldlike
to kick up the start just now.”
By the Jupcz.—Did not see two men attempt to force their
way to the crowd. Took the expression “kick up the start,” to
mean that something was to be done to the crowd. Did not know
that these words were heard by others. Witness asked him (the
constable) “who it was that was likely to kick up the start?”
She saw nobodylikely to do it unless it were some of them. She
saw, a minute after, ihe same man (in black) come back with the
same speed with which he rode away. As he came, the cavalry
were coming behind. She then made the best of her way off with
the children. She then thought that there was some danger. Saw
bo stones or brick bats thrown as they (the yeomanry) came on
the ground. Did not see them pass through the crowd.
eons HAMPSHIRE, examined by Mr. Hotr.—Livedat Padfield,
17 miles from. Manchester. Knew Mr. Saxton. Saw him on
the 16th of Aug. at his own house, a little after twelve o’clock. Went
to give him an order about somebills printing. Remained with him
about an hour. Dined with him on that day. Had only seen him
once before. Left his house a little after one. Went along with
Mr. Saxton to the Observer Office. Mr. Saxton was a reporterto
the Observer, This might be 4 quarter or twenty minutes after
one; remained a short time with him; he was then getting his
paper and cutting pencils to wrile at a public meeting. Witness
left Mr. Saxton, and went tothe meeting; he went towards the hustings;
the crowd pressed him, and he turned rather sick; he was in
consequence handed up to the hustings; Mr. Hunt had not then
arrived; saw Mr. Saxton after witness had’ been some minutes on
the hustings: did. not see him before Mr. Hunt arrived; saw Mr.
Saxton writing on the hustings; he could not have been there before
witness, as he left him (Saxton) at the Observer Office,
and went directly to the hustings; did not hear Mr. Saxton address
the meeting; could not possibly have avoided hearing him if he had
done so; witness stayed till the dispersion of the meeting.
107
By the JupaE.—Sawno disposition in the crowd to resist the
military before the dispersion of the Meeting; witness stoppedtill
after Mr. Hunt was arrested; did not see himresist, or encourage
the crowd to offer any resistance; he heard a_ military officer say,
«‘you Chairman, come down this moment;” Mr. Hunt’s reply was,
«very well Sir,” and he got downoff the hustings.
Mr.J. Swtu, (of Liverpool,) examined by Mr. Hunt.—Was
concerned in the Liverpool Mercury. He attended the Meeting of
the 16th to report for that paper; had made no deposition. He described
the approach of various bodies to the place of Meeting
from different avenues; was struck with their orderly conduct;
heard the conversation of persons in the crowd on the subject of the
Meeting. Hesaid in answer to aremark from him, that he. supposed
they were all friends to Parliamentary Reform; that they
were, he said, he hoped peaceably so; and they replied, that.
nothing but peace and freedom did they seek. The Meeting increased
between twelve and one o’clock; heard a band playing what
he supposed from the beat of the drum to be “God save the King.”
The beat of the drum in that tune is very peculiar. The persons
nearer than himself were uncovered. He asked if the tune was
“ God save the King ?”’ was answered, “yes,” and replied, “Tam
happy to hearit.’ He was stationed 25 yards from the left corner
of the hustings, rather in advance; considered the Meeting to be
complete, and thought it the finest sight he had ever seen, and
was gratified at the good order of the whole. He heard the
speech of Mr. Hunt. He (Mr. H.) congratulated the Meeting that
the effect of the meeting previously called having been abandoned
was the encreasing the numbersof the present meeting. He made
some remarks on the subject of a placard which had been issued
which he did not recollect the bearing of. He thanked them for
having proposed him as their Chairman, and hoped every person
would keep the strictest order; that if any person should be seen
attempting to disturb the peace, let those who were near him “put
him down and keep him quiet.” In a short time the cayalry
arrived. Witness was astonished at the circumstance, as well as
his neighbours near him: but the general feeling was, that they
came to keep the peace. The people gave three cheers, which he
felt to be in pursuance ofthat feeling. The military returned the
cheers, and there was a pause. He expected things would continue
in that state for some time. The cavalry approached the hustings.
He saw no resistance; it advanced quicker than he should
have thought it could go through so dense a crowd. A general cry
was raised about him of “what is to be done?”’ and the general answer
to that was “They must be bringing some Magistrate tolisten
whether any seditious expression has been used, and they were
sure that all would be quiet.
By the Jupce.—Saw no attempt to resist, and no encouragement
given to resistance by Mr. Hunt, or any other person on the
hustings. Sawno sticks lifted, and no stones thrown but one, at
the close of the dispersion ; had any such occurrences takenplace,
from the situation in which he stood, he was likely to have seen them.
His eyes were directed towards the military. Up to the momentof

108
the military reaching the hustings, himself and those around himfelt
no alarm. But on the military surrounding the hustings and seizing
the Chairman, it was then thought that the meeting was to be disper
sed. Saw noresistance offered them. The horsemen then diverged
in all directions, and the crowd dispersed shrieking and weeping.
By Mr. Hunt.—Witness was rather more than six feet high ;
was enabled to see over the heads of the people what took place.
Saw a great many women andchildrenon the plain; spoke to several
of them; seemed to be clean and decent women, and appeared asif
they had cometo a holiday feast. Saw a great many old people,
a few being at the head of each company that came on the ground;
saw nearly all the parties come up. Saw elderly people at the head
of each company, almost invariably bearing sticks, perhaps a dozen
at the head of each company; they were merely walking sticks which
they carried. Those who followed had very rarely any. Did not
see the party come up with the black flag. Saw no body ofpeople
marching into the field with long thick staves, shoulder like muskets.
Had such an extraordinary circumstance occurred, he, as
Reporter, must have noticed it. The sticks carried were very properly
used to repress the idle boys that were likely to impede their
progress. Witness remainedtill there was no person hardly left on
the plain. During the whole time he heard from the multitude no
offensive expressions, and saw no act of violence; good humour
was in every countenance; saw no alarm expressed in the countenances
of the respectable inhabitants of Manchester, many of whom
(or, at least, persons he supposed to be such) were there. Witness
arrived in Manchester on the preceding night; had heard fromrespectable
persons on the Exchange and elsewhere, that there would
be no interference on the part of the authorities; all was likely to
go well, and they were very glad to hearit.
By the JupGE'—Notthe slightest apprehensions were expressed,
but all
tioned.
was congratulation on the understandinghe had imen-
By Mr. Hont.—Did not hear Mr. H. say to the people, (pointing
to the military), ‘There are your enemies; if they molest you
put them down, and having got them down, keep them down,”
He conceived that it was impossible that any thing of the kind
could be said. The words used by Mr. Hunt, “put him down,”
&c. were uttered before the military came on the ground. Must
have heard them if they had been said. Whenthe cavalry arrived
they people cheered them, but none within his sight and hearing
brandished a cudgel at them or hissed, hooted, or groaned. The
cheering for them was the same as the cheering on the arrival of
Mr. Hunt. Believed he joined in it, though he did not join in
the cheer to Mr. Hunt.
Cross-examined by Mr. ScarLeT?.—Was not muchin the
habit of complimenting the military, or of contending with them;
generally looked towards the hustings while at the meeting, but
frequently looked over the whole Meeting, considering it to be a
yery fine sight. Witness was the Mr. J. Smith invited to attend
the Meeting. Did not know Major Cartwright; Mr. Wooler he had
known since; did not know Mr. Carlile; had the honour of the
friendship of Dr. Crompton and Mr. Rushton; had refused to attend
109
ag a speaker; went as amatter of business for the paper; was in
the habit of speakingon parochial andpolitical matters at Liverpool.
Was considered the junior Editor of the Mercury, with which he
had been connected for ten years fromthe periodofits first establishment.—Spoke
at the Wigan mecting in 1816. Did not know
a person of the name of Knight; might be in the habit of taking
some articles from the Manchester Observer. Was not aware that
the Manchester Paper, advertising the Meeting for the 9th of August,
contained an inflammatory speech made by one of the parties
at Wigan. Did notrecollect seeing in that paper an advertisement
for a subscription for Henry Hunt, Esq. He remembered that he
missed that, and perhaps two or three other of the Observer papers,
being travelling at the time. The article referred to (a speech made
by Mr. Knight) did not appear in the Liverpool Mercury. Did not
approve of the course language used. Remembered the address of
Mr. Hunt on the subject of the placard, signed by Tom this and Jack
that. Did not knowthat his speech went to recommendthe Magistrates
to the respectof the people, or otherwise. Had laughed at the
grammatical error in one of the placards himself. Mr. Hunt might
be occupied about ten minutes in speaking andcalling silence. Did
not see any infantry then. Mr. Hunt might use the word“enemies.”
Decidedly he did not hear him say, “Your enemies are at hand, if
they molest you, put them down, or keep them down.” He (Mr.
Hunt) might say, if any one should molest you, and disturb the
peace, he is an enemy; put him down and keep him down. Was not
certain that he had said so. When witness said to those near him,
“T suppose youareall friends to Parliamentary Reform, and hope
peaceably so;” he expressed this hope, becanse from all that he
had seen, he felt justified in entertaining it. He was pleased to see
them so orderly, for part of the press had laboured to makeit appear
that they were a tumultuous, savage, and riotous set. Was
proud to see those charges so falsified. It was the best assembly
he had ever seen, and the most moderate. Heard nothing of the
drillings—nothing which he had thought entitled to particular
attention. The several bodies as they came on the ground marched
in line (not with a very regular step), and this he thought the best
way of guarding against confusion. He thought that seeing
various bodies of the lower orders marching with an appearance
of preyious combination and organization, would have inspired him
rather with confidence than alarm, especially if he saw among
them that good humour which on the 16th of August seemed to
beam from every countenance. The same mode of walking in Liverpool
on election and other occasions, was commonly resorted
to, to avoid confusion, kicking of shins, and so on, Uponhis
solemn oath, he did not hear on the Exchange at Manchester one
expression of alarm on the morning of the 16th, but he left it
before eleyen o’clock; had been invited to attend the Meeting in
a letter addressed to Mr. Thos. Smith.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunv.—Hadheardof previous training,
Exchange at Manchester opens early in the morning; is very busy
from eight o’clock to eleven. Had seen the placard on the walls of
Manchester, with the grammatical error, Saw a placard on the
0

110
Monday, advising the inhabitants to keep their servants and children
from the Meeting. Did not recollect that no name wasto it
but that of the printer. Could not say whetherthe remarks about
Tom Long and Jack Short, made by Mr. Hunt, applied to that.
Heard nothing from Mr. Hunt but a joke on the grammaticalerror,
on the placard as at all disrespectful to the Magistrates. Did not
consider what he said to be any thinglike disrespect. Saw many
women, boys, and girls, among the multitude. Many of the
womenwere decent and respectable, and conducted themselves with
propriety. Thought this a guarantee for the good order of the
meeting, as he considered the presence of ladies always chastened
the conduct of men. They were quile the reverse of what might
be called profligate Amazons. Saw a female on the dicky of the
carriage, on Mr. Hunt’s arrival, carrying a flag: thought she
must be the wife or danghter of some one in the Barouche, who
had consented to carry the flag to the Meeting, as was common on
civie and other occasions.—(A ground plan of Peter’s Field being
handed to him, witness pointed out the spot on which some of the
occurrences had taken place.)
Mr. James Storrcalled, said, I live at Pendleton, near Manchester,
and am a land-surveyor by profession. I have a considerable
property in that neighbourhood. Onthe morningof the 16th
of August, I saw many persons going along towards Manchester,
but I cannot say they were going in parties. My residence is on
the great road to Manchester. There was nothing in their conduct
to produce an alarm in my mind.—About one o’clock I went
to the meeting. J am married, and have six children; of thesefive
are at School, and the other an apprentice; I did not take them
with me. Upon reaching thefield, the people were standing together
promiscuously in the way in which crowds usually stand; there
were men, women, andchildren there: nothingin their numbers or
behaviour to excite my fears, either for the safety of the town or
my family. I mixed with them until Mr. Hunt arrived. He was
received with loud cheers. Isaw no persons with staves shouldered
as muskets. I was in front of the hustings, looking towards
Windmili-street. I might be from sixty to eighty yards from the
hustings, but I got nearer afterwards. The pressure of the crowd
then became great, and I was obliged to retire; I therefore could
not hear what was said distinctly. In the other parts of the field
there was no disposition shown to riot or disorder. I saw many
well-dressed persons, and amongst others, there were females in the
crowd; they seemed to be inhabitants of Manchester. There was
no feeling of alarm, and I never heard one of them express any
apprehensions for their own safety, or that of the town. I recollect
the yeomanry coming onthe field. The people cheered them
in the same way they had Mr. Hunt.—There was no groaning,
hissing, or brandishing of cudgels against the soldiers; if it had
happened, I could not fail to have seen it. Saw the soldiers charging
towards the hustings; two of themfirst went forward, but upon
meeting with obstruction they fell back upon the others. No advantage,
however, was taken of these by the people, on account
of their being scparated from their comrades. It was not until the
ill
soldiers appeared that some few expressed their fears. hese fens
were, that the soldiers would attack the people. It did not, 10W:
ever induce any one to proposeresistance, but some began to move
off. The soldiers then cheered, and the people answered them,
which, in some measure, restored confidence. Aton gly Abe pee:
ple stood quiet, and the business of the day, to yee aE
sence had given aninterruption, was resumed. I thoug at ve Ase
diers came to keep the peace. They galloped towards the pus
ings. I did not see the arrest of any one there, but 1 saw ane 90h i
going up to them. ’ There was no resistance made by its sane
either by throwing alone a gneiss. InaD the horse:
ed upon them, but they made no resistance. é :
eee by Mr. Sergeant Houiiock.—I he hate
may be about a hundred yards from Mr. Buxton’s house. bare
not been in the habit of attending meetings at Manchester; was not
at the former one, but was at that of Liverpool; Johnson was pat
with me; I was alone; I did not carry the address to Marabies ;
Johnson did not meet me with the address at Liverpool; it es a
the purpose of seeing Mr. Cobbett and dining with him tea ae
there; I dined with him, but did not invite him to Mane resLer5
Johnson was then at Liverpool; this was in November last. ie,
Mr. Hunt objected to this examination as irrelevant, and 1
apee by Mr. Hent.—-l had never seen Mr. Cobbett
peeeea for Jounson.—I have often conversed with
Johnson, but never heard him speak ill of the Government. Be
Joun Hampsuire again called.—Was on the busine ro
the time Mr. Huntarrived to the time he was arrested. Ha pers
heard him say to the people, «There are your epee poiatins
to the soldiers, “put them down, and when they are oun k ep
them down.” Saw the military arrive, and saw them charging .
wards the hustings. His attention was in a particular manner a
rected towards them. During the progress of their charge no res
as made. |
eneence by Mr. ScarLettT —There were ne pepe
-on the hustings. paso, did. we oe apaies a
: ing rinted resolutions that morning.
aeaa —Is a merchant at Manchester;
recollects the 16th of August, he was standing at the acu
the morning of that day; saw several parties passing on hes ay
to St. Peter’s-field, They marched with considerable regulart a
the form of a procession, but conducted themselves in an extr anes
orderly and decorous manner. Many of them had niskceda BB
with different inscriptions upon them. Some merelya fone
tricts from whichthe parties came. Others were ofa po anes an wae
Saw the Lees, Moseley, and Saddleworth party with the blac fig.
His atiention wasfirst attracted to this party by the pat at i
flag; but it seemed to conduct itselfvery pecana Cou ene ~~
what proportion ofthis party had sticks, but eould ee jaa
average nuinber might be of the whole body. There mig ne bee
one in ten bearing them. Fromthe circumstance of persons bringing

112
113
sticks to former meetings, he was led to pay a more than particular
attention to if. He meant persons in the procession; of the others
he saw nothing. The slicks were such as people generally carry
walking. Whilst the Moseley parly walked by, he did not perceive
ihat any of them had long staves, shouldered as soldiers carry their
muskets. If any were so armed he would have observed it. Had
no doubt if one in ten had them, they could not escape his observation;
there was, however, a crowd about the black flags, so that he
could not sce them so distinctly. He saw no disposition on their
part to insult the peaceable inhabitants. There was a considerable
number of other persons, mostly merchants of Manchester, standing
by himat the time, all of whom had the same opportunity of witnessing
their conduct. Did not hear a single expression escape from
any one of these indicating alarm, and the only objection that was
taken applied itself to the colour of the flag. Witness went to
Peter’s-field about a quarter before twelve. He had not previously
seen anythingto excite his fearsfor the safety of the town. There
was nothing in the conduct or appearance of the people to create
alarm in the breast of any rational man. Uponhis arrival the parties
were assembled. Witness passed through a line of constables,
which extended from the house in which the Magistrates
were, and stood about thirty yards from the house
on a rising ground, at the top of Windmill-street. He was
then about half way betweenthe Magistrates’ house and the hustings.
Sawseveral parties at a distance come into the field. Their
conduct was perfectly regular. Witness stood on an elevated ground,
aud was therefore enabled to command a view of the whole plain.
The parties as they came in were cheered. It seemed as if each
upontheir arrival had a way made for them towards the hustings.
He remained there until one o’clock—He then moved to a station
in the rear of the hustings, about fifteen yards distant, and saw Mr.
Hunt arrives Ihe cheers were loud and longer than usual. Saw
him mountthe hustings; and heard what he said distinctly. As far
as he could recollect, he beganby remarking upon the necessily of
keeping silence, that those at the extremity of the Meeting might
hearall that was said. He was going on in this way whena trifling
disturbance took place in the rear. As this was the only
place where there was any noise, Mr, Hunt turned round, and said,
that though he wished themto be peaceable in their conduct, yet
he would not compromise the right of an Englishmanto interfere
and prevent disturbance. He added, that if parties in that direetion
persisted in attempting to breed a riot, he hoped they would
assist in putting them and keeping ‘them down. This was addressed
to those near the place the noise proceeded from. Witness
stood near a posse of special constables, who seemed disposed
to hear Mr. Hunt. When the noise had in some measure subsided,
they cried out, * Well done, Hunt!” The next thing he
saw were some parties of a foot regiment, who marched from
Cooper’s-street into Dickinson-street, and there faced the meeting.
This created some alarm, as their situation was directly opposite
the hustings. Mr. Hunt observing the disorder, said something
of its being a trick, and desired the people sto give three
¢heers, whic they did. Mr. Hunt never said, “there are your
enemies, put them down, and when they are down, keep them
down,” poitting to the soldiers. On the contrary, he believed
no individual on the hustings could see Dickinson’s-street. Mr.
Hunt’s recommendation to the people to cheer seemed to him to
have no other object than to put them into good humour, There
was a large party of special constables near the Windmill publichouse,
which made it quite easy for any one to approach the hustings.
Many persons passed backward and forward, and there
was nothing to interrupt the course of communication. _ He
saw no such thing as a phalanx of men fifteen deep linked
together, in order to cut off communication with the hustings. Remembers
the arrival of the cavalry. Before that he saw nothing at
all to raise any apprehensionsfor the saftey of the town. Not one -
of his townsmen, to whom he had spoken that day, showed any a-
larm on the subject. The cavalry, upon arriving before Mr. Buxton’s
house, were cheered at the desire, as he believed, of Mr. Hunt.
They were not hooted or hissed. Witness could not fail to seeit,
if any such thing had happened near him. The people did not
brandish cudgels at them, or offer them any defiance. Witness
changed his situationto theleft flank of the Yeomanry, whilst the
people were-still cheering. The Yeomanry were also shouting, and
brandishing their swords in the air. This seemed to execite great
agitation, aud a great noise followed. Many of the special constables,
reaching from Buxton’s houseto the hustings, thenfell back and
left another space of about fifty yards. When this was done, the
cavalry proceeded at a quick pace, and those in front entered the
crowd at a gallop. They met with a check, however, from the
density of the crowd. The troops were throwninto confusion by
this; some of them were separated from the rest. They appeared
in a circular mass. The people did nothing to resist them. Witness
directed his attention towards the cavalry until they reached
the hustings. He saw neither brickbats or stones thrown at them
in their progress.
Cs GraeSane by Mr. Serjeant Cross—-He never knew Mr.
Hunt before that day, but he had heard of him. Reads the Manchester
Observer occasionally, but does not recollect having seen
it hefore that day. Does not take this paper in. He had heard
that Hunt presided at a meeting in Smithfield some time before.
He was also aware the he presided at a meeting at. Spa-fields ;
however, he had this only from hearsay, or through the medium
of the papers. He had heard that there was a disturbance at Spafields,
but did not therefore fear for the consequences of that of
Manchester, on account of his presiding. Never saw so numerous
a meeting at Manchester before, or heard that a stranger had been
invited to preside at it. There were manypersons in thatplace
capable of Speaking and presiding at a meeting. Witness was not
at the former meeting; knows Mr. Smith, the Editor of the Liverpool-Mercury
; he saw him that morning on the Exchange,
Some of those about him were congratulating themselves that no
meeting was to take place, bécause the Magistrates said they were
not to be interfered with. This was the general feeling on the

114
preceding evening. He had heard. of the drilling of bodies of
men in the neigbourhood of Manchester some time before, but felt
no alarm on that account, because he understood the object of the
training was, that the people should come with more regularity ; had
never heardof drilling before the meeting was announced; does not
recollect a paragraph in the Manchester Observer, calling upon
the people to keep notes of all acts of violence which would be
offered, that they might afterwards be given in evidence. Before
the meeting there were no circumstances peculiarly calculated to
raise alarm in his mind aboutthe public safety ; if there were any
apprehensions, they were created by the threats of persons presumed
to be in the confidence of his Majesty’s Ministers, and not
from the people. To this may be added, the rumour then generally
prevalent, of the swords of the cavalry having been sharpened.
Of this latter circumstance, however, he had no other knowledge
than through the public papers. He had never heard of
confederacies amongst the Reformers; he did not understand
what was meant, by the question. The only association of which
he knew was the Reform Union. Upon their coming into the
town there was no alarm felt; on the contrary, the people seemed
pleased. He knew nothing of a meeting of the respectable inhabitants
at a Police-office. Could not say but many of them were
present onthe Exchange; I thought the average there might be
from one to ten. There. was nothing remarkable in their gait; it
was a lounging gait, such asa party of people would walk in going
to church. This remark applied to all but the Rochdale division,
The Magistrates had assembled at Mr. Buxton’s house that morning,
but he was not there. He never was at Buxton’s house in
his life. He is a member of the Manchester Committee for the
relief of the sufferers, As the bodies came up from the country,
they assembled about the hustings. Does not recollect hearing
Mr. Hunt use the word “ enemies,’’ as applied to the soldiers.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunr—By the sufferers he meantall
that were injured, as well Special Constables and others, by the
forcible dispersion of the Meeting on the 16th of August. It
was to the Committee for this purpose he belonged, and it was
from motives of humanity, not polities, that he was induced to
join it. He had heard of training going on, and yet felt no
‘alarm from that circumstance. The reason of this was, that he
knew the training was only to bring the people together in a’
_more orderly manner. He had heard of a former Meeting, but it
-was peaceable. Recollects a Meeting, called by the Boroughrecve
and Constables to congratulate the Prince Regent on a former occasion.
This comprehended the neighhourhood as well as the town.
Witness himself was present at if. There was a great multitude
assembled. At first it was adjourned, and the people then broke
some windows; because, after they had been brought together,
they were not allowed to discuss the question about whichthey had
assembled. On this occasion the people came in from the neighbonring
towns, Believes there were 50,000 assembled then in a
‘more inconvenient part of the town. They were called together by
ewriting, and by the municipal-officers.. There were also.large pro-
“115
gessions of the people on occasion of the Proclamation of Peace.
Witness joined them, and many other respectable persons were
with them. They walked in files three or four a breast. “ Believed
the shop windows were shut up in St. Ann’s-square which
was the largest area in town; he also believed that there were
more shut up than on the 16thfor that was a town holiday.
By the Court—There were women and children in considerable
numbers with all the parties: there were a great many in St.
Peter’s field.
Mr. Joun Tyas examined by Mr. Hunt—lI am a reporter onthe
Times newspaper. I attended at the public meeting of the 16th of
August; I came to Manchester on the Friday before, the 9th ; I
went as a reporter to give an account of the meeting. On the
16th we met in aroom in the New Bailey. I have relations in
Manchester. I believe I only sent one report of the proceedings
to London. I wrote a report which appeared in the Times,
headed “ Another Bounce of the Orator’s.” I went to St.
Peter’s-field so early as eight o’clock in the morning, and was
particular in my observations during the whole of the day. When
L-went at eight there were but few people on thefield; about ten
there were about 250 persons present. Ihave not given any depositions
to your attorney; I refused to be examined by him or any
other person. I saw the different parties arrive with music and
flags; they walked as I sawthe electors of York walk on Tuesday,
with something of a military step.- If I had not heard of this trial,
that gait would not have struck me as any thing extraordinary.—
I have the notes I took on the ground, and also those I wrote in
the New Baily. (Here witness looked over his notes). About
half-past eleven, thefirst body of Reformers arrived on the ground
with two banners, each surmounted by a Cap of Liberty; they
marched into the middle of the field, and a cart was brought to
them. I saw other parties arrive ; they behaved in the most orderly
manner, I do not conceive they took up their position in a military
form, I saw nothing peculiar in their manner after they
came upon the field. Perhaps they were more orderly than any
other mecting I had see. Isaw the party with the black flag arrive.
Tt was the Saddleworth and Moseley Union; they came with
music, and a sort of step. I recollect when they arrived about the
hustings, they played “ Rule Britannia,” and “ God save the
« King? I do not meamto say, that they alone played ; each party
played it as they arrived. I think they also played “See the Conquering
Hero comes.” Some in each division had common
walking sticks. I certainly did not see any with long -staves,
shouldered like muskets, and my attention being called to this
subject, from having seen a statement that the party escorting Mr.
Lunt on the 9th carried long staves fit to be used as pike handles.
I must have noticed them had they been there. I saw not the
slightest matter, which could excite alarm in my breast for the
safety of the town. I saw nothing in their conduct tending to
riot and confusion; I had several conversations with persons in the
Reform parties. They said all they wanted was, a restoration of
their rights, and that they were desirous, above every thing else,
|
|
iH |

116
to preserve order and tranquility. I felt it my duty to ascertain
whether the reports I heard were true or not. I saw no acts of ine
sult or violence in any way. There were many womenandchildrenin
the field, and many of them came in the same order as the men. J]
aaw two parties where the woman wereat the headof the procession,
They all appeared to be dressedin their best clothes. If I, as a reporter,
had seen or heard any thing likely to create alarm, I should
as an Englishman, have felt it my duty to acquaint the authorities
with it. I left the ground for the purpose of going to
meet you. I saw you surrounded by a crowd near the Exchange;
the people were huzzaing. I applied to you to procure me a place
on the hustings, which you promised to do, and told me to keep
near the carriage. You said, that being a reporter you would give me
a seat in the carriage. I held by the deor, and walked close by the
carriag6; it stopped at the Star Inn, and the people hissed. I
de not know whetherthe carriage stopped byaccident or hy design,
Youdid not take the command, or direct the people to hiss ; you did
not get upin the carriage, nor did you hiss; had you doneeither,
I must have seen you. There was also some hissing at the end of
the street in which the Police-Office was. You took no partin it.
Soonafter this you called to Mr. Moorhouse, who was on the Opposite
side of the street, and he got into the carriage at your invitation.
Onarriving on the field, the bands played, “ See, the Conquering
Hero comes.”? You were received with the loudest cheering I ever
heard in my life. You “hore your blushing honours meekly.”
There was a black flag at one endof the hustings, and you said it
was very foolish, or words to that effect, I recollect your complaining
that the hustings were erected in such a manner that you
had to speak against the wind. I followed you upon the hustings,
as did several other persons among whom were several females. I
think they were taken up in consequence of the pressure. I observed
the banners in the middle of the crowd, and noticed several
women amongst the men. The crowditself was more dense and more
crammed together than any I have ever seen before or since. The
people kept cheering. Johnson proposed that you should be the
chairman. There was no military appearance in the crowd. I
could not perceive whether the people near the hustings had their
arms locked or not, though I was immediately over them. I saw
nothing to keep the people from the hustings; they were pressing so
close that you expressed your fears that they would upsetit; I
heard you complain of this. Had those close to the hustings had
their arms locked, I must have seen them.—The crowd stood as
crowds generally do. I cannot say that thefirst row had their hats
off. It is usual for the crowdto take their hats off when the hero
of the day arrives. I saw nothing of a warlike appearance about
the meeting.—(Here witness read from his notes the accountof the
meeting which he had sent to The Times.) When the military appeared,
considerable alarm was manifested in the outskirts of the
meeting. The cavalry came up at a smarttrot, halted before Mr.
Buxton’s, and flourished their swords over their heads. Mr. Hunt
and Mr. Johnson desired the crowd to give three cheers. I concluded
the object of this was to shew that they were not daunted hy
117
their appearance. The cheers were given. Whilst this was doing.
Mr. Hunt desired that some persons on the waggon might be removed,
as they were neither speakers or writers, and were creating
disturbance. This I did not mentionin the report, not thinking it
material. The three cheers were given, and Mr. Hunt again desired
them to be peaceable, but firm. The cavalry then rushed
amougst them. They reached the hustings, and took someindividuals
into custody.--An Officer came up with a swordin his hand,
and called to you to surrender. You said you would not surrender
to a military officer, but if a peace officer came up, that
you immediately would. Before this, no peace officer had presented
himself upon the hustings. A person, whom I understood
tobe Nadin, then came and took you into custody. I did not
know how he came there; he seemed to spring out of the waggon,
and upon his saying he had a warrant against you, you surrendered,
first desiring the people to be quiet. There was no resistance shown
by any of the people on the way to the hustings; they got out of
the way as fastas they could. I could see the cavalry from the time
they left Mr.Buxton’s until they arrived at the hustings ; there were
neither stones or brickbats thrown at them. I cannot say whether
you turned pale when taken, for your back was turned towards me,
but you did not urge the people to anyacts of resistance. If stones
or bludgeons had been thrown I must haveseen them ; I saw no
stich thing; I did not see any foot soldiers before the yeomanry
came upon the ground; if the soldiers were there, andthat you had
told the people to put them down, I must have heard it; there was
no such thing; the people cheered the soldiers in the same way as
they had you, indeed, they were rather louder; I heard no hisses or
groans, perhaps the cheers prevented me from hearing it; if there
had been groans in a distant part, I might not hear them. I did
not see any part of the crowd advance towards the soldiers, waying
sticks, or throwing out defiance. If such a thing had happened
I must have seenit, for my eyes were turned that way.—I saw the
staves of the special constables lifted in the air beating the people.
This was after the military had gone to the hustings, and the constables
were in their rear. If the, people brandished their sticks
against the yeomanry as they had advanced he should have seen
them. When the yeomanry were coming upto the hustings,if there
had been a general resistance, he would have seen it. There was
nothing of that sort.
Panis by Mr. Barrow, for Mr. Moornouse—Myfather
was a Proctor inthecity. Ihave not hitherto communicatedto is
defendant’s attorney the evidence that I meant to give here. , E
Moorhouse wasinvited by Mr, Hunt to get into the carriage, bu
cannot say whether he got upon the hustings, for his attention was
attracted to Mr. Huntentirely. ,
Cross-cxamined by Mr. Scartett—The constables seamed
to be striking the people immediately behind the car eley, It wou
occupy but five or six minutes from the ime of the cavalry appearing
to the time Mr. Hunt was arrested. I was arrested with Mr. Hunt,
but before that I did not see any brick-bats flying. I took notes of
some oft he flags, one was “ Annual Parliaments and Universal Sut
P

118
frage;” on the reverse, “ No Corn Laws.’ Others bore inserj
tion of “ Vote by Ballot,’ &c. There were two endo oe Roi
Reformers; the Royton had a banner bearing aninscription, “ Let
die like men, and not be sold as slaves;?? on the other “ Anihiat
Parliaments and Universal Suffrage.’ There were sane others of
whichI did not take any notes. Mr. Hunthad asked meto the a
riage, but it was quite full. Carlile, and I believe, Knight, were with
him. I don’t recollect any hissing except at the Star. Thecarriage
stopped there, and before the Police Office, where there wasi
groaning. I stopped at the Star; it was there the Magistrates had
their head-quarters. I went with the carriage to the hustings; a
great crowd was gathered about us. When I left the hustings I
went to search for Mr. Hunt. The cheers with which the cavalry
were received were very loud, but I cannot say they were those of
welcome. It was oneofdefiance in some measure; for I understood
by it the people meantto say, “if you attack us, we will defend ourselves.
We have come here to doa duty,and we will doit firmly.”
Such was the construction I put upon it. The cheer was very loud
and universal. I have given Mr. Hunt’s wordsasfaithfully as T
could. ‘The crowd appeared to meto be as large as 80,000; indeed
I thought that number was there before Mr. Hunt’s party came. As
the divisions advanced, most of them had walking-sticks. I did not
however, observe, that any of them carried them upon their shold:
ers. I did not particularly observe the Stockport division. I arrived
at Manchester the Friday or Saturday before the 9th; I saw
Mr. Hunt there then, but not afterwards until the 16th. 7? know
nothing of the plans that had been laid for holding the meeting
I knew none of the defendants, and did not converse with them. i
Re-examined—The report in the Times I wrote partly in the
New Bailey and the other part after I reached town. There was
however, a considerablepart left out, because it commented in severe
terms upon the conduct of the yeomanry. Ihave said I sawa great
many flags, but I did not see one witha bloody dagger upon it. When
the military appeared, there was a disposition ina part of the crowd
to run away, and I believe he recommended the cheer inorder to restore
confidence to the people; I heard him say so. It did not appear
to methat the people closed behind to cut off their retreat, and
IT believe, when the military passed, the people, from the pressure
were obliged to go into their former places. I believed it to be quite
involuntary, entirely occasioned by the pressure. I did not observe
a genenalflight until the yeomanry began to cutat the people.
At half-past six o’clock the Court adjourned until to-morrow,
Thursday, March 23.
At nine o’clock Mr. Justice BAILEY entered th —_
Hant having, with the other Defendants, taken BELTdadas
ble, proceeded to call witnesses. Thefirst person called was
Joun Ernsuaw, a memberof the Society of Friends. :
Mr. Hunr submitted that he had a right to examine this witness
uponhis affirmation, as to what he had seen on the 16th of
August.
Mr. Justice Batvey said, that Quakers were, by the 7th and
nD
Sth Wm. III chap. 74, precluded from giving evidence in criminal
prosecutions, otherwise than upon oath. The Learned Judge
cited several cases where the evidence of Quakers had been refused.
He mentioned also an instance where a rule for a criminal
information had been discharged, on the ground of its having
been obtained upon the affirmation of a Quaker.
Mr. Honsaid, that he would not press the point against his
Lordship’s opinion, particularly as he had other witnesses to prove
the same facts. He thenproceededto call other witnesses.
Joun BratTTarcH, examined by Mr. Hunt-—I am a warfinger,
and reside at Pendleton, near Manchester. On the 16th of
August I was in company with Mr. Earnshaw and Mr. Bancroft
(two members of the Society of Friends), in a room overlooking
the meeting. I went to Manchester on that day, to
collect money; business was going on as usual, I went up to
the New Cross, where a great crowd of people was assembled.
There were no shops shut up then; business was going on as
usual at New Cross. This was about ten o’clock. There were
great crowds there; they were forming into line. I conversed
with several persons on the subject of the meeting, but no one
expressed any alarm for the safety of the town. I felt no alarm
myself; if I had I should have stopped my teams. I had two
teams at work on that day, and they carted as great a quantity
of coals as on any other day. I suppose the people formed into
line for the purpose of getting through the strects with more
ease. I saw several parties come into town; there were many
women and children with them. The women weretidily dressed ;
apparently in their holiday clothes. I saw one party headed by several
females, walking in procession. At Shudehill I saw the Bury
party; they also had numbers of women and children with them.
I saw the black flag borne by the Lees and Saddleworth party ; they
had not large biudgeons or cudgels in their hands; they had some
common walking-sticks; if they bad staves four or five feet long,
and asthick as my wrist, shouldered like muskets, I most assuredly
must have seen them ; but I did not see any suchthing. The Bury
party were walking quietly along when I saw them. I saw noill
conduct or acts of violence committed by any of them. I went to
the meeting about 12 o’clock, in order to witness the proceedings.
I was on the second floor of a house about 30 yards from the hustings.
Lhada complete view of the hustings and of the wholefield.
I went to the room by the invilation of Mr. Bancroft, who had
taken it in order to see the meeting. I saw several of the parties
arrive. 1 saw nothing in their appearance different from those
I have already mentioned. They had flags and bands of music.
I heard “God save the King” and “Rule Britannia,” played.
They werereceived with loud approbation. It did not strike me as
a disloyal meeting. I saw no symtoms of disloyalty amongst them.
1 don’t belong to any of the Unions for Reform. I observed, when
they wereall assembled, that it was the grandest sight I ever sawin
mylife, and so I think yet. Isawa double line of constables di-
Many of them were persons whom I knew to be
rectly under me. ]
I saw no acts of violence or any insult offered
special constables,

120
12]
to them. I saw Nadin come down the line, and go up again to.
wards Buxton’s, before youcame. There was no insult or violence
offered to him. I saw you arrive; you were received with cheers,
The people took off their hals when they cheered. When « God
save the King” was played, all the people that I sapposed belonged
to the meeting took off their hats; but the constables did not
take off their hats.
Mr. Hunt—Thatis a curious fact, my Lord.
Theard part of what you said when you got upon the hustings,
but not distinetly. I was between the hustings and the
Magistrates’ house. After you addressed the people, there was
some disturbance behind the hustings. You turned round, and
extending your hand, said “ If any one creates any disturbance
put him down and keep him down.” This appeared to be addressed
to some one belonging to the hustings. I did not hear
you say, pointing to the military, “ There are your enemies, if
they molest you, put them down ‘and keep them down.” It was
impossible, as the soldiers had not arrived at the time. I saw the
military come up to the corner of Dickinson-street.—This caused
some confusion, and the people in the outskirts began to run.
You cheered in order to keep them together, and the effect of it
was, that the people stood still again. ‘Then the cavalry camein,
and formed opposite the house where, as I since understood, the
Magistrates were. They put themselves in line and cheered. I
saw nothing done by any of the crowd to resist them, I never took
my eyes off the cavalry till they got round the hustings. They
advancedat either a canter or a gallop; they came asfast as they
could. There were not any stones or bricks thrown at them, nor
any sticks thrown at or lifted up against them. I conld see all
that passed as well as I can see this Court now.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scaruetr—I have lived in Pendleton
34 years. I lived in London about nine years since. { have men
to go with my carts, I shook a handkerchief out of the window
when Mr. Hunt arrived. I joined in the shout. I cannot say whether
there was any difference between the shout given when Mr.
Hunt arrived and that given onthe arrival of the cavalry. I have
heard people say there were 150,000 persons present. I gave a
pound note towards Mr. Hunt’s Election for Preston before I
left Manchester. This was the only subscription in which I
Joined.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt—I never saw youbefore you arrived
in the carriage.
HENRY ANDREWS examined by Mr. Hunt.—I have heen
your servant seven years. I havebeen at many public meetings. I
accompanied you to the three meetings at Spafields, in London; to
the public meetings at Bristol, Bath, the county meetings in Wells,
Wiltshire and Salisbury, and the public meetings at Westminster. I
have heard that you are a freeman of Bristol. I know that you have
property at Bath; yon have houses, a large yard, and out premises
there. You are Lord of the Manorof Glastonbury, in Somersetshire,
and have farm there. I perambulated the bounds there for you.—
~ Youalso have farms in Wiltshire and Hampshire. I know you area
Liveryman of London, When you attended the Westminster meeting
you resided there. I accompanied you to the Manchester meeting,
as well as to all the others which you have attended. T never saw any
riot or breach of the peace committed by any of the personsa
ing those meetings. The meeting on Brandon-hill, oe .
surrounded by horse soldiers. The people and you ce c perigee
them, bothin going toand coming from the meeting. Thisdi he
to give any offence to the soldiers. I recollect meetingep e
Horse Guards on our return from one of the Spafields meetings ; a
were cheered. There was also some hissing. Youdid nothiss, ou
rose in the gig and told the people not to hiss the soldiers, at c mn
them; this was done, and the soldiers passed een Gane a e sys
second party of soldiers, and the same thing occurred. 1 bah i.
noliveslost. I was with you atthe second Spafields meeting. : ee
had been a riot before we arrived. We arrived at Spafields a — 2
o’clock. The rioters were gone then, I accompanied you to Bulloe :
Smithy in August last. When you heard that the eet oe oe
off, you said you would return. You went to Stockport, an :se
morning you went to Manchester. I walked before the gig. : _
chester you adddressed the people. You said youa oe ce
the people said, “no, no,” wait to the 16th. I ine - : i 5 -
wanted to go back myself. I left a wife and family si i a
sides, I had lost my linen in the way down. a ae oyen
Johnson’s. Next day you cameinto the stable and said you Cos
remaintill the 16th. I remember your speaking about he poli
horse, Bob. Bob is now dead and buried at Seeal oe :
grave. It was said that he was poisoned at Lancaster aes a
know you have had large farms ata be you were :
You were always called the poor man’s friend,
Mr. Howey Lord, i call this witness to character. se
Mr. ScarteTt—Thisis reversing the re It was us
call the master to the character of theservant. ;
I never heard you urge any meeting to acts ofrs reo
were called the poor man’s friend, as you said, that if a Bore ao
worked hard all the week, he ought to have enous to eei
mily, You were general visited by Squire Wigmore aie eee
shins, the clergymanof the parish. I never saw you fee
company i otkensintoxicated oy ini my iei Myfefellow-servant (a female) ha
i wards of 6 years with you. :
oe Chriesestadiiiol by Mr. SerjeantBncccaat
vant is not here to give my master a character; he cana —
forf me as I have said for him. Ido not know Thiet my master An, Botlowathia
has an)
property at Manchester. Iremember hearing Niessen
shop was brokenopen, and some gunsstolen on thei chop. ‘This
Spa-fields meetings; I heard a man was shot in athe Pena
was before we went to the meeting. Mr. Hunt was ae eedets
meeting; I did not see Watson there; I cannot say
at the time. I never saw Thistlewood and cae1 soaahdy
with Mr. Hunt. I knew no other person at the meeting
Hunt. I did not accompany Mr.
tion from Lancaster gaol. I was ae! at th
entry into town. We came to Mr. }
Hunt to London after his libera~
e dinner givenafter his
[oorhouse’s house from Bullock

SR —
122
Smithy. My master remained all night. I cannot say that Kuight
was there when we went. first saw Mr. Knight at Smedley Cottage.
Ido not know Mr. Carlile. I can’t say whether he was
at Smedley Cottage or not. I was not with Mr. Hunt whenhis
action against Dr. Stoddart was expected to come on at Guildhall,
London. I was in the country, at Middleton Cottage. I
was never at Blackheath with my master, I have heardof his
having been a brewer at Bristol. I believe Mr, Hunt is a lodger
when in London. When he lodged in Norfolk-street, Strand,
he had three rooms and a kitchen. I have not been in town with
him lately. Whilst we remained at Manchester we were at Johnson’s
house. I knew that Mr. Grundy called on Mr. Hunt because
Theld his horse. I saw Mr. Hunt and Mr. Johnson goina carriage
to the meeting on the 16th ofAugust. Ibelieve Mr. Knight also was
in the carriage. There was a fourth person, but I do not know who
he was. I never saw him before or since. _My master hreakfasted
with Mr. Johnson that morning. I do not know whose carriage it
was. Mr. Johnson does not keep a barouche.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt—I never in mylife sat down with
you todinner. I never professed to meddle with politics. I have
enough to do in minding my business.
Mr. Hunt— No,it is quite enoughthat the master should be a
politician.
By the JupcE—When my master said that a poor man who
worked from Monday morning to Saturday night ought to get enough
to support his family, I did not understand him to insinuate that
people so working did not get enough.
Epwarp BAINES, jun. examined by Hr. Hunt—I have not
made any depositions. I am connected with The Leeds Mercury.
T have not read any newspaper containing the evidence given on this
trial. Ihave cautiously abstained from doing so. I-attended the
meeting on the 16th of August for the purpose of giving a report of
the business. I was upon the hustings that day. I arrived on the
field at 12 o’clock. I saw the different partics come up in ranks,
arm in arm; they were received as they advanced to the hustings,
each with three times three cheers. They did not take up their stations
in a very regular manner. Theyall got as close to the hustings
as they could. Nothing particular struck me, but that they:
came in bodies. Some attended with music and banners. I do not
recollect any of the tunes played. I took particular notice of their
sticks. Myattention was, from previous information, particularly
drawnto this point. I saw nothing in their hands but common walking
sticks ; many had them, but I cannot say the proportion. I did
not notice a greater proportion of sticks than is usual among country
people at races, or on other such occasions. I saw no long staves
shouldered like muskets, nor any thing resembling them. I looked
atall the parties as they came on the groand, but I saw nosuch thing.
If such a circumstanceas this occurred,I, attending as a reporter,
must, I think, have noticed it. I advanced to the hustingsorcar,
about half past 12, and remained in ‘that situation till one o’clock,
when another cart arrived with boards. When the hustings were
formed, I mounted them. There was no removal after the first erec+
123
tion of the hustings. One or two young men from the bustings frequently
recommended order, as the parties arrived, and the order
was observed as perfectly as, under such circumstances, it could be.
About one o’clock a subscription was raised, to get those who came
from a distance someale, but they afterwards resolved to have nothing
but water, and a can of water was sent for. About one you arrived,
followed by a very large procession. On mounting the hustings you
appeared out of temper atthe situation in which they were placed.
Among those who came upon the hustings were a numberofgirls,
dressed uniformly in white. They appeared on an average to be about
22 or 23 years of age ; I think there were 12 or 14 in number.I think
the reason of their being on the hustings was to avoid the pressure
of the crowd which was very great at the time; one or two women
had fainted from the pressure. An attempt was now made by those
nearest the hustings to push themselves back, in order to avoid pressing
against them; they partially succeeded. To the best of my
knowledge, while Mr. Hunt was speaking, the crowd was close to the
hustings. Aftera few minutes you began your speech. I took notes
of that speech in short-hand; I had somedifficulty in doing so [Here
witness produced his notes, and also a copy of what he had written
from them.] The speech commenced thus :—-“ Friends, and fellowcountrymen,
I must beg your indulgence for a short time, and beg
that youwill keepsilence. I hope you will exercise the all-powerful
right of the people inan orderly manner.’’—[ Here witness said that
the words “orderly manner” were not in his notes.] I wrote ita
few hours after from memory: that was usual with reporters.—He
proceeded to read—“ And any manthat wantsto breed a disturbance,
let him be instantly put down. For the honour you have done me
by inviting meto preside at your meeting [ return you my thanks,
and all I have to beg of you is, that you will indulge us with your
patient attention. It is impossible that, with the most patient attention,
we shall be able to make ourselves heard by the whole of
this tremendous assembly. It is useless for me to attempt to relate
to you the proceedings of the last week or ten daysin this town and
neighbourhood ; you well know them, and the cause of the meeting
appointedfor last Monday being prevented; it is therefore useless
for me to say one word onthat subject, only to observe, that those
who put us down, and prevented us from meeting on Monday last,
by their malignant exertions, have produced a two-fold number today.
It will be perceived, that in consequenceofthe calling of this
new meeting, our enemies, whoflattered themselves they had gained
a victory, have sustained a great defeat. There have been two
or three placards posted up last week, with the namesof one or two
insignificant individuals attached to them---one Tom Long, or Jack
Short, a printer.”—At that momentI observed the cavalry come on
the ground at a rapid pace, from the direction of St. Peter’s Chureh.
They were in considerable disorder. They had not then come into
the crowd. They drewupin front of Mr. Buxton’s house, the foremost
of them being opposite to it. I have omitted one circumstance
which occurred before the cavalry arrived. Mr. Hunt stoppedin the
middle of his speech, for what reason I do not know, and directed
the people to give three cheers; he then turned round and said to

124
those near him, “ there is some disorder in the outskirts, ’tig only
to rally them, that is all.”’ As the cavalry approached Mr. Buxtons
| house, Mr. Hunt said, “you see they are in disorder, this is a
of locked arms, eight or ten deep, round the hustings. I did
fh trick,” _ The cavalry, after halting about three minutes, biandished
not see any people Jocked arm inarm. I think it was not possible
to see whether any persons had their arms locked at a distance
their swords and advanced. I saw no attempt made toresist them
nor did I hear any encouragement given to do so. My eyes Arete
of four yards. I can’t say whether or not they were locked arm in
directed towards the cavalry till they began to advanceto the hustings.
When they had got about 10 yards into the crowd, I turned form round the hustings as they came up. I perceived no difference
armclose in front of the hustings. I saw the whole of the people
away; I saw no stones or brick-bats thrown, nor any stickslifted
between the manner of their forming and that usual at other meetup
against them. I should think the hustings were 60 or 70 yards ings. Ihave attended public meetings at Leeds, York, and elsefrom
Mr. Buxton’s house; when the cavalry were within about 30 where. I did not hear any one direct the people to lock arm in arm,
yards of the hustings, I turned away. In about half a minute they in order to keep the cavalry, and all their corruption from coming
arrived at the hustings. Mr. Hunt, stretching out his arms, cried amongst them. It was not possible to see from Mr. Buxton’s house
| “be firm.” His face was then in the direction of the cavalry. The whetherthe people near the hustings were locked arm in arm ornot,
words were addressed to the whole crowd. No application had been I saw nothing warlike in the meeting. The people had not the ap-
made, to my knowledge, for the cavalry to pass through. I hadno
pearanceofdisciplined troops, ready to protect Mr. Hunt,or to fight
knowledge of the purpose for which the cavalry advanced, nor have I
for him, as occasion offered. 1 saw no infantry. Myimpression was,
any reason to suppose Mr. Hunt had. There was a large body of
that the cheers were cheers of conscious innocence, confidently relying
on the protection of the laws. Youdid not point to the soldiery,
special constables near the cavalry, but they remained stationary, I
saw no constables accompanying the cavalry. I heard nothing from
and say to the people, “ Your enemies are among you; if they attempt
to molest you, get them down and keep them down.” I stood
Mr. Hunt after the words “be firm,” but the words “give three
cheers ;”’ these words were repeated, as were the words “ be firm.”
near you, and I think I must have heard the words, had you used
I think the last direction to give three cheers, was when the cavalry
them. I heard nothing like those words. I did not hear you say,
first arrived. I left the hustings when the cavalry had advanced
when the cavalry arrived, “ Fhere are only a few soldiers, very few,
about 10 yards into the crowd, I got off at the back of the hustings,
and we area host against them.” If any such words were used, I
and went through the people, to the distance of about four yards,in
the opposite direction from Mr. Buxton’s house. By that time I
saw a trumpeter on a pye-bald horse, wheeling bis horse to the back
of the hustings; the crowd, as if by one impulse, movedback ; I
wascarried about thirty yards back; I then got upon a cart, and
looked towardsthe hustings; saw noresisistance made to themilitary.
Mr. Honr—Did you hot see something done by the cavalry,
which, according to your impression, was calculated to
sistance on the part of the people ?
causere-
Mr. Scar.etrT objected to this question.
Mr. Justice Bartey—I can’t allow the witness to answer that
question, and for this reason, because the Jury would be trying the
question from prejudice, and not from the evidence.-—I have thought
a upon it, and I am of opinion that the question ought not to be
asked.
Mr. Huntr—MyLord, I think I havea right to shew the nature
of the attack made upon the people.
Mr. Justice Bartey—I am of a different opinion. I have taken
a note of your observation, and you shall haveall the benefit arising
from it.
When I got off the hustings I met with no impediment but
from the density of the crowd. The trumpeter was about two
yards from the hustings, and an equal distance from me when I
saw him. He was between me and the hustings. He had been
enabled to come round through the crowd. In that quarter (the
back part and side) there was nolocking of arms nearthe hustings,
I cannot say how they were ata distance. I did not see a cordon
must have heard them. When you bidthe people be firm, you used
no gesture, or action, or other expression, to induce them to resist,
My impression was, that he merely wished the people to stand, and
to prevent danger from their running away.
Mr. Scaruett objected to any questions respecting witness’ ime
pressions of what was said.
Mr. Justice Bainey said the witness had a right to give his impressions
of what he had seen and heard.
Mr. Hunt—My Lord, I—
Mr. Justice BartEy—Mr. Hunt, I have decided in your favour,
Mr. Hunr—My Lord, I shall waive the question with respect to
this and all other witnesses, and perhaps it will be for your Lordship’s
eonvenience, provided Mr. Scarlett will consent to expunge
from the evidence the zmpressions of Messrs. Green, Hardman, &c.
Mr. ScarteTt—Thatis different. Those are impressions with
respect to the meeting. 7
By the Jupae—When the words “ be firm” were used, the
people stood perfectly still. I saw no sticks lifted up, or stones
thrown. The people did not put themselves in any posture, either
of offence or defence. All eyes were bent on the cavalry. Tt was
very possible for those nearest the cavalry either to have rushed.upon
them, or struck them. It did not appear that the words used by Mr.
Hunt werefor the purpose of inducing the people to put themselves
in a posture of resistance. Mr Hunt did not say any thing as if
finding fault with the people for not putting themselves in a posture
of offence or defence.
tk
By Mr. Honr— When you used the words “be firm,” you
stretched out your arms, with your hands open and the palms down,
You did not clench yourfists.

126
Cross-examined by Mr. ScartetTt—I did not know whether
Mr Hunt had his hat on or not. Lonly saw the left hand. I do
not know what he hadin his right hand. I was induced to noticethe
sticks, from having heard that the Radical Reformers came to
their meetings armed with clubs and cudgels. I have no recollection
of having seen a letter of Mr. Hunt to the people of
Manchester, inviting them to come to the meeting armed with no
other weapenthana self-approving conscience.
By Mr. Barrow—Idid not see Jones on the hustings.
By Dr. HeaLtey—I saw you on the hustings ; you desired the
people to be quiet.
By the JuncE—I took notes of the places from which the
parties came, as they were mentioned on the banners.
THOMAS SCHOFIELD, examined by Mr. Hunt—Ireside at Shelderslow,
near Manchester. I was at Lees on the 16th of August,
I saw about 40 or 50 men assemble on that morning; they had
nothing in their hands more than the common walking-sticks used
in the country. I went to Oldham that morning. I saw a large
assembly of people on Bent-green; I left them there, and proceeded
to Manchester on my business. I am a cotton-carder. I found
that business going on as usual at Manchester. It was halfpast
eleven when I got down to the Infirmary. I heard no fears expressed
of the consequences of the meeting. At the top of Moseleystreet,
I saw the Stockport people pass. They consisted of men,
women, boys and girls, all walking in procession, There were many
of the women walking arm inarm with the menin the procession.
They did not look to me asif they were going to commit any actof
violence. Some appeared rather decent, and others not. They
appeared to be a people sadly torn down and in distress. I dare say
they had onthe best clothes they could muster. The shops were
all open the same as they are on any other day, for any thing I saw.
Isaw the Oldham, Royton, Lees, Saddleworth and Moseley parties
pass the Exchange. There were many gentlemen of the town
standing at the Exchange door and looking through, the windows.
[Mr. Hunt here observed, that the Exchange was a large building
where the gentlemen of the town go to read the papers ‘and
transact business.] The gentlemen seemed laughing at the flags.
There was no symptom of alarm manifested. The people passed
byina peaceable and orderly manner. I saw no insult offered to any
one.: I saw no uncommon numberofsticks with the people. I did not
join the procession. J saw nolarge staves shouldered like muskets
on that day. I saw nothing toalarm me. I went to Peter’s-field.
I saw somepeace officers, but I did not know them to be such until
ihey began to use their bludgeons. I saw the cavalry come upon
the ground. They formed in front of Mr. Buxton’s house. I saw
them advance uponthe people.
By the Judee—I saw noresistance on the part of the people..
By Mr. Hunr—I was near the hustings, but not so near as
that the cavalry could reach me with the cuts of their sabres. I
saw no insult or abuse whatever offered to the cavalry or constables.
The people appeared to get out of the way as fast as
they could, to let the cavalry pass. I was nearer to the hustings
a7
than to Mr. Buxton’s house. I kept my eyes on the yeomanry
as well as I could till they got up to the hustings. I am five feet
ten inches high. I could see very well over the people. I saw
no brick-bats or stones thrown, nor sticks lifted up against the
cavalry. The people were so jammed and crowded together, that
they could not do so, even had they been inclined. :
Mr-Scarterr—You may go, my friend, | have no questions
you.
% Oeatsake: examined by Mr. Hunr—Ilive at Lees, and manage
a spinning concern for my father. 1 recollect directions ae
been given to buy linen to make a flag—some white’ bleached cambric
was bought—it was to make flag to go to the Manchester meeting.
Directions were given to have inscriptions and devices put upon it,
and they were put on accordingly, but it would not answer, because,
when the painter began toletter it in black the lettering bs a
through, and it prevented the reading. We determined to ie :
of some other colour, and the painter having no paint but the b a
with which he was painting the letters, we agreed that the flag sel
be painted black, and that the inscriptions and devices shou re
painted white. This was the sole cause of the white flag bejng made
a black one. It was never pointed out to us, nor had we any a
that a black flag was any more offensive than a white one: Bh
not see the procession go off to Manchester. I did not go te em.
I went by myself. I saw the parties in Manchester. { di oa ae
any of my townswomen with them.— There were aes ies be
Stockport party. I saw no large sticks or staves, either wi by
own or either of the otherparties. I saw no long staves or clu «
shouldered by any of the parties. If any of my ownLe
had come armedin this way I should havenoticedit. Iwa to : :
meeting. I saw nothing in the course of the morning which crea on
any alarm in my mindfor the safety of the town; the ee an
open, and business going on as usual. I was at the Exchange.
There were manyof the townspeople there. I heard no expression
of alarm by any of them. I did not see any act of ee or au
insult offered to the gentlemen on the Exchange,Aae else,
by any ofthe partics. I saw the cavalry go to patpe ae
By the Jupce.—lIdid not see the people do any t inga : ae
cavalry. I was at the extremity of the meeting, an i 0 aD
across the people. I was not ina situation to see whether as :
sistance was offered near the hustings. I saw no rere. in
the whole of the day. Someof the cavalry came ors Wwee
ut there appeared no disposition to resist them. cou ;
any clubs Ploceerensied with the people be Mr. nearScarLetr—lI me. ee
did Hebees the ey
on the flag. The words “ No boroughmongering Oe = -
free,” “Saddleworth, Lees, and Moseley Union,” onTn es 1e
other, “ Taxation without representation is unjust an Roldite ae

128
129
Mr. Scartert—Did Doctor Healey chuse any ofthe motloes ?
Witness—No,
: Mr. ScarLett—Because he seems to have parental fondness
orit.
Mr. Hunt.—Iperceive there is a piece cut out of the flag, I
hope it won’t be said the bloody dagger was upon that piece. e
WitnESS.—No, There was not a bloody dagger onthe flac.
__ Dr. Hearry.—I was afraid you would not produce the flag
Mr. Scarlett, and so I have brought a model ofit. [Here che
Doctor produced a small model of the flag, with the inscriptions
&c. It was fastened toa stick, suspended from a pole, as hang.
ing signs are over shop doors or windows. z
Mr. Scarvetrobserved, that the word death was in small
letters on the model, but on theflagitself the letters were large.
Mr. Hunt.—My Lord the modelis done from memory.
Wirness,—I am quite sure there was no bloody dageer
painted uponit.
Mr. Hunr.—Are you quite sure that there was no bloody
dagger on the flag, as described by Mr. Scarlett?
Wirness.—I am sure there was not.
Mr. Scartett.—Ishall explain that by and by.
Mr. Wm. NicHorson, examined by Mr. Hunt.—Ilive at Lees;
{ ama printer; I was not called upon to print a flag before the
16th, of August. I went to Manchester on that day, but not with
the Lees party. I saw them near the Exchange at Manchester;
they had a black flag; I sawpart of it painted; I saw no difference
in the appearance of Manchester on that day, save in one instance,
I saw a public house with the windows shut; I went in with some
friends and called for a quart of beer; a female servant said they
eould not give it, as they had received orders from the Magistrates
not to sell any on that day, however, she would ask her mistress; she
afterwards returned and we got two quarts of beer; I saw a pro=
cession pass. A waggon broke throughit without molestation, as
did also several gentlemen. took notice of their sticks; I think
about one to four had sticks, they were for the most part switch
sticks. The procession was headed by about 30 or 40 females rather
poorly attired; they walked four a-breast; I saw people passing
along without taking any notice ofthe procession, which surprised
me. I heard no one express any alarm at the entrance of
the people into town.
Mr. Hunr.—Were youon St. Peter’s Field ?
Wirness.—I beg yourpardon, Sir; I have made a digression:
J must go back to the Exchange, if you please. a :
Mr. Hun'r.—Sir, I wish to bring you as shortly as I can to
the evidence; you had better let me question ou;—Wer
St. Peter’s Field? 4 you;—Were you on
WitneEss.—I was.
Mr. Hunt.—Did yousee mearrive?
Wirness.—I beg you pardon, Sir-—Are you Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Hunt,—Yes.—Did yousee mearrive on the field ?
Wrrness.—Oh, I beg yourpardon, Sir; I had notthe pleasure
of knowing you before—Yes, I saw you arrive. I had heard
ef your great reputation for oratory, and so 1 was anxious to get
near the hustings, in order to héar you, and judge for myself.
I saw the soldiers advance, but not a single person offered
them the least opposition; in fact the people were so dense that it
was impossible to get out of the way. I did not see Dr. Healey
advance with his party, but I was too busily employed looking at
the people in the Exchange; they seemed anxious to see the pro~
cession pass, but they possitively betrayed no symptomsof alarm.
{saw one yeoman pass the Exchange, and nobodyinsult him. I
saw both Mr. Wild and Dr. Healey on the hustings, and heard the
latter say, “ Be peaceable; take care you are not thrown into confusion.””
He lived at Lees, and had a considerable property there,
with his father. When the cavalry had advanced beyond the hustings,
he saw somesticks thrown; this was afterthe arrest.
The Court held that this evidence was notnecessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Huttock,—We are booksellers,
but neversell any of the “trash” publications, as theyare
ealled—that is, Cobbett, Wooler, and such like. We neversold
Hunt’s Speeches; do not know whether they are trash— [This witness
excited considerable laughter, from the didactic manner iu
whichhe delivered his evidence.] At one time Mr. Hunt was northeast
of him, at another south-west. Sometimes he saw his back,
sometimes his front ; at other times the wind wasin his favour, as
well as against him. (The witness himself, being a-cheerful goodnatured
man, heartily joined in the langh, which the gravity of the
Court could not occasionally resist.)
Joun Huey, examined by Mr. Hunt.—Wasa woollen-clothier,
residing in Moseley, and went to the Manchester meeting with
his mother and wife; the former was 65 years of age. There was
no appearance at Manchester of alarm. The shops were at business,
and the people following their usual occupations; be saw the different
processions enter, and in a peaceable, quiet, and orderly manner,
without offering the slightest insult to any body. He took his
goods into Manchester, and went round as usual to his customers.
He had notthe slightest fear about his property on that day. His
customers did not appear to be alarmed about the meeting; they
were carrying on their trade as usual, and expressed no apprehensions
about the people. Witness went to the meeting with his wife,
and his mother, after she transacted some business of her own, was
to have joined them. He saw no insult offered by any of the people
at the meeting to any body.
Q. Did you see any violence committed by any persons else?
Mr. Justice Bartey.—No, don’t ask that question. It is obvious
to what he alludes. I have other reasons for not wishing that
their case should be investigated or prejudiced here.
Mr. Hunt had no wish to press any question 1ipon a witness
which his Lordship considered irregular—He saw Mr. Buxton’s
house as well as the hustings, and could see plainly whatoccurred in
the line between them. He saw the cavalry come from Mr. Buxton’s
to tbe hustings. There was no resistance whatever offered to the
cavalry by the meeting. He did not hear any of the cavalry say
what they wauted at the hustings. He was nigher to the cavalry

130
than the people on the hustings, and if any of the latter heard any
of the cavalry say what they wanted, he must have heard it also.
He did not know the object of the cavalry to be to enable the constables
to get up to serve a warrant. If any such communication of
their object had been loudly made, situated as he was, he must have
heard it as soon at least as any body on the hustings could.
Nancy PREsTWITCH examined,—Was motherofthe JAst witness,
and went to Manchester on the 16th August, and walked there
thoughit was ten miles distant. She saw a dozen or so of her own
townswomen (from Moseley) and a numberofothers at the meeting.
Though she was 65 years of age she walked out towards Smedley
Cottage, after her walk into Manchester, and they formed her there
at the head of the line as Commanderof about 200 or 300 women.
She knew St. Peter’s fields, and got there before Mr. Hunt came.
She wanted relief, and went and got a gill of beer, when she met
Mr. Hunt; as she was coming back to the ground, the cavalrymen
were coming there; she stopped there. Neither herself, nor any of
the 200 or 800 women offered to take the cavalry prisoners. She
went with peace, and joined in the shouting when Mr. Hunt arrived,
before she got her gill of beer. When the cavalry came up she heard
shouting, but did not join in it, not knowing what it was for. The
people of Manchester did not seem alarmed about the mecting. If
she had any apprehensionofriot she certainly should not have gone
there.
Mr. ScarvetrT said, it did not follow that because strangers
entering the town had no apprehensions of riot, therefore the inhabitants
in the town should be also free from alarm. He here freely
confessed, that he did not mean to charge Mr. Hunt with intending
to excite the people at the instant to actual tumult. It was quite
enough to shew that the effect of his proceeding was intimidation.
Mr. Justice BatLey.—Then it may so happen, perhaps, that
yourobject is notsufficiently stated in the indictment.
Mr. Scarvett thought intimidation would be quite enough.
Mr. Justice BaingEy.—I would not for the world mislead the
Jury. If I can hold the scales of justice equally balanced, then I
shall do my duty.
Mr. ScarLet?T could not see Mr. Hunt’s object in putting a
number of the questions he had put. The only effect was to occupy
a large portionof time.
Mr. Huntwassurprised at this observation. The prosecution
occupied four days, not quiteas much was yet givenfor the defence,
and yet the learned Gentleman complained.
Mr. ScarerTsaid that three quarters of the time during the
prosecution was taken up in cross-examinations.
Mr. Hunt—Yes,and very necessary ones.
Mr. Scartett—Wehave shewn that a strong alarm was felt
in Manchester.
Mr. Hunrsaid he had shewnthe reverse.
Mr. Justice BarLeY—I must leave that to the Jury.
Mr. ScarxertTrepeated, that it signified little what was the
feeling of those who camein from the country, it was the people in
the town whosefeelings were to be principally considered.
Mr. Jusvicr BaiLEy—There are two questious—First, whe-
13k
ther there was actualterror in any considerable portion of the inhas
bitants ? Secondly, whether there were any accompanying circumstances
in the meeting so as to excite reasonable grounds for apprehension
of the consequences. These two points I shall submit to the
Jury.
yejustin resumed—They were all women; no man came to
put them in order. She went to look at the great man, and see what
was going on. She had nothing to do with theflags.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt—Icarried no sword. We had
good intention—that we had [a laugh].
Mr. R. Woop is a chemist and druggist, in Manchester, residing
near New Cross. He observed the Oldham and Saddleworthpeople
enter the town on the 16th vf August, and saw nothing particular
in their conduct; men, women, and children passed altogether quite
peaceable. He did not sliut up his shop until evening, when
the Magistrates ordered the doors to be closed. He saw no cause
whatever for alarm; the people had no appearance of an invading
army.. Some few had common walking sticks; he saw no large
staves whatever. He went to St. Peter’s-field about 12 o’clock, and
certainly heard no alarm expressed by any inhabitant.
Mr. Serjeant Cross—Ten thousand may have no fear, and
yet twenty thousand others may.
Mr. Hunr—yYes, but if ten thousand have nofear, it is clear
they were free from the apprehension.
Witness (Mr Wood) with Dr. Earnshaw, of the Society of
Friends, attempted to pass up to a windowof a house to overlook the
area, but they were prevented by constables. They, however, at
length got to the window, and had a complete view of the hustings,
and the line between it and Mr. Buxton’s house. He saw manydivisions
of the people come upthe field. Some played Godsave the
King, and Rule Britannia, and those near the music took off their
hats, he supposed, on account of the tunes. He saw noinsult whatever
offered by the people. He saw Mr. Hunt arrive on the ground
amidst loud cheering. (He then described Mr. Hunt’s speech,
as before described by other witnesses.) While the speech was going
on there seemed to be someslight disturbance towards Deansgate ;—
and he heard Mr. Hunt say, he had no doubt people would be
gent among them to create a disturbance; that if any such appeared,
‘they should put them down and keep them down.—Wherethedisturbance
was, the place was exactly opposite Dickenson-street. It
was some time before the soldiers came, that Mr. Hunt desired the
meeting to keep down their enemies. The observation could not
possibly have been meantfor the soldiers, who were not at the time
on the spot. He saw the yeomanry advance at a quick pace round
Brown’s cottage and form ina line opposite Mr. Buxton’s house. He
afterwards saw them during their progress to the hustings, and did
not see the Jeast resistance opposed to them by the people. I saw no
brick-bats, sticks, or stones, flung at them as they advanced; if such
had been thrown he must have seen them. The place where the
yeomanry charged was opposite his window; he saw no sticks held
up against them ; some constables held up their staves. The cavalry
were within 20 yards of where he stood, and he did not hear them
say what they wanted at the hustings. ‘The staves appeared to he
ae

132
held up by the constables to protect themselves from the swords of
the cavalry.
Mr. Justice Bartey— That must not be asked.
He was in the window with Dr. Earnshaw and Mr. Bancroft,
(two of the Society of Friends), They were family men, and-expressed
no apprehensionfor the safety of their families. He saw no
resistance offered to the cavalry, except from the density of the
crowd; the people could not get out of the way. ;
Mr. Hunt—Howdid they get up to the hustings, if the crowd
could not get awayP
Mr. Justice BarLEy—Do notask that.
Witness said a passage was.kept up nearly to the hustings,
by the constables; he saw Mr. Nadin and others pass it. Ifa person
from his window said that a constable wantedto get up, it must have
been heard. Mr. Nadin was frequently within hearing of Mr Hunt;
he (Nadin) was never disturbed whilst walking up and down through
a cordonof constables. Hedid not see a cordon of people around
the hustings. From what witness saw, Mr. Nadin, he thought,
might have passed upto the hustings ; as he (witness) could certainly
have got there. The people stood about the hustings in the ordinaryway;
he was in a second floor, and muchnearer the hustings than
Mr Buxton’shouse; about 85 yards nearer, Lf bludgeons were thrown,
he must have seen them; he saw no appearance “of disciplined
troops in the crowd, ready to fight for Hunt if occasion offered’
(the words ofa witness for the prosecution). He did not hear Mr.
Hunt say, they (the soldiers) were very few, and the meeting a host
against them. He merely heard him propose to give them three
cheers. Whenthe soldiers came, many at the skirts. of the crowd
we to runaway. The cheersrestored peace, and the people came
ack.
Mr Jonn Rock.iFFE lived near Lees, and was a master cottonspinner.
Was at Manchester on the 16th of August, and saw business
going on there as usual, without any symptomsof alarm, or any
shops shut. Mr. Peel’s works were going on, and the people were
looking out for the procession, rather with the appearance ofcheerfulness
than of alarm. Wituess was afterwards at the meeting, which
he described as being of the most peaceable description. In the
streets he saw many respectable Ladies like those.in Court, walking
in the streets, free from alarm and insult, Indeed, as he passed along
High-street, he felt astonished at the indifference of the people. The
first time he saw the yeomanry, they were drawnin line before Mr.
Buxton’s house, brandishing their swords. Witness was froma
dozen to twenty yards before the hustings; saw the yeomanry approach;
they went quite close to him. The crowd made no opposition
whatever to them, or he thought he must have seen them. Nothing
at all was thrown at them, or he must have'seen the missiles,
for he saw the whole space made bythe cavalry to the hustings, and
saw them coming. He watched them the way they went; he did
not look whether the crowd closed in behind them. Whenthe cavalry
came through, every body strove to makethe best of his way off.
Mary Jones was the wife of a fustian cutter, residing in Windmill-street,
near St, Peter’s field, She was at home on the 16th of
133
August Jast and would never forget that day. ier house was
about forty yards distant from the hustings: She then described the
arrival of the different parties of the crowd, and also of the yeomanry
cavalry. She saw noperson whatever insulted by, or alarmed at the
erowd. She saw the whole of the approach of the cavalry to the
hustings, and no opposition was made to them by any of the crowd:
if it had heen made in any manner, she must have seen it. ‘The
people fled when the yeomanry cameupto the hustings; a great many
could not get away; many near her door were so pressed as to throw
down anironrailing, and a woman wasthere killed.
Mr Joun Legslived at Crompton; was a master manufacturer,
and wentto see the meeting, He saw the crowdsadvancingto Manchester—
they consisted of men, women, and children. A few had
walking-sticks, but no other weapons.—Hethen described that he
saw the people afterwards on the field, from the front window of the
Windmill public-house, almost immediately at the back of the hustings.
The meeting was mostpeaceable ; they fled when the yeomanry
came, and made not the smallest resistance, or he musthave
seen it. He saw Nadin on the day, walking up and downin theline of
‘the hustings. Heard nobodycall out and make way to have a war~
rant executed. He did not bear the smallest notice given to the
people of the approachofthe cavalry, nor of any warrant being about
.to be served.. :
Mr. ScaRLeEtT observed, that many of Mr. Hunt’s questions
to-day were founded ona misapprehension of Mr. Hulton’s testimony.
;
Mr. Hunr denied this, and said he wanted to shew that neither
Mr. Nadin nor any other person had attempted to execute a
‘warrant: if they had, there would have been no resistance. He was
under no misapprehension respecting Mr. Hulton’s evidence. ooae
gentleman had represented Mr. Nadin’s telling him he could not
execute the warrant without military aid, and he (Mr. Hunt) wished
to shew that there was no foundation for the necessity of such asnce.
hae Mr. Justice BarLey—I mustultimately tell the Jury that there
is no evidence from Mr. Nadin to justify the employment of the
yeomanry to support the civil power in the execution of a warrant,
Mr. J. FELL, grocer in Manchester. I saw the people come up
to the field on the 16th of August, they were as peaceable as this
Court. Some had a few commonwalking sticks, but no staves. He
corroborated in all its parts the evidence already given of the quiet
demeanour of the meeting from beginning to end. He saw many
Magistrates in the first floor of Mr, Buxton’s house,YSeae
advanced, among themwere Mr. Hay, Mr. Fletcher, an ae right,
and he saw them in York since this trial commenced. ; E an a
tall gentleman call fromthe window for the Boroughreeve, an care
after he saw Mr. Nadin called. The latter went to the range ¥a
stables. ‘The yeomanry came up, just as they were sooere wv he
populace, and returned that cheer; witness heard the coe eo 5
given from the window, or the officer at their head, he cou ps say
which. They then advanced sword in hand, though not theslightest
opposition was offered to them, and the people were making away as
R

eeeeas
Sa
134
fast as they could, The crowd did not close in uponthe eavalry as
they advanced, nor brandished sticks, nor hoot, nor any thing of the
kind. He had no apprehensions of the town when he heard ofthe
meeting and saw it, The yeomanry could not have been closed in
upon, for they were supported by the regular cavalry, then by the
Cheshire, and last by two pieces offlying artillery. ,
Mary BrianT, ewamined.—Resided at Manchester, in Ladlane,
and was at the meeting of the 16th of August; she remained
on the field uutil Mr. Hunt was taken from the hustings. She
stood upona rising ground, near the Windmill public house. She
saw all the processions come upon the field with flags and music;
and felt no alarm, at all for the safety of herself or of the town. She
also saw the cavalry come upon the ground, and adyance towards
the hustings. The special constables fell back to admit them in
I heard the people cheer the soldiers, but I did not hear the soldiers
return it. I did not hear the people hiss or groan at the soldiers
I saw nobricks or stones thrown, orsticks held up at the solvers,
Some-few old people had walking sticks. I did not see any one offend
the soldiers in any way; Isaw the people running away from the
soldiers.
This witness was not cross-examined.
JosEPH WATSON examined by Mr. HuntT—I reside at Oldham.
T overtook and passed the Oldham party as they were going to Manchester
ou the 16th of August... They were going along quietly. I
saw no acts of violence. 1 saw a few walking sticks ; there were not
many who had them. Noneof them had long staves shouldered like
muskets. JI observed Dr. Healey amongst them. I walked with him.
He and two others walked little before the rest. 1 walked near
two miles with hin. The whole party seemed in the best humour,
The party halted near New Cross for a time. They made room on
the road for horses and gigs, as they passed on the road. They
were walking in procession, by which means they were better enabled
to make roomfor passengers than if they had been walking indiscriminately.
There were many females with the party, They did not
Jook like an army going to invade a town. The procession marched
in the same order as the Benefit and other Societies do. I did not
go to the meeting until the dispersion had commenced. I was not
under any apprehension for the safety of the town, nor did I conceive
there was any danger.
Cross-ewamined by Mr. Serjeant HutLocx—I did not intend
to speak at the meeting. T never pretended to be a maker ofspeeches.
Properly speaking, I never addressed the people. I might have
read something to them, but I never made an extempore speech. t
perhaps read a string of resolutions, suppose I was called the
Chairman on that occasion. It was near Rochdale, on the 16th of
August, 1818. It was the first and last time I was placed in
such a situation. There were near one thousand persons present. I
do not recollect many dissentient voices to the resolutions.
Mr. Justice Bartey objected to this mode of examination.
They had a right to ask witness as to every act ofhis life connected
with the proceedings before the Court, but no other.
¢ Examination continued—I know Mr. Knight. I was ata meetingg
where he¢ was present. It wasin the i latter yend of July, between
135
the 20th and 28th; I think it was the 26th. Mr. Knight was not the
Chairman of the meeting. I heard him speak abit. I do not recollect
his having: made any allusion to the meeting of the 16th of Aug.
After passing the meeting I came up and walked with Dr. Healey.
He seemedinspirits; he did not tell me what the Resolutions were;
I don’t think he knew himself. I heard him advise the people to
be orderly, and notto offer any insult. That advice arose out of
anothercircumstance ; it was understood that the party was going
to Manchester. I will swear, that, to the best of my knowledge, he
did not tell me about the business of the meeting.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOcK—Do you mean to swearthat he did not
tell you what the business was to be.
Wirwess—Did you mean toask me, Sir, whether he told me
what the object of the meeting was?
Mr.Serjeant HuLLockK—Thatis exactly what I was endeavouring
to ask you.
Witness—I swearto the best of my knowledge, he did not ;
we talked about the weather, and various other things.
The Court adjourned at a quarter past six.
Friday, March 24.
At nine o’clock this morning Mr. Justice BAILEY took his seat
on the Bench. The several Defendants having taken their places at
the table, Mr. Hunt proceededtocall the following witnesses :—
Mr. Rosert Wricut,examined byMr. Hunt.—Ilive at Hol- *
lingwood, within five miles of Manchester. I ama hat-manufac-
‘tnorer. Iwas at Manchester on the 16th of August. I saw the
Oldham, Royton, and Saddleworth parties pass on ‘the Oldham road
that day. They walked in asort of order, and were
erfectly peace- .
able. ‘There were many women and children with them. I do not
recollect having seen any sticks or bludgeons with them. They did
not insult any one. The Mosley, Lees, 24d Saddleworth party had
a black flag. Irode to Manchester on that day. I have no connexion
whatever with those persous called Reformers. I live near
Mr. Duncuff, and have property in the neighbourhood, I saw nothing
on that day which created any alarm in my mindfor the safety
of the town. When I gotto St. Peter’s Field the Meeting was assembled.
It was nearoneo’clock. [ was there halfan hourbefore
you arrived. I was then onfoot. I took my station near the line
of constables, in the line between the hustings and Mr, Buxton’s
house. The people appearedperfectly peaceable. I did not see any
persons with long staves shouldered like muskets.
By the Junce.—tcould see the whole crowd, as I stood upon
an eminence. If any persons had long steves, I must have seen
them, but I did not see one.
By Me. Hunt.—Isaw the military come upon the ground. I
saw them advance towardsthe crowd. i
By the Junge.—The crowd were cheering when they came
upon the ground, near Mr. Buxton’s house. The military gave
three cheers in return. 1 did not hear any groaning, hooting, or
hissing when they appeared. I saw nothing done by the crowd
which appeared like resistance to the military as they advanced.
When Mr. Hunt was speaking I was forty yards from the hustings.
ree -

- Sey
: 136
When the military advanced 1 heard nothing said to encourage res
sistance. I saw nothing thrown at them. I saw nosticks held uy
in oppasition to orin defiance of them. ;
By Mr. Hunt.—Upto the time when the military arrived I
saw nothing which created in my mind any alarm forthe safety of my
person or property. Thefirst soldiers that came were the infantry;
they placed themselves in Dickinson-street. There was nothing
said or done to encourage opposition to them. There was
somelittle alarm on the outskirts of the Meeting on their appearance.
I heard a cry of “be firm,” and I thought it was to allay
the fears of the people, and to prevent accidents from their running
away. When the yeomaury cameinto thefield the people looked
confused. When the’ soldiers drew their swords and cheered I
began to feel alarmed. The cheering from- the multitude created
no alarm in my mind. I never heard you say, pointing to the infantry,
“There are your enemies; if they attempt to molest you, put
them down, and having put them down, keep them down.” I was
in a situation which I think would have enabled me to hear those
words, had you used them. ‘The cavalry in their advance passed
within a yard of me. I kept myeyes fixed upon them as they proceeded
to the hustings. There were not any large stones, brickbats,
or sticks hurled in the air as they advanced. The people did
not close in on the cavalry as they passed; they endeavoured to get
out of the way and make their escape. I heard no expression ofalarm
at the meeting before the military came. There was no request
made in my hearing to make room for a constable to get to the
hustings with a warrant when the military advanced.
By the Supaz.—Idid not hearit notified from any quarterfor
what purpose the military were going to the hustings. I stood
near the line of special constables while I remained on the ground.
Cross-emamined by Mr. ScarLeTr.—Whenthe yeomanry advanced
I thought they were going to take somebody from the hustings.
Isaw the constables near them. When the infantry arrived
I retreated twenty or thirty yards down t
near to Mr. Buxton’s house. When faced the hustings the constables
were on myleft. The crowd between me and the hustings
was very thick, both before and after I moved. I got at first as near
to the hustings as I could. I was at the meeting at which Mr. Hunt
resided before the 16th. This is the only meeting of the kind which
eveended. - was not et the meeting of the blanketeers. I
was informed of the meetin an advertise i i
The Manchester Ossie rib not take tin. enueais
Mr. ScarLerr.—Whotakesit in, in your neighbourhood ?
Mr. Justice Battey.—You cannot ask that question,
Mr. Scarverr was about to speak, when—*
Mr. Hunt said, My Lord, I object to the question.
Mr. Scarterr.—I beg the Defendant not to interrupt me.
Mr. Justice Bartey.—You have a right to ask whetherit was
taken in by any of the Defendants, ‘or by any other persons connected
with these proceedings. E :
Mr. Scar.err.—lIintend to shew that this paper was taken in
by one of the parties attending the Meeting. The parties are
he line of constables, and ©
137
charged with conspiring with several others to excite discontent and
disaffection, and I have a right to shew the motives which induced
their attendance at that Meeting, in orderto prove the characterof
the Meetingitself.
Mr. Justice Bartey.—I am of opinion that you cannotinquire
by whom the paper was takenin, unless it be by some of the Defendants;
it mattered not to the Defendants in whose house it was
read, provided they had not heard nor were parties to the reading
of it.
Examination continued.—I heard it read from the paperof the
Saturday before the Meeting, I think. I recollect having seen many
signatures to the advertisement. I know that Major Cartwright,
Dr. Crompton, Mr. Carlile, and others, were invited. I expected
that some of the-gentlemen would speak. I had heard of Mr. Carlile,
but did not know him. 1 donotrecollect baying heard that Mr.
Carlile was then under an indictmentfor blasphemy, or that he was
about to be prosecuted. Ido notsee The Manchester Observerregularly.
I do not recollect having heard of a Smithfield Meeting at
which Mr. Hunt presided. Lf I saw the paper I do not think I should
recollect it. I was atthe Manchester Meeting in January, but 1 was
not at the dinner. I had heard that there was tobea meeting on the
9th of August, but that it was put off. I know the defendant, Johnson.
I do not recollecthearing from him that it was put off. I have
known him twelve months. He keeps a shop at Shude-hill, and 1
sometimes call there to hear the news, when I go to market. I
have not often read a newspaper in his shop. 1 may have sometimes
seen a paper there, but not often. If Isawa paper there, it was The
Manchester Observer. 1 swear that I cannot recollect having heard
him read that paperin his shop. I may have been a dozen timesin his
shop since [have known him. Sometimes I stoppedfive minutes, and
sometimes half an hour there. I cannot recollect whether, our conversation
generally turned onpolitics, or on the news generally. I
cannot recollect having had a conversation with him about Cobbett’s
arrival. I heard he was arrived in Liverpool. I think Johnson
asked me if I would attend the Meeting of the 16th. I believe he
said Mr. Hunt would be there. I cannotrecollect his saying that
Mr. Carlile would be there. I have seen it mentioned in the papers,
that Mr. Carlile had opened a shop in Fleet-street, London, called
the “Temple of Reason, and the office of the Republican,” for the
sale of Tom Paine’s Theological Works. I never read those works.
I have no knowledge of the Resolutions passed at Smithfield. I
think I recollect Johnson’s having told me, that the meeting of
the 9th was put off. I cannot say that I intended to be present at
that meeting. [ have heard it reported there was drilling in my
neighbourhood, but J never saw it. I heard it about a fortnight or
a month before the 16th.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt.—I have not been on intimate terms
with Mr. Johnson. He never was at my house, nor have I ever been
at Smedley Cottage. His shopis in one ofthe public streets in Manchester.
I oecasionally went there to hear the news. I never saw
the Age of Reason, or any other of Paine’s Theological Works
there. Those works are not sold in his shop to my knowledge. I

eee
138
do “not know that he sells any. of the works sold by Carlife,
Mr. Johnson is a brush-maker. I cannot recollect that I have
seen in his shop any of the works sold by Carlile. I have sometimes
read a sentence or two of a newspaper there. The meeting of
the 9th August was a current report; it was also currently reported
that the meeting was put off, and that there was to be a
meeting on the 16th. From the report that I had heard, I should
have attended the meeting, whether I had seen Mr. Johnsonor not. [
cannot recollect that Mr. Johnson either invited me to the meeting, or
told me any of the proceedings to take place there.
By the Jupcr.—If I had any reason to expect any riotous or
tumultuous proceedings I would not have attended the Meeting.
By Mr. Jonnson (through the Judge.)—I cannot recollect
how I became acquainted with Mr. Johnson. I know Mr. Gee; he
once took me to Mr. Johnson’s shop; I think that wasthe first time
I was there.
By the Jupce.—I never heard from Mr. Johnson that there
wasdrilling going on before this Meeting. I cannot recollect ever
having heard in Mr. Johnson’s presence that drilling was going on.
I have heard that the drilling was confined to marching. I have no
reason to suppose that it went beyond marching. I never heard
Mr. Johnson makeuse of any seditious language.
Sipney WALKER, examined by Mr. Hunt.—I ama Lieutenant
in the Bengal Native Infantry; 1 have been nearly two years
from India; I was at Manchester on the {6th of August last; my
family, consisting of my mother, sister and brother, reside there.
I saw the processions which advanced into the town onthe 16th.
They were perfectly peaceable. I attended the meeting; I saw the
processions pass through Deansgate, at the bottom of St. Peter’sstreet.
I saw nothing calculated to excite fear in the minds of the
respectable people of Manchester. Idid not hear my mother,or sis~
ter, or any body else express any fears for the safety of the town.
I saw the cavalry on the field, but did not see them arrive. I was
aboutforty yards on the Deansgateside of the hustings. Mr. Buxton’s
house is on the opposite side. I did not see any acts of violence
committed by the people in the course of the day. I saw one
or two instances with people going to fight with each other, but
they were prevented by those surrounding them. The people said
they would not have a riot created. I heard no threats of violence
or any thing of the kind.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant HuLtLock.—Myleave of absence
is up, and 1 do not receive pay. I have an idea ofretiring
from the serviee. Ihave entered as a student in the Middle Temple.
I occasionally reside at Manchester. I arrived there twa
days hefore the Meeting. I had slept about two miles off the town
on the night before the Meeting. My motherlives about 500 yards
from St. Peter’s Field. I do not belong to any political society. I
think I knew that Mr. Hunt was to attend the Meeting. I do not
know that Dr. Crompton, Mr. Pearson, or Mr. Carlile, were invited,
I think [ knew .that Mr. Carlile was under an indictment forblasphemyatthe
time.
Mr. Hont.—I beg to ask, my Lord, if this be evidence?
/
139
Mr. Serjeant HuLLock.—Mr. Carlile’s name is on the placard
. galling the Meeting.
Mr. Justice Ba1LEy.—It is proved that Mr. Carlile attended
the Meeting. ;
Mr. Hunt.—I hope, my Lord, that, thoughthat is proved,
I am not to be implicated in every action of Mr. Carlile’s life.
Mr. Justice BAILEY.—They have a right to shew that one of
the parties attending the Meeting was under an indictmentfor blasphemy
and sedition, if they can. If you object to it, I shall take
a note of your objection. ; el
Mr. Hunt.—I do, my Lord, object to it. I consider it a very
illiberal proceeding.
“Mr, Justice BarLey.—The Counsel for the prosecution have a
right to put their case in the strongest point of view.
Examination resumed.—I know Mr. Carlile’s shop. I am not
certain whether I knew that Mr. Carlile was under an indictment
before L arrived. I know Mr. Wooler. His shopis in Fleet-street.
I believe it is pretty notorious that Mr. Carlile’s shopis called the
Temple of Reason. The office for the Republican and Deist is
painted over the door. I have seen Mr. Hunt at a meeting at the
Crown and Anchor Tavern. It was onthe death ofSir S. Romily.
Sir F. Burdett was in the chair. This was thefirst time I saw Mr.
Hunt.
Me. Hont.—My Lord, it matters not whether or not T was
at a public meeting with Mr. Carlile, Every mau is presumed innocent
until proved guilty. aia ;
Mr. ote was under an indictment at the time of
‘his attending the meeting. :
Mr. Justice BatLEy.—This is not evidence against the Defendants;
it is not proved that they knew he kepta shop of the kind
‘described. :
I was not at Mr. Carlile’s trial. I never was at a public meeting
before the 16th. I saw the processions march through the
town. I cannot say how many persons were on the field. : The
people were jammed very close together. I heard Mr. Hunt’s address.
I was ata distance from Mr. Hunt’s carriage when hearrived,
and couldnot tell who were in it.
Re-examined by Ma. Hunt.—The people were not drawn up
in military order on the ground, Had the whole meeting been in
line, probably I might have formed someidea of their numbers, I
never heard that Mr. Carlile had been convicted of any crime before
last August. I know that Mr, Wooler was tried before August
last; but I have not heard that he was convicted. I never saw
you in company with either Mr. Carlile or Mr. Wooler, I
thought the people in the field were in a very unmilitary order.
I saw none withlarge sticks, or with staves shouldered as soldiers
It did not strike me that the people round the
carry muskets.
te looked like disciplined troops,‘ready to protect you or fight
u, as occasion required.
_ SEY the FEeens did not appear readyto fight, for they
had no arms. It did not strike me, as a military man, that the
parties 1 saw must have been drilled, in order to enable themto
‘walk as they did. I could tell by the ear if a hody of troops were
a eee
ie
SittinSome SET
yee
ate

LADLOT
aaPee
140
14]
marching, from their uniformity of step. It did not strike my ear
that the parties I saw were marching in military order. 1 think the
Tows were some paces from each other. To the best of my belief
they did not lock up as soldiers do in marching. ‘The people stood
so close where I was on the field as not to he in a conditionfor of.
oe operations.
R. WM. THELWALL, examined by Mr. Hunt.—I am a bui
and reside at Manchester. I was thereat the 16th of August see
I live in Lloyd-street, about 200 yards from the place where the
Meeting was held. I have a wife and family. I saw some of the
processions on the 16th August. ‘hey came peaceably, in the
same manner as people walk at club feasts. I was about my own
business on that day. I felt no alarm from whatI saw, for the
safety of the town or my family. I have considerable property in
Lloyd-street. I have several houses there. I saw nothing whichinduced
me to suppose that my property was in danger. I heard no
expressions of alarm for the safety of the town from my neighboursor
any one else. I saw no one who appeared panic-struck or frightened.
Some few of the people I saw had walking-sticks, as if
they came from the country ; there were not many sticks. They
were accompanied by many young women and children. I saw no
closing of shops or locking of doors before one o’clock. I went to
the outer part of the Meeting about half-past twelve. I was never .
in the crowd. I saw greatnumbersof my neighbours there. There
were many of the respectable inhabitants on the ground, but none
of them expressed any alarm before the soldiers came. I do not
recollect having seen a black flag. Idid not see any people with
long staves on their shoulders. I saw one maw with a thick stick in
his hand, but it was a short one. I stood at thé opposite angle
from Mr. Buxton’s house, I stood upon some timber, and was sufficiently
elevated: to command a view of the meeting. I saw the
cavalry arrive, and form in the front of Mr. Buxton’s house I saw
them move towards the hustings. ;
By the Sudge—Fromthe time they arrived until they got to
the hustings. I saw no attempt to oppose them. I heard no groaning,
hooting, or hissing at them. I did not see any stones, brick bats, or
aticks, either thrown at them, or thrown up in theair as they adyanced.
I saw nosticks held up at them. Iwas at a considerable distance,
but I was in such a situation that I should have seen any
thing of the kindif it had oceurred.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Cross—I was stationed near
Bootle-street. I know Mr. Johnson. I did not know him until three
days before the 16th of August. I had seen Mr. Huntatthe previous
meeting. I took no part in the proceedings on that occasion. I
‘was not at any other meeting on that day. I heard no expressions
of alarm on the 16th. I heard that additional special constables had
been sworn in, and that additional military force had been brought
into the neighbourhood. I heard that there was to be a meeting of the
Justices on the Saturday or Sunday before the 16th. I considered
these precautionary measures. I am sure I heard no expressions of
alarm for the safety of the town from the people assembling, I
knew there was to have been a meeting on the 9th. I heard that
there had been a Member of parliament elected for Birmingham.
I did not know that the meeting of the 9th was for a similar purpose.
[ Here the placard was handed to the witness] 1 saw copies of that
placared in thestreets.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt—I haveseen a correct, copy of the
placard either before or after the mecting. I cannot swear which.
Mr. Roperr Grunpy was the next witness. He begged to ask
his Lordship, whether he had nota right to have his expences paid
before he gave his evidence ?
Mr. Justice BaiLey—lfear I have not the power to order you
your expences; it is not usual in cases of a criminal nature. Does
any Gentlemanofthe bar recollect an instance where it is done?
Mr. ScarLeTtT—My Lord, itis not done in criminal cases.
Mr. Hunr—MyLord, I am perfectly ready to pay my proportion
of witnesses expences.
Witrness—MyLord I have come here a very unwilling witness,
but I bow to your Lordship’s opinion.
Mr. Hunt—My Lord, we have a great number of witnessesin
town, and at a very great expence.
Witness was then sworn, and examined by Mr. Hunt—lama
manufacturer in the woollen trade. Iresideat Salford. I attended
the meeting on the 16th of August. I saw very few of the processions
going to it. I went to the field about half pasteleven. I was
acting as a special constable. I remained on thefield in that capacity
until between half past one and two. I refused to make any
depositions of what [had seen. I remained until you came upon
the ground, and sometime afterwards. Isaw some of fhe processions
march up. I was not exactly in the line of special constables.
I was near them. I was in the line sometimes. I was fifteen or
twenty yards from the hustings. After the cavalry had madetheir
appearance, I went to Mr. Buxton’s house. The meeting was then
partially dispersed. The parties came onthefield in sections. They
were four or five a-breast, and had music and colours. This made no
particular impression on my mind at the moment. They did net come
in a way to create terror and alarm; they came as peaceably as
such large bodies of people could come. I saw no clubsor offensive
weapons, nor did I see any staves shouldered as muskets, nor any
thing of the kind; some had sticks, I believe. [did not notice
them particularly, but I think they were light walking sticks, such
as are generally brought by persons from the country. I have seen
such at Manchester Races.—I did no see them offer any insult, or
violence to any one. I was not at that side where the people came
in. I was surrounded by a very close body of people. The-people
might not know that I was a special constable, as I did not shew my
staff. I believe some of the other constables did. I saw the cavalry
arrive on the field. 1
By the Jupce—I did not perceive any opposition offered to
them before they. got. to the hustings. I saw nothing done tointimidate
them. I heard no hooting,hissing, or groaning, nor any thing
else, except the cheers given when they came upon the ground. I
did not see any stones,sticks, or brickbats, either thrown: at them,
or thrown up inthe air as they advanced. _, I did not keep my eye
uponthe cavalry as they advanced. I tried to get to the right of
them.
ee
ib fF
i ‘
5
}
canafs
- ae

142
143
By Mr. HunT—I was notat all fearful either for the safety of
the townor of my-person, until I saw the cavalry come upon the
ground, I was given to understand that it was not the intention of
the Magistrates to interfere either directly or indirectly with the
meeting, and therefore it was that I felt no alarm as to the result,
I saw the yeomanry come up to the crowd. When they advanced
towards the hustings, I and those about me endeavoured to get
away. No resistance was offered to them. I felt alarmed when 1
saw the military come onthe ground.
Cross-ewamined by Mr. Scaruetr.—I lave been a special
constable for Salford two years. The special constables are persons
of respectability. I had often heard ofdrilling in the neighbourhood
“before the meeting, but Iam not aware that an alarm wascreated
in consequence. I heard none of my acquaintance express anyfears.
The parties marched to the ground. They were several a-breast,
and marchedas a file of soldiers would march. I did not perceive
any conductors or any who had marksofdistinction, such as bits of
laurel in their hats. They appeared to marchlike persons who had
been drilled. J was not sufficiently near the parties to feel confirmed
that, from their appearance, they had been drilled. “I certainly
thought they would not have walked in that way without instractions.
-The impression on my mind was, that they must have re-
‘ceived someinstruction ; but as to drilling, 1 know nothing about
it. J cannot tell how many persons were onthe field. I never saw
such a meeting before. The hustings were surrounded, but not exclusively,
by those who marched to the ground.
: Mr. ScarkLert—Supposing that at that meeting speeches had
been made of aninflammatory nature, by various speakers, and in
ridicule of the local authorities and Magistracy, for the purpose of
bringing them into contempt, what would have been the effect produced
respecting the safety of the town.
Mr. Hunr—I object to the question, I submit it cannot be
evidence.
Mr. Justice BarLey—The Counsel for the prosecution have a
right to ask what he would think of any speech they may imagine
to have been made.
Mr. ScarR.ertrepeated his question ; supposing such a speech
made, would you have conceived that the safety of the town was in
danger?
Witness—lI'should conceive that such speeches are always im
proper, but I never heard any such, and I am therefore incapable of
saying what impression they would make.
Mr. ScarteTT—’ll suppose a case. If the following speech
had been made at the meeting, what effect would it, in your judgment,
have made‘on the inhabitants?
Mr. Scarterrhere read the following speech from The Manchester
Observer :—«Thefarce of Petitioning is over. A million
and a half of men have petitioned for Reform. The greater part of
the petitions have been rejected, and none have been attended tOre
and should the people ever again stoop to any thing in the shape of
petition, they would deserve what they now suffer for their dastardly
conduct. But weare confident that the spirit of the country
will never again condescendto pray to those whomthe people them-
selves ought to delegate. The most determined men in the country
are in the ranks of the Reformers. Where will the clans of corruptionfind
writers of equal talent with our Cobbett and our Cartwright?
or men of greater disinterestednees, magnanimity, and
perseverance, than our Hunt and our Wolseley? Who have the
Boroughmongers made tame and submissive by chains and dungeons!
—No one. ‘This honestly displays the powerful pens of Reforming
writers. Behind youis starvation with grim visage and haggard
form, breathing around him pestilence anddeath. Before you
are the battalions of corruption. Powerful Noblemen spread all over
the land; placemen andpensioners are Members of an Honourable
House ; hordes of black cattle, commonly called Bishops, Rectors,
Vicars, or Curates ; fundholders,; who receive nearly £40,000,000
every year; bigots and fools in abundance, and an army fed and
pampered to give you the bullet when you cry for bread.’
b
Witness.—I should have considered such a speech very im-,
proper, but I am not competent to say whether it would produce
danger to the town. I am not a politician. The people I saw
were, generally speaking, of the labouring classes. There had been
many complaints of distress amongthatclass of personsin the neighbourhood.
I think many of the working class were muchdiscontented.
I-think a speech of that kind, delivered to the lower class,
would tend to irritate them very much. I did not see the resolutions
of the Smithfield Meeting, at which Mr. Huntpresided, before
the 16th, : ;
Mr. Scarnert.—Suppose the following resolution were put,
and carried at the Manchester Meeting, what effect would it have
produced on the minds of the people ?—[Here Mr.Scarlett read one
of the resolutions passed at the Smithfield Meeting, as follows:]
s* Resolved, that, from andafterthe first day of January, 1820,
we cannot conscientiously consider ourselves as bound in equityby
any future enactments which may be made by any persons styling
themselves our Representatives, other than those who shall befully,
freely, and fairly chosen by the voices or votesof the largest proportion
of the membersof the state.” i ; 7 ;
Wirness.—I am not sufficiently acquainted with the dispotion
of the lower classes to answer that question, I think a good deal
would depend on the feeling they entertained under their sufferings.
I was not aware of what was to be done at the meeting, or that seditious
publications had been circulated previously to its being held.
Assuming that fact, I should think it would depend on the feelings
of the people. I never saw such a meeting before.
Mr. Scaruerr.—aAmI to understand you to say, that the numbers
in which the people apache were not suchas to excite alarm
inds of the inhabitants ¢
a eetteatee larger the assembly of people, of course fe
greater the danger; but upon this oceasion the people Popeetit
themselves so peaceably, that no danger was to be sonechands :
never said that such a meeting ought to be dispersed, or ought not
to have been allowed to assemble. <
"Mr. Scarterr.—Do you know Carlile?
Witness.—I assure you, Sir, Ido not. ;
Mr. Scarrerr—I mean, do you knowhim by sight?

e
144
Wirness.—I do not know him even by sight.
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt.—I heard that there was a publie
meeting held in London. Tdo not know that you were Chairman.
Mr. Hunt.—Supposing the resolution read to you by the
Learned Counsel to have been passed at a Smithfield Meeting without
having produced anyill effect on the minds of the people, have
you any reason to suppose that it could not have been put to the
Manchester meeting without producing anyill effect on the minds of
the inhabitants or people ?
Wirvess.—I have no reason to suppose that the resolution
would have produced a worse effect in Manchester than in London
except from the circumstances of the lower classes in the former
place thinking themselves more interested on the subject than the
lower classes in London. So far as precedent went, I think it
ek not have produced a worse effect in the one place than in the
other.
Mr, Scarnerr.—Mr. Hunt, my Jord, assumes, that the resolution
produced had noeffect in London.
Mr. Honr(to the witness)—Doyou think that resolution produced
an impression that London wasto be destroyed ?
Mr, Justice Barnzy.—I cannottake that.
Wrrness.—I suppose the people in the country feel differently
irom those in London on such subjects, because we are a manufacturing
district, and there is more suffering among the working classes.
Mr. Hunr.—Supposing you knew the speech read to you by
the Learned Counsel to have been read at a large Public Meeting at
Wigan, and yet that meeting had gone off quietly, have you any
reason to suppose that it would have produced a different effect
in Manchester ?
Witness.—No, Wigan is manufacturing district as well as
Manchester,
Mr. Hunt.—Supposing that you had heard a manofsense, as
well as of great talant and high legal authority, make the following
speech, what in your judgement would bethe effect produced by it
on the minds of the people? Mr. Hunt was about to read from a
volume of the Parliamentary Reports of that Session, a part of Mr.
Scarlett’s speech on the Manchesteraffair, but—
Mr. Serjeant Cross objected to his doing so.
Mr. Hunt.—You need not be afraid, Mr. Cross, that any extracts
will be read from your speechesin Parliament.
Mr. Justice Bartey.—Idesire, Mr. Hunt, you will make no
personalallusions. He has a right to take an objection to your reading
if he pleases.
Mr. Hunr proceeded. Suppose you had heard a gentleman
speaking of the meeting at Manchester, say, ‘‘the Meeting of the
9th. having been declared illegal was abandoned. The Meeting of
the 16th was held, and what followed? Hunt and his associates
yore arrested, and the poeple were cut down and trampled on by
Deeoe cavalry.” Supposing (said Mr. Hunt) you had heard
this said at the meeting, what, in your judgment, would be the
effect it would produce on the multitude ?
- Mr. Scartert,—My Lord, I object to that question, Mr,
unt says it was made use of in Parliament, and——
145
Mr. HuNr.—MyLord, I have said no such thing; what Mr.
Scarlett states is a falsehood.
Mr, Justice Barnzy.—Mr. Hunt, unless you conduct yourself
with decency, I must act with! that firmness which mysituation requires.
I have made, and am still ready to make, every allowance
onboth sides, but while a Court of Justice remains a Court of Justice,
decency must be observed. Mr. Scarlett has a right to urge
his objections to your reading from that book ; and when heis done,
you shall be heard.
Mr. Hunr apologized for the expression; it had casually
escaped him.
Mr, Scarterr said, that when he read the speech from The
Manchester Observer, he had put it to the witness to state what
would beits probable effect on the meeting. The speech had been
made by one of the defendants at a meeting previous to the 16th of
August. But did this give Mr. Hunt a right to read over a speech
made in another place, and connected with that part of the case
which his Lordship did not ailow to be brought before the Court?
If Mr. Hunt thought proper to ask what would be the probable effect
of any speech made by him, exhorting a meeting to preserve peace
and good order, he might do so, but he could not be allowed to read
the speechin question.
Mr. Justice Barzzy.—I permitted you to ask the witness what
the probableeffect of the speech you have read would be, not because
it appeared in that paper, or because it was spoken by one of the
defendants, but because you had aright, as a lawyer, to suppose
any speech, and to ask, if such were delivered, what its effects
would be? :
Mr. Scaruurr said, the defendants were accused of conspiring
tu excite disaffection in the mindsof his Majesty's subjects, and if he
could shew that speeches to that effect, and spoken by one of them,
were in circulation before the meeting, he had aright to do so. But
this did not give Mr. Hunt aright to introduce speeches foreign to
the question,
Mr.Serjeant Cross said, it would be shewn, by and bye, that
the speech which had been read, had been spoken boney of the defendants.
Mr. Justice Barney (to Mr. Hunt.)—I must see whatit is you
are going to ask before [ allow you to put the question.
Mr, Hunr.—Will your Lordship allow me to answer the Learned
Counsel's objections ?
Mr. Justice Barney.—I caunot understand your argument
until I see what it is to be upon.
[Here the book was handed across the table. Mr. Scarlett
held it for a momentasif reading the speech.}
Mr. Hunt.—The Learned Counsel seems anxious to see whose
speech it is before he allowsit to be put,
Mr. Justice Barney.—Am I, or am I not to be respected, Mr.
Hunt ?
Mr. Hunt.—Yes, certainty, my Lord (bowing.)
Mr. Justice BarLey.—Do not bow and at the same time do
otherwise by youracts.
Mr. Hunr apologised to
his Lordship for the casual interrup-

146
tion of which he had been guilty. With respect to the Learned
Counsel's arguments, he had to observe that there was no proof of
the speech read by him having been uttered by anyof the defendants
The paper which contained it was only put in to prove the advertisement,
In the case of the King v Perry, it was held by the Court
that any paragraphin different part of a paper put in to prove a
libel, could notbe received as evidence, unlessit referred to or was
immediately connected with thelibelitself. Now the speech which
had been read from The Manchester Observer, had no referrence to
the proceedings before the Court or to the advertisement; it ap-
Mr. Hunr—I am sure I haye nopersonal feelings on the subject,
and after what has fallen from his Lordship (though I think the
question of importance to my case), I should do great injustice to
my feelings if I attemptedto pressit.
The examination was resumed.
I think it very possible that the people should have come to
Manchester on the 16th, from having seen the advertisement and
placards, without any previous concert and communication, but I
should suppose it was understood they should come in this way, I
have been at Manchester races. I saw nothing different in the
deportment of the people from that of the assemblies of clubs and
other meetings, excepting their marching. _I have lived 11 or 12 ie
years in Manchester. I have often seen Benefit Societies walk in Ne
procession. ‘They are frequently attended with bands of music and ie
flags. I have seen processions on the proclamation of peace, They \
i | Preah cdeiscnicittorried , < same have generally had flags and music, and walked a-breast, but I saw
ay ite discontent and disaffectionin the none so numerous as the present meeting. They walked in the i
Hf} ne| Ppublic mind. eshaIt wascell ae for Mr. Fetes to shew, that the meeting ‘ was same way, and sometimes
3
arm
3
in arm. 1 do not
:
conceive it necesso
peaceable and well disposed, that the most violent language could ‘ sary that there should have been a previous communication between Ni
not inflame them. But he would ask, could that be his object in :
ay | peared in another part of the paper, and therefore was not evidence.
For what the Court and the Jury knew, that speech might haye been
| the invention of the Learned Gentleman who read it. ‘Therefore he
had as good aright as the Learned Gentleman to ask the witness ag
to the probableeffect of any speech he thought properto read,
Mr, Scaruert said, it was his business to shew that the dereading
the speech? I (said Mr. Scarlett) have no hesitation in
openly avowing what I have said in another place ; butis it decent
to enter upon enquiry here, into that which cannot be made public
without a breach of the privilege of Parliament? No Jury or
Judge have a right to take notice of what is said in Parliament, nq
matter how it may come to their knowledge. If I publish any
speech madeby me in Parliament, and that speech containslibellous
or seditious matter, I may beindicted for it, but I submit that no
speech taken in that manner can be received as evidence. If what
was said in the House of Commons cannotbe recelyed as evidence,
neither can it be alluded to. 1 wish, at the sametimeto beclearly
understood that I have no objection personally to the speech being
read, as | shall never disavow the sentiments it. contains.
Mr. Justice Barney (after reading the speech which Mr, Hunt
wanted to put)—If the question was, whether Mr, Hunthad a right
to put into the mouth of the witness a particular speech as a matter
of evidence, and wished his opinion upon it, he could not be allowed
todoso, But he has a right to ask, what would be the impression
made if such and such had been said to the people? He has a right
to ask the witness, what would be the effect produced by what he
wishes to read from that book, but then he must make it his own,
and put it in hjsown terms. . It is of no consequence that I know,
or that another person knows that this speech was spoken in Parliament,
he has a right, provided he puts it in his own language, to
ask, supposing a speech of this kind to haye been made to the
meeting, was their conduct such as that even such words would
make no evil impression upon them. This is my opinion, and I am
very sorry forit; but, as a lawyer, 1 am boundtogive it as my
opinion of thelaw. The subjectis one of great delicacy, and I had
rather the question was not put.
_ Mr. Scaruztr—I certainly have no personal feelings on the
subject ; indeed, as far as 1 am concerned, | had rather have the,
sngceh read, but it was my duty to oppose it on the part of the
own.
147
the different parties in order to comeinto the town at the same time.
Tomas Roruweii, evamined by Mr. Hunt—l am farmer,
and reside at Cheetham Hill, 1 saw many persons going to Manchester
on the 16th of August. They walked five a-breast and appeared
very orderly. I saw the Bury division ; there were a great
many women and children with them; the women also walked five
a-breast. 1 think there was a proportion of one womanandchild
to every eight men ; there were many boys andgirls, from 13 to 14
years of age, with the party. J understood they were going to
hear Mr. Hunt, at Manchester. J saw nothing calculated to create
alarm. I have known Mr. Johnson six or seven years. 1 never
heard him express a wish to overturn the Government.
Cross-examined by Mt. Lirrtepste—lIthink there were 3,000
personsin the Bury division.
Joseru Scuorretp, examined by Mr. Hunt—I live at Hollingswood
; I have no employment ; I sawseveral persons going to
the meeting of the 16th. 1 understood they came from Oldham,
Moseley, Saddleworth, and Lees. ‘They passsed along in a most
peaceable, orderly, and quiet manner ; very few of the people had
sticks ; I did not go to the meeting ; the sticks 1 saw were common
walking sticks; none of them had staves shouldered as mus-
Kets are; 1 saw nothing in their appearance calculated to create
alarm. I have some houses and lands at Cheetham sufficient to
keep two persons ; I have not several thousands a year.
Samvuen Snack, examined by Mr. Hunt—I live in Windmillstreet,
Manchester; I was at home on the 16th of August last ; I
was in a warehouse in Oldham-streetuntil half-past eleyen o’clock ;
1 saw several processions passing en tothe meeting. Some of the
houses in Windmill-street belong to my mother: I did not think the
property in any danger ; my house commanded the whole of the
area ; | was in an upper room, My house is about thirty yards
from the hustings ; I had a perfect view of the field between Mr.
Buxton’s house and the hustings ; there was no interruption to business
in our warehouse; I saw no shops closed; 1 did not hear any

148
persons express their fears for the safety of the town:
clubs or staves; I saw some walking eae I sawrRce
field to create alarm. I did not go for the purpose of gettin :
the hustings. I saw nothing calculated to create alarm eaeae
the arrival of the cavalry; when I saw them coming I made the
best of my way to my own window again; J found no faterreption
in getting back; the people said, ‘* Stand aside, the military will
not hurt us.” I saw the military formed before Mr. Buxton’s house
By the Judge—Nothing was done by the crowdtoresist the progress
of the cavalry tothe hustings. I heard no groaning, hissin
or hooting ; the cavalry flourished their swords and charged po
to the hustings; there was nothing done by the crowdto Oppose
oe,aTange except what arose from the people being so thick toer.
He saw nostonesorr sticks thrown at them or up in theair, Fadedite i
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Hutiocn.—Hadbeen a spectator
of several meetings, but this was the largest he ever saw
There might have been 100,000, or 150,000 present. He weigon
servant of M‘Farlane and Barbour’s ; they were shipping Commis-
Sane gry joey Maren at twelve o’clock, and did not
sastorsuntil on that fourdey o’ cleck. here were no fears expressed by his
Mr. Joun Mouineux examined,—Lived in Market-street, Manchester,
and was a lamp-manufacturer and tin-plate-worker. He
saw thecrowdsenter the town on the 16th of August, but had no
impression about the safety of his shop. His next door neigbhour
was Mr. Styan, a gun-smith, and his shop was not shut np as. witness
recollected. There were no shopsin his neighbourhood shut up.
Witness went to the meeting, leaving his wife's sister in care of his
shop, and returned about twelve o’clock. The only shops he saw
shut were the corner shops at the bottom of the street. His daughter
was sixteen years of age, and went-to thé ground to gratify her
curiosity with her uncle. Witness returned to the meeting a second
time, joined them, and remained there until it was dispersed. Up
to that momenthe saw neither tumult nor resistance. There was no
groaning at or intimidation used to the military. No brickbats or
Busher thrown upinto the air.
ross-examined.—He was at a former meeting whe :
Hunt presided, in January. He believed Mr. Knight ee ean ‘bat
he did not remember Mr. Johnson. He remembered a dinner at the
Spread Eagle, where Mr. Huntwas in the chair. ‘The immortal
memory of Thomas Paine,”’ wasdrunk.
Mr. Hunt objected to anyreference to what was done in January,
whenhe was ontrial for what took place in August.
Mr. Serjeant Cross and Mr. Scar.err both contended that
the toasts were evidence, and quoted thelatitude of inquiry allowed
on the trials of Hardy, Tooke, &c.. where the whole lives of the
nv yk gopeiened open to enquiry.
Hobiebe r. Justice toncete BarLey ultimately thought iti better this evidence
if an Huntthanked his Lordship; he’could not conceive, he said,
e 0 ject of such a reference, particularly in these times, when
men’s political sentiments veered about so much; what a man
147
thought in January may be quite different from his opinion in Aus
gust, Opinions were very fluctuating now-a-days about politics.
Cross-examination continued—He did not recollect Johnson
or Knight having been at the dinner—nor Bamford nor Moorhouse.
Mr. Hunt made a specch after dinner, but he did not recollect its
purport, nor that it intimated his (Mr. H’s.) presence at a future
time at Manchester. Witness was not one of the Committee that
invited Mr. Hunt to the town ; he was never at Mr. Johnson’s house.
He attended the meeting of the 16th of August, and could not say
that he disapproved ofthe object ofit.
Mr. I. Woop examined—Lived in Back Queen-street, Manchester,
and was a farmer. His house was 200yards from the hustings.
He had a wife and cight children. His business was not stopped
during the L6th of August. He saw a great numberofpeople at the
meeting ; that circumstance produced no alarmin his mind; he saw
no act of violence whatever committed by the people. His family
were in no consternation about the meeting ; and though he was from
homeandin the country during the forenoon, he had no reason to suppose
they felt the smallest alarm. Hesawthe cavalry come to the
ground, and advance up to the hustings, andno resistance in any
manneroffered: to them by the people. There were no hissings, or
throwing stonesor sticks. Had there been, he must have noticed the
circumstance.
Cross-examined.—He was acquainted with Mr. Johnson, and
was one of his bail. He was one of the Manchester volunteers, whe
clothed and armed themselves.
Mr. James ScHorieLp, a Dissenting Minister, was in Manchester
on the’ 16th August; he came there onbusiness, and saw
the processions entering the town; they were composed of men,
women, and children.
Mr.Justice Bartey —I think that is sufficiently proved.
Witness resumed —The meeting seemed full of regularity, joeularity,
and mirth; there was nothing warlike in its appearance5
they offered not the least violence to any body; witness took up a
position onthe field onan elevated spot, with the Magistratesto his
right and the hustings to his left. He had a commanding view of
the whole meeting ; there was a double row of constables about ten
yards before him; they extended from Mr. Buxton’s house, as it
struck him quite up to the hustings. He saw the Magistrates at
Mr. Buxton’s window. He saw Mr. Hunt arrive ; there was a board
up having in large characters the words “ Order, order.’ There
was not the least resistance or tendency to it. “ God save the
King” and “ Rule Britannia,” were played among the people,
who, generally speaking, stood uncovered during the tunes. He
heard no apprehensions expressed about the meeting; the order of
it highly gratified him in so numerous an assemblage. He saw the
military arrive; there was not the least opposition offered to them;
as the cavalry advancedthe people held out their hats as if to avoid
being cut; they were then flying in every direction; there were no
sticks or stones thrown about at that time; the cavalry passed within
ten yards of him.
Cross-examined.—The people contiguous to the cavalry, naturally
closed in for a moment upon the space through which they pas-
%
i
i
if
i

ene eT S
7ae
148
149
sed; this wasa sort ofnecessary re-actionfrom the density of thecrowd,
but the people appeared to him to fly as quick as possible. They
hadthe air of a pleasant, he would not say a deliberative assembly.
There were 80,000 people there. He was highly gratified to see such
an assemblage so peaceable. As a people, he approved of them, on account
of their peacefulness, but he knew nothing of their opinions or
intentions, and therefore he could not state whether he approved or
disapproved of the meeting. He saw someofthe flags, but not the
whole of them. He saw the “ the Annual Parliament and Univer.
sal Suffrage” flag, and he approvedofit if it could be accomplished,
agreeably and with service to the country. He approved of any
meeting to inculcate any thing for the good of the country. He had
written two pieces in The Manchester Observer connected with the
Bible, but with politics no further than they were connected with politics.
The writings were not intentionally or accidentally connected
with politics. Reform in Parliament, Universal Suffrage, and
Annual Parliaments, were not in Scripture. It was no part of his
persuasion to use Scripture for political purposes, One ofhis pieces,
he believed, was published before the meeting, and the other after,
It had no title, no. signature, and was no leading article. It probably
may be addressed to the Subscribers of the Manchester Potice
Declaration. Wis subject was to the Ministers of the Four Evangelists,
to the Ministers who had subscribed their names to that
Declaration in support of the Police. He wrote to state that a Gospel
Minister ought not to approve of murder. He wrote not to condemn
but to blame them ; his object was to convince, and Scripture
was principally his guide. That Declaration was signed by a majority
of the Church of England Ministers, and by some of the Dissenting
ones. He was of no particular denomination or sect, but his
flock were called « Bible Christians.’ They made the Scripture the
rule of their conduct. He did not read the whole of the placard calling
the meeting of the 16th August. He knew nothing of Mr. Carlile.
He sawtwo or three of his own congregation present,
Re-examined by Mr. Hunt—On refreshing his memory he
now thonght both the pieces were written after the meeting of the
16th August, The first was a short one, signed “ S.”? and disapproved
of the prominent part taken by the clergy in politics, or ina
declaration which referred to them. é
Tuomas Brooks,lived at Stockport, and was a pattern drawer,
He went to Manchester on the 16th August, on Mr. Moorhouse’s
coach, and in company with him. They passed the people who
were walking to Manchester about a mile from Stockport. He then
described them to be remarkably peaceable, and throughout the
whole day up to their dispersion by the military. Mrs, Moorhouse
went into Manchester with her husband and witness ; she was then
pregnant. The passengers wanted to persuade Mr. Moorhouse to go,
with his coach to the field, but it did not ultimately go lest the people
should mount up and break down the roof, He afterwards saw Mr.
Hunt come up to the hastings, in a carriage, with Mr, Moorhouse,
but the latter did not go on them; if he had got there he must, have
seen him. He was only a yard from the hustings; he saw nobody
with locked arms around them. He lost Mr. Moorhouse going towards
the windmill, He could not positively have ever gone upon
the hustings. If people had locked arms around the hustings he
must have seen it; there was no suchthing.
Cross-examined—He went to Manchester that day on purpose to
attend the meeting. Mr. Moorhouse did nottell him any thingabout
the resolutions ; he perhaps knew as littte about them as witness.
He did not ask him any thing about Mr. Hunt, whom hvtsaw with
Mr. Moorhouse, onthe 9th August. He saw the people assemble at
Sandy-hrow, near Stockport. He never heard Mr. Moorhouse address
the people any where. Mr. Hunt and Johnson got on the hustings
on the 16th August; Mrs. Saxton was with them in the open coach.
He never saw Mr. Moorhouse at any meeting before. ,
WILLIAM Brooks examined—Was son of last witness, and
corroborated his father’s evidence, that Mr. Moorhouse was not on
the hustings on the 16th August; he was with him in the Windmill
public house, whenthe cavalry advanced to the hustings.
Joun Hopson, jun.—Was not in any profession; resided at
Heath-green, three miles from Manchester. Was not acquainted
with many of the inhabitants. Was in a house in Windmill-street,
over-looking the meeting of the 16th August. He was with his
uncle and a'friend. The house in which he was was exactly behind
the hustings. He saw the meeting assemble, and conducted most
peaceably; he had no apprehension whatever respecting the safety of
the town. He saw the soldiers advance to the hustings. There as
no disposition whatever to resist them on the part of the people;
uite the contrary. There were no stones, brick-bats, or clubs,
thrown in the air as the yeomanry approached. He did not meet
that morning a single individual who had the slightest apprehension
'rae went to the meeting with his uncle, who
had come over from Liverpool, and had never been at a meeting be-
— Mr. Josrru BarRETTexamined.—Resided at Newton Heath,
where he was a manufacturer, and employed from one to 200 hundred
men. They had a warehousealso in the Market-place at HaeTt
ter: He was there on the 16th August, in company with the aa
witness, whose testimony he distinctly corroborated in every part,
respecting the peaceable demeanour of Mr. Hunt and theio “P
to the time of their violent dispersion by the military, to ae
the smallest opposition was made. There were noes “pi
nor stones flung about,-nor was there any hooting. did no “
Mr. Hunt point to any persons, and say “ there are _ aoe
get them down, and having got eae ee wa them down.
i ust have heard it.
7oe recollect any aes for blaned
in any reform club.
a oe Sepmetis8o was mak the two last witnesses at
Manchester, alee related the same discriptionof meenen ane
on the 16th August. He stated that he resided at Liverpool, ~ rere
he was a merchant; he had also a house, and a third of can nat
at Manchester. He overlooked the whole field, ee niMid ing
assembled, from the window of a house directly behin : e hus ne
He went there out of mere curiosity, and got into the nies ie
did not wish to stand in a crowd. He saw uo bludgeons whatever
a

150
151
among the people; there were some common walking-sticks, and
about a dozen white wands, not thicker than his finger. He saw
the line of special constables reaching from Mr. Buxton’s house
nearly, but not quite up to the hustings. ‘They appeared to him to
extend to within ten yards of the hustings. The people were more
compact near the hustings than those ata distance. The circle next
the hustings nad their armsin each otherprior to Mr. Hunt’s coming;
after that he did not think they remained linked together. Lt was
impossible for him to see whether more than one row was linked,
A small space was keptopen about two yards in front of the hustings,
but he could not say whether it remained so after Mr. Hunt came;
he thought not. The crowd wasperfectly quiet, except when they
gave occasional shouts. ‘There were two persons said something to
the meeting before Mr. Hunt came, hut he could not hear what they
said, though he heard Mr. Hunt. No military (infantry) made their
appearance in Dickinson-street while Mr. Hunt was speaking. He
heard him say some thing about keeping down whoever disturhed
the meeting ; but no such expressions could have been addressed to
the military, for no soldier was then in sight. He considered the
words thrown out to any body who would venture to be riotous,
He heard Mr. Hunt exhort the meeting to be quiet, and defeat the
wishes of their enemies, and not to call out “Silence.?> You then
said, if any body was there to disturb the peace of the meeting, they
were to put him down and keep him down. He saw the cavalry
arrive, and saw nothing done by the people to them like intimidation
or resistance; nothing whatever was thrown at them. ‘There was
a great shout ontheir approach: a shout (as he thonght) of welcome,
like that on Mr. Hunt’s approach. He recollected the music playing
up some tunes, particularly “ See the conquering Elero comes.”
He heard Mr. Hunt say no such words as “ they (the military)
are few, very few, and we are a host against them.” The people
. were round the hustings just as they would be any where else ina
crowd. They (the crowd) exhibited no appearance of disciplined
troops ; he observed a great many women mixed with the crowd,
and apparently dressed in their best clothes. The greatest part of
them were near the hustings. He saw no defiance whateverhurled
against the cavalry. If any sticks had been brandished or
stones thrown, he must have seen them. No such thing took
place. He saw nothing till the cavalry arrived, which occasioned
in his mind the least apprehensionfor the safety of the town. Until
Menile saw nothing at all calculated to excite fear in any rational
mind,
Cross-examined—The house in which he was was about the
~$ame distance from the hustings as Mr, Buxton’s was. What occurred
near the latter, unless spoken very loud, he could not hear.
The line of the constables extendedto nearly ten yardsof the hustings.
There wasstill a very thick crowd between them and the
hustings. It wasafter two personssaid something fromthe hustings,
before Mr. Hunt came, that the front row before the hustings, but —
not to the back, locked arms. They opened to admit Mr. Hunt.
He could see the crowd.
Witiiam Binns examined—Had something to do in making
\he ornament for the Bury flag. He made a pieceof tin in the forva
of fleur de lis, and was topaintit yellow, but not having much time
on his hands he painted it red. Tt came to him on the Saturday
evening late, and not liking to paint it on Sunday, and having no
yellow paint by him at the moment he used the red. That was the
reason.
4 Mr J. Suir examined—Wasa cotton merchant at Manchester.
Remembered the 16th of August, and was on thatday in a
house that overlooked St. Peter’s-field. The house was in Mountstreet,
and in the same row as Mr. Buxton’s. Hethen described
the assembling of the meeting, their orderly and. peaceable demeanour.
Healso saw the military arrive, and said there was not
the slightest resistance opposed to them. He saw nothinginthe
conduct of the meeting to excite in his mind any apprehensions for
the safety of the town. He saw the yeomanry form in front of Mr.
Buxton’s house, for he was in the next house but one-to it. He
heardno hissing or groaning until the dispersion took place. There
was some cheering pefore the cavalry advanced to the hustings.
Cross-examined—Was a partner ina cotton firm. He remembered
the placards convening the meeting. He did not approve
of annual Parliaments and universal Suffrage.
'
Mr. T. W. Sanperson examined—Was a merchant in the
firm of Sanderson and Co, at Manchester. Their house of business
was at Manchester, but his private residence was 12 miles
distant from the town. He generally came into Manchester once
or twice a week in his own carriage. He was there on the 16th of
August, and saw the meeting assembled. He transacted his ordinary
business during the whole of the day. He wentto St. Peter’sfield
about twelve o’clock.—he went there out of curiosity, and most
certainly notas a radical reformer. He went to get an affidavit
which it was necessary should be sworn before a Magistrate. -
that purpose he went to Mr. Buxton’s house. He saw aa
that day in apparentae in area of that meeting, until its
ispersion took place by the military.
Oreea-asilsAel-SELa ier entered Manchester on that
morning, and of course could not state what the feeling: was there
on the previous day. While he was getting his affidavit sworn he
did not learn of any alarm among the Magistrates; he with
them getting his private business done, about five?a‘a e “i
nota stranger among the Magistrates, for he ae r aa
He did not approve of the ohject of the meeting; he isapproved of
the mannerin which the meeting was brought together; he had seen
large meetings before, hut never meetings formed of large bodies
marchingin like that; he knew country people went>e toa
race-course ; he did not like to see people brought together in arge
bodies from the country.—Fromthe then temper of the people, how-
_ ever, he did not see any thing inconsistent with the safety of the
town,in the congregating of 100,000 peoplein Manchester. oe the
temper of the people he apprehended no outrage.a
classes were then quiet, though some discontents an ed. But
he judged of their temper from what he saw of them _ the particularday.
-His private housein the country was pene in the midst
of a very populous number of labouring pesplesithty were then
quiet and contented. There certainly did prevail a discontent at
4
ein ocae ems a >
eae

see
152
Manchester, among the working people, in consequence of their not
being able to earn sufficientfor their subsistence. He repeated, how.
ever, that he saw no dangerfrom the bringing together such a multi.
tude in Manchester. Hedid not think dangerlikely to accrue ei
assembling100,000 of the lahouring people at Manchester, He
certainly disapproved of the bringing people from the country in
this manner, because it lead to idleness, and may possibly to danger;
but that was a mere supposition of his. He was not a radical
reformer; he did not understand the term radical.—(No, norI, replied
Mr. Serjeant Cross, who was examining the witness.)—He
might be a reformer, every man wasto a certain extent a reformer
He had notthe slightest knowledge of Mr. Hunt; but he was an
enemy to violent measures of any kind ; he was a man of very large
property.
Mr. Hunr—You do not former?
know what means radical
Wirness—No.
Mr. Hunt—If you heard it meant, as was insinuated in the
famous speech of a Learned Counsel, a pistol loaded with nine pul-
Jets, would you believe it ?
ae, Mr. Justice BatLey laughed, and prevented the witness from
giving any answer.
‘ It being now half past seven o’clock, the trial was adjourned
until nine o’clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. Honrsaid, that he had a number of witnesses remaining
to give similar evidence to that which he had already laid before the
Court. He felt very indisposed to occupy the Court unnecessarily
but the moment he gota hint that sufficient had been shown he
would stop. .
Mr. Justice BaiLny—You must entirely be governed in your
case by your owndiscretion. It would be unbecoming in me to
drop one word which would have the effect of inducing you to
withhold a single witness whose testimony you may think material.
Mr Hunrsaid he hadalready sent home 83 witnesses from a
conviction that those already examined had said quite enough, touching
the same points to which he meantto call them.
One of the Jury having intimated some desire to know the probable
duration of the remainderofthe trial—
Mr. PEARSON, who has been indefatigably occupied asSolicitor
for the Defendants, said, that they meantonly to call four more witnesses
as to facts, and two to impeach the character of some ofthe
withesses for the prosecution. He thought that unless the ¢ross-examinations
were very protracted, the testimony of these witnesses
would uot occupy more than three hours.
Mr. Justice BalLey—ThenI apprehend, Gentlemen, “we shall
have a speech from the Learned Counselin reply, and it will remain
afterwards for me to direct your attention to some leading points,
which may guide you in coming to a dueconsideration of the whole
circumstances of the case.
Saturday, March 25.
_ On Mr. Justice Barty entering the Court, the Deputy Sheriff
requested any gentlemen of the Jury preseut would hand to his
Lordshipthe letter by which they were summoned,
re-
153
Several Jurors immediately handed over the letters they rece
ved on being summoned—they wereall alike.
‘ The JupGeE read the letter, which merely intimated to the
Special Jurors that they were summoned, but did not use a single
syllable beyond this mere intimation. His Lordship on reading this,
letter, remarked, that he saw nothing of irregularity whatever in it.
Such an intimation was by no means unusual when there was hardly
time enough to have the Special Jury redueed, and the regular
distringas issued. There was nothing in any mannerirregular
in this letter.
Mr. Hunt madeno observation upontheletter, or on what had
fallen out in Court this morning.
The first witness was EDMUND Darey, a builder in Manchester.
He knew John Willie, the butcher, for the last two or
three years; from what he knew of him, he most certainly should
not believe him upon his oath.
Cross-ecamined—He lived in Manchester these 20 years.
Never saw Willie in a Court of Justice. Was at the Manchester
meeting for about a quarter of an hour; went there out of curiosity,
having never been at a meeting before.
In answer to questionsfrom the J upGE,he said the reason why
he should not believe him. upon his oath was, that he had frequently
deceived him within the last four months
WILii1Am PHILLIPS, examined—Wasa butcher, residing in Manchester;
knew John Willie for several years, and from what he
thought of his. character, he should not believe him. upon his
oath,
Cross-examined—Lived all his life time in Manchester, which
place he left last nignt. He never inquired about this. trial, before
he left home, nor did he see any names of witnesses stuck up there.
He knew nothing about Willie’s being examined until he came to
York. He (witness) was not at the Manchester meeting, being never
in the habit of going to meetings. He was not in the party who
cheered Mr, Hunt last night. He knew he was subpeenaed here to
speak against Willie’s character.—[ Here he handed in the subpoenae.
|—Never saw Willie examined in a Court of Justice, but he
kuew he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act at Lancaster.
Mr. J. Goocu Rogerts was a Dissenting Minister at Manchester,
andrecollected. the 16th of August. He saw some of the
parties composing the meeting pass by his house. He saw part of
the crowd atSt. Peter’s-field from hisdressing room. He saw nothing
which had any tendency to.excite fear in his mind.
Mr. M. Heavistp—E—Was a general. dealer in Manchester,
and had. a wife and four children. He carried on his business as
usual on the 1Gthof August; the general business seemed going on
as usual, though there were occasionally shops shut. He went to
the meeting just as Mr. Hunt arrived, abont ten minutes past one
o’clock. Itappeared to him to be quite a peaceable meeting ; he remained
at it until the arrival of the yeomanry ; up to that period he
saw nothing to excite the smallest apprehension for the safety of his
family and property
The Rev. RoperT HinDMARSH examined—Wasa Dissenting
Minister residing at Manchester. Remembered the 16th of August.
SRE
ape
—
"
ee

154
Saw several of the parties march into town to the meeting ; they
appeared perfectly peaceable and quict.—He went himself to St,
Peter’s-field to observe the character and complexion of the mecting,
and for that purpose surveyed every part of it. He went
there merely as a spectator. He remained with confidence
upon the ground, relying on the protection of the law and
tranquillity of the people. This impression remained during
the whole of the meeting. Every where he heard congratulations
on the peace of the meeting. He observed the line of constables
up to within a short space of the hustings, and a numberof the
crowd adjoining them, but without shewing the least desire to molest
or insult them. He remained onthe field until the cavalry arrived.
He felt not the smallest alarm up to that period; there
was certainly nothing to cause alarm in any temperate or rational
mind. . He was no radical reformer; he never, indeed, associated
with any of the parties in the State, not considering himself as a
political charaater. From what he had heardof the radical reformers,
he was induced to go to the meeting, and satisfy himself by
personal observation of the state of society. The people were in
a remarkable degree peaceable aud cheerful, and he should not think
they were disposed, even if instigated, to commit acts of violence.
Hesaw the cavalry arrve on the field. He never held up his hand
to any of the resolutions. He was in the act of quitting the field,
and about 50 yards from Mr. Buxtons’s when he observed the
cavalry advance at a quick pace. He waited until their approach
to the hustings; fromfirst to last he saw the people.do nothing either
to intimidate or oppose the military. If they had hissed, hooted, or
thrown up sticks and stones, he must, he thought, have seen it.
But there was no such thing. He kept his eye fixed upon the cavalry
until they surrounded the bustings, he then found it necessary
to provide for his own safety.
Cross-examined—He went out of curiosity to the meeting. For
40 years he kept aloof from! politics. Hesaw the banners, but
had nothing to do with them. ‘The banners in general were characteristic
of the meeting. “ Equal Representation or Death,” he
thought meant somethinglike “ Liberty or Death???
Q._ Task you asa clergyman, whether “ Equal Representation
or Death,” indicated peace ?—A. 1 think it did not imply a
breach of the peace on that day, or that such a thing was to he
acted upon hostilely then. As to anyfutureresults, being no politician,
he was incapable of judging. “He did not think it unsafe on
that day to congregate such a multitude of such people, to hear the
doctrine “ Equal Representation or Death”? inculcated in speeches,
He did not observe the motto, “Let us die like men, and not be
sold like slaves.” He did consider it a general sentiment that on
many occasions in public life the voters at times of election are sold
like slaves. That observation he had often heard, but he begged
not to be understood as justifying it. He did not think it sale to
propagate such a doctrine. He was not qualified to say whetherthe
doctrine was true not. Every man was boundto preach what he
believed to be true; but he was no politician, and could not enter
into such topics. He did not think it might be safe altogether
for any man to be suffered to preach to a mob whatever he thought
155
was true on political topics. He did think it both safe and expedient
that at public meetings, where the people assemble to discuss what
they ‘supposeto be their grievances, they should be allowed to go the
length of delivering their opinion, if they thought so, that they were
sold like slaves. If it were legal for them to meet he thought they
should have freedomof speech, so far as was consistent with the law
andpeace of society. They oughtto be allowed the sameprivilege as
in the House of Commons. Toleration should be equalin politics and
religion. Every man should indulge in his opinions, provided they
do not militate against the peace of society. The proper authorities,
the Magistracy, must judge the latitude of the doctrine. —
Re-examined—Heshould not think a meeting, called in the
terms of the requsition for the Manchester meeting, and signed by
700 respectable householders, either improperorillegal. ‘
Mr. Justice Baitey—A witness cannot judge of thelegality
eting.
el Wit ess said further—Thatin his opinion it would have been
both immoralandillegal ‘to instigate the people at a meeting to commit
acts of violence. Wherever violence wasto be used, in no case
would the meansjustify the end. He consideredselling people like
slaves, to mean those who got their votes, and afterwards sold their
own for a bribe. That was, when a Memberof Parliament sold
his vote, regardless of the public good. No such doctrine Hi
preached up at the meeting as “ Equal Representation or oxi -
In fact, the people were dispersed before the business had we
Pe. JoHN ROBERTSON examined—Wasa merchantresiding at
Manchester, and was there on the 16th August, and saw the meeting
at St. Peter’s-field. He went there at about a quarter before i
o’clock, after transacting his usual business. | He stood within
about thirty yards of the house in which the Magistrates vraaa
bled. He saw no insult whatever offered to the cavalry . - -
saw arrive) by the people. There was noee oe
or flinging sticks when they approached ; he saw nothing—
kind, though he observed the cavalrygo up to thea. =
was nothing whatevero to es in . ce intimidation,
sistance. He felt no alarm on that day. ’
fi Goaseoenanpidaeis went out of curiosity to the meeting.
Mr. Hunrose at eleven o’clock, and said his case was now
Sage ScARLETT rose immediately after to reply, and proceeded
nearly as follows—* My Lord, and Gentlemen of therees -
riod having at length arrived when it becomes my duty mee e
you in reply upon-this tedious though veryAT pr aitar.
disposition to occupy still further your time‘ than a ca roa pe
the discharge of an imperious and solemn duty. i oe
manneraddressing you, I hope I need only remind you, tha on
here as Counsel, I do not carry about with meany personal wr f
but am,in some degree,to be considered asa Seeaa tiedona
entitled and obliged to perform ‘the professiona ‘functions 0 pre
office. “Any observation, therefore, which imputes athei
feelings in the discharge of my duty, is neither can a ae—
I set out with making this allusion, for in the course of my @
u

~
=
156
I shall feel it'my duty, with boldness and freedom, to unmask the
hypocrisy of the principal Defendantin this case, and I trast [ shall
do so to your whole and absolute conviction... I hope andfeel confident
I shall shew you that four fifths of the evidence for the defence
with which my Lord and you have been persecuted, had aslittle
comexion withthe real fact which you are sworn to try, as the transactions
of any other business which it never entered your head to
contemplate, 1 shall also, in commenting uponthe speeches of the
Defendants, shew you the manner,the temper, and the tone which
dictated them. I shall put it to you to consider whetherthis is the
trial of the parties upon the record for anoffence against the law, or
whether it is an attempt to persecute, intimidate, and menace you
todo that in a Court of Justice which has been attemped, I fear,
with too much success in the town of Manchester. Fatal and melancholy
indeed will be that day when a spirit of intimidation,a disposition
to disorder, and a scorn and defiance of legal authority,
unhappily but too muchinculcated ont of doors by men whosetalents
might be devoted to worthier purposes—fatal and melancholy I say
will be that day when such a dispositionshall erect itself ina Court
of Justice, andtransform the sanctity and solemnity of sucha spot
into the nvisy arena of a hustings, and demand from you a verdict
yielded to popular.clamour, rather than one dictated by your own
consciences, and in obedience to the law of the Jand, by which you,
the Jury, upon your oaths are bound implicitly to abide. I hope I
shall never live to.see that fatal and malancholy day, which, if it
shall ever arrive, will, aceording to my deep and solemn conviction,
render as of nothing the life and property of this country; the-existence
of, which, as you know, mainly depends upon the reverence
with which the laws and institutions of the country are beheld by
the people at large. Till that dreadful period shall arrive, [ will at
least perform my humble duty, and struggle with my poor might to ,
prevent its sad approach. While I proceed to the fearless discharge
of my. duty, without apprebension of popular clamour, which I
should despise myself if I did not here despise, I shall most confdently
call upon you to arrive al that conclusion, which as I think
the law warrants, and as I sincerely believe your consciences must
command, Early in the address you heard from Mr, Hunt that I
was aman, who, when he appliedto the Court onthe ground ofdebility
of body, and consequent infirmity of mind, had the unfeeling nature
to oppose his request of one hour’s later sitting of the Court
on the following morning, and thus to ‘deprive him of so much of
that reposeashis health imperiously required. You shall learn from
one plain statement what dependence you can place on the candour
and honesty of that man (pointing to Mr. Hunt). His application
to the Court, I tell him in your hearing, was not on account ofill
health, but.on the ground that he desired time to wade through the
mass of evidence for the prosecution, and prepare for his defence. I
said then that he had had the whole of Sundayto prepare himself, and
that three witnesses only were called on the Monday, so that there
was no pretencefor his application. This was to go forth that I,
speaking of Mr. Hunt, and out of this cause I know nothing of the
Gentleman, should, in the face of the world, oppose his application
when infirmity of body required it, The insinuation I treat with
157
rn. L appeal to every man who knows me, if I am that person
vaioWald act to nnyio those Defendants—to any ae who
ever lived. I will tell you why resisted his application: rece
I thought then, and I thinkstill, that his object was Lat e ay,
and for the sole purpose of, by making the hour eatdett ores
within the walls of this Court, that auditory whichhis hay 'p
throughout this arduous trial has found it so aera gon al
The next remark in that extraordinary defence was equally pee
to myself. He (Mr. Hunt) told you that I who had in my eae
speech expressed gratification at this issue being nates Pe ict
trial, had together with the united forec and lega re 1
Crown lawyers with myee = aipaaiprtiodt
lication to removehis trial to Yor ¢, when 2 ie oe
ox for that purpose in the Court of King’s one oa hoen,
ed that, knew it to be untrue. Youshall hear t etrut . a eae
last day of the Term, Mr, Hunt cameforthe first time es a aes
the Court of King’s Bench with his application. I wen say Mi
that morning in utterey of ig re petal,yen ten
ourt anxiousto assist him in putting his at tad
aan shape. I heard his applicationresisted by myerie:
the Attorney and Solicitor General, and on thispe ae a a
the strongest apprehension Mr. Hunt’s sole objec sianid
removal, but the delay of the trial at the tee 1S. Tara
and that-so far from aa expressing i uae niece4 OSali
what was passing, I said not one word In t Beds
the appdicuiad until the ek had SeapraestRe heees
i inion was, I did express to my 1 ?
Thal abtnigoal or allude to it any further than Ketneat
what Mr. Hunt imputes to me as my opinion,Is his Te Braeate
no foundation in fact, and is used by him for the oe a ate
or misleading you. 1 must also do my PateaianaA
to say, that so far were they from opposing Mr. Hun g
that he represents, they, on the contrary, actuallyrendeavoured to
clear away the difficultiesi ie which ick he himself SEEecht threw in their TBPway.
IRE
The Defendant, too, had not the can¢ dour on ‘
recognizances were before his trial actuallyREORittaR
failing in strict form to comply with the rule na fe ne “latasid,
Bench in getting in time the recognizances of a rei ie
abide trial. at York, his record oT ia Aditat le
, irom @
icht if we pleased, have shut him out Ir é
“i MocHuntThat is not the fact—we did comply with the rule
* Mirastice BartEy—No, Mr. Hunt, I believe your record,
strictly s
P
eaking
¢ » came Ce down too late» I it efrain ral from interruptions.
Mr. ScarLetr ik resumed—The next sta tement Fae this Gentleman OTE
has madeis, that 1 was at one time anxious ‘ mi Oa RRA HG
To this 1 shall merely say, that if he or at : shavehe rakes
highest to the lowest rank in society, had to bring ite redantdctee
a case against the Magistrates, the yeomanry, ‘ ® reeks
Manchester, or any other place, no legal aeoe Seve aie
beencast in the way of discussing the applica ils eee
the Bar should not have withheld from himthat pane aint aoger
are professionally bound to render to any person wno
.
eninaniamaiaiinal

188
159
et }||
to apply to us in the usual form. He (Mr. Hunt), however, thought
proper, in the name ofthe King, to put his application ima form
which was inadmissible according: to the constitution of the law.
Mr. Hunt—I applied to the Attorney-General to move the Court
of King’s Bench in the ease, and the Learned Counsel knowsit.
Mr Scartert—The Learned Covnsel does not know it, Mr.
Hunt; and I will tell you more, he does not believeit. The Defendant
did certainly state in Court that he could get no professional
man to assist him; and I, feeling for the character and reputation of
the bar, did then declare, that this could not be true, for that I
should have takenabriefof it at first had it heen submitted to me.
Mr. Hunt—Itell you again, that I applied to the Attorney-General;
I said so in your hearing, as well as his; and you my Lord,
who were in Court, must recollect italso.
Mr. Justice BaiLEy—Don’t interrupt; it may be so, thoughthe
circumstance has escaped my recollection
Mr. ScaRLETT—Well, then, if the application was made to the
Attorney-General, and I repeat I do not believe it, it must. have
been founded in impertinence, with a view to its rejection, for the
Defendant knew aswell as I do that the Attorney -General’s practice
lies in another Court (Chancery), and that he only came into the
Courtof King’s Bench whencalled upon in the discharge of his official
duty. The next insinuation he threw outin his defence was
also one of accusation. You heard him charge the Deputy-Sheriff
with using indirect means to influence you before you cameinto that
box, and you see in what occurred in Court this morning the ground
on which he presumed to inculpate that Gentleman. His object is to
turn round upon verdict of guilty, and eall you a packedjury. He
is, you perceive, an enemy to you—indeed to all Juries—he is an
enemy to this Under-Sheriff, and to all Under-Sherifis—he is an
enemy to the constitution of this House of Commons, I may say to
all Houses of Commons, In fact, to sum up his enmities, he is inimical,
I may add, to every being in society with whom he comesin
contact, The next insinuation of this Defendant was, that I had
travelled out of the instructions of my brief, and with a tortured
feeling and distorted imagination, gave a Sportive play to my fancy,
wandering altogether out of the limits of facts. He says that when
I touched upon the dagger emblem, I did so without instructions. If
the Lord of the Manorof Glastonbury, had imbibed any of the spirit
and charity of the Clergymenof his vicarage, with whom he tells
you he has always associated, he would in the courtesy generally
paid by one man to another, have rather supposed that in the discharge
of myprofessional duty I followed theinstructions of my
To shew
him, however, how just are his intentions, I will now read from my
brief the passage whichjustified my allusion, [Here the Learned
Counsel read an extract Srom his brief, which stated that one oy
the banners had a red dagger.]. It was natural enough for me to
infer that the emblem was painted on the banner, rather than formed
as an ornamentfor the pole top. If such had not been my impression,
does the gentleman pay me the bad compliment of my being,
with the experience I have had at the bar, so bad tactician asto -
have uttered an expression which I must be immediately doomed to
contradict out of the mouth of my own witness. ‘The dagger, says
brief, rather than wandered into the regions of my fancy.
ant, is a fine tragic termination to a tragic speech. So
oea am next shades with endeavouring by my ee e
Mr. Carlile, to connect Mr. Hunt with the sentiments ais at pee
son. Nofiction, no calumny, he says, has escaped ne ths) ea :
he employed to prejudice your minds against him, at cd
not done, he ejaculates, to excite an undue prejudice agains BR
Wasit not, forsooth, enoughto charge bim withsedition cei i
Throne, but I must also impute to himinfidelity ageluetShe iin IY
and sacred character of religion. He hastoldyou of t Soar ee
tion he felt at the supposed connexion between him and Carli % oh ee
cast off all connexiou with that person, or participation i ae A:
ments, and informed you, with becoming caution, that arlile aa
suffered his temerity, and that if he were not now undergoing Pa
ishment, he (Mr, Hunt) would speak of him in the terms ie eae a
You have heard from the Defendant all this wiiniog, ByTosca
cant of the misrepresentation of, in any shape, identi ping aH ms
Carlile. But how does this point of the case stan iois beat
was he not with Carlile at that meeting? Does he nekRoy eh a
himself by one of his-own witnesses, and I will add, the Bee Be
spectable of them? I mean the young gentleman name YA 24WHS
actually found him coupled with Carlile on the hustings, 80)a
the representative personages of the meeting. I some bo estate
part of his speech in which I will dohim the sande 0 me pete.
not make an improper ms #eee tatfionaae pa: ae
didly or unfairly dealt with it, Is u !
saanalueine Meigs that I did not venture wes sings
constable, or a single Magistrate to corroborate a, £ fons ant
dence; he has a right to make the most of this point, bal s aa ey
him the reason why? because I waited to hear to y a pointe ie
Ihearned Judge meant to confine our attention, the dpomeptw g
Learned Judgefixed that, why should I have called such w nese
Whetherthe constables had rea pieaePD apieruigour rapes tee
ion to the Magistrates—whether the gist
ante with proprietySEaeee WEIR
right or were wrong—had acted discreetly ie HatesP98 ze
told by the Court was extraneous to the prese } fi
your consideration. i Whether theyhador was, had notHO soacted, APES eaTDSIGINE matter
as little in the purposes of this trial as whether ; poee ie
f Glastonbury had this or that visitorat Middleton Cottage. :
tell ae now shgst inns that occurred, whichI expented FauldMAN
taken place, there was no necessity for my calling wheat W NESE
to speak to circumstancesee were not egaly,yithie Be Barey
of this mquiry. ITknow that if you st inaes OATAN
gistrates or the yeomanry cavalry eh es soneash pheae
August, a much greater interest wou Be Seas daydel
the present prosecution. Should I then be p g nye bith noe
not refrain from introducing into this cause any pet which loss
n that important occasion not relevant, and mhich mu
uk the offeect of creating prejudicein your Ine Jail
my apology, my justification, for not calling the ot net ‘ pinlsgls
in support of my case. You must all have observer as & *i
‘manifested by his Lordship, to avoid enteringinto any ta 2 fa
dispersion of the meeting. Whether that dispersion was legal of
|
I

160
iilegal is of no consequence. Yourverdict ought not to be influenced
by it, either the one way or the other. I shall tell you how
this question ought to be tried, and in doing so I feel satisfied and
convinced that his Lordship will concur with me. This cause then
is to be tried exactly in the same manneras if no Magistrates, as if
no constables, as if no military had interfered with the people. If
from its formation you believe it to have been illegal, of which I
trust | shall be able to convince you before I sit down—if you believe
the Defendants to be guilty. of all or any of the offences
charged in the record, it matters not how the meeting was dispersed;
that is a totally different question, We have nothing to
do with the interference of the Magistrates or its results. If you
concur with me ‘in thinking that the question is the same as if no
yeomanry had appeared, then their being there is to be considered
as a mere circumstance not affecting this enquiry. Jt is in fact to
be considered as the evidence of the hissing and cheering is; the
former is no proof of the cavalry having attacked the crowd, nor
is the latter any of the crowd having attacked the cavalry. I have
carefully avoided bringing to your view any matter connected with
this part of the proceedings, because the original intention of the
meeting did not depend upon its results. The law merely provides
against tumultuous meetings; because nobody knew what their consequences
would be, no matter what was their original intention in
assembling. Who was there so wise as to pretend to be able, by
holding up a finger, to direct an assembly of some thousands of
ersons? If such a thing could be done, wasit safe, was it reasonable
to allow any individual to exercise such a dangerous power?
Ought one man to be allowed to take upon himself the government
and direction of a mob of 60,000 persons? ‘“Butis Mr. Hunt the
less dangerous because he is able to lead such a multitude about
like a muzzled wild beast, ready to be let loose upon the public at
his pleasure? But the thing is impossible. Mr. Hunt, perhaps,
supposes that he is like the man described by the poet, who was
such a consummation of an orator, that he could calm the stormy
wave of the multitude, and procure silence and order at command.
Mr. Hunt is mistaken, if he supposes that he could do so; nor
should he, even if he could, or any other man, be intrusted with
such a power.—And now that we have disposed of this part of the
subject, let us inquire how thelast four days of this important trial
have been occupied. ‘They have been occupied im hearing a refutation
of that which, with the addition of a few trivial circumstances,
was proved by the witnesses for the prosecution. |
say trivial circumstances, because it is very probable that some
matters might occur in one part of such an assembly without attracting
the notice of those placed at an opposite part of it. ‘There
has not been any direct contradiction. For instance, is a man perjured
who swears to having witnessed, in a meeting of 60,000 or
80,000 persons, that which another person swears he did not see or
hear? If aman who saw the people face round, and shout on the
approach of the military, swears to his impression that they were
about to attack them, is he a perjured man, because another person
swears thatthe people did not attempt an attack? The Defendants
had called fifty-fouror fifty-five witnesses, who swore that they had
161
not witnessed certain facts stated on the part of the prosecution.
it would have been equally easy for them to have called from such
a meeting 5,000 persons ‘to give similar evidence. They might
have goneoncalling evidence until they worried both the Judce and
the Jury to death. But wasthis a disproof of those faets? “When
the Spa-fields riot took place, and when the man was shot in the
shop of Mr. Beckwith, the gunsmith, in Skinner-street, it would
have been very easy to select three hundred or four hundred persons
from the thousands who assembled, to swear that they would
not. have attended had they anticipated any danger. It is before
you in evidence that Mr. Hunt attended the meeting of the 16th in
a carriage. Several witneses have been called to show that he
exhorted the people to peace and good order. It is a material fact
here that my witnesses did not, with the exception of one, deny
that the words “put them down, and keep them down,” were applied
to those persons in the meeting who made a noise, and not
to the military. You have it also proved that Mr. Hunt attended
the Smithfield meeting. Now I will read to you a part of the
speech made by him on that occasion.
Mr. Hunt.—MyLord, it is not in evidence that I made that
speech. The learned Counsel has no right to reply to what is not
in evidence.
Mr. Justice BarLey—Certainly not.
Mr. Scartrrr.—Whywill the Defendant dictate to me what
1 have or have not a right to do? The Defendanthas read in the
course of his speech matters not before the Court as evidence, and
I shall now read to you, as a part of my speech, the mode in which
the administration of justice was to be put down in the country by
Mr. Hunt and his associates.
Mr. Honr.—l object to your reading any thing as my speech
which is not in evidence.
Mr, Justice Bartey.—Hehas a right to read any thing from
the newspapers as a part of his speech.
Mr. ScarLetr.—My Lord, it is given here as the speech of
Mr. Hant.
Mr. Hunr.—I repeat, my Lord, that there is no evidence of
that fact.
Mr. Justice BarLEy.—No; but Mr. Scarlett has a right to
read any thing as a part of his speech.
Mr. ScarLeTtT.—lIshall assume, then, that the speech was
spoken by Mr. Hunt. Ihope I shall not be considered as giving it
in evidence in the cause—as it appeared in the paper I have a right
to read it; and I ask any man, whether a person charged with endeavouring
to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of his
Majesty’s subjects, should afterwards be allowed to defend himself
in this way.—Here Mr. Scarlett read a part of Mr. Hunt’s speech
at Smithfield, as follows:—
“If they wish to try me for any thing I have said or done, let
them bring forward. their spies and informers—I see before me
50,000 persons, whom I can call in my defence; and if I examine
30 of you each day, the trial would last three years; and let me
see what Judge and Jury would stand that.”
In the present instance also, he might, if he pleased, have
5
ey

162
called: 4000 ‘or 56000 persons, to swear that they did not witness
what was sworn on the part of the prosecution; but was this a disroof?
Did it weaken ‘that testimony? I contend not. Your
Tiordship must, of course, have presided at several trials for rioting
and disturbance.
Mr. Justice BarLEy.—No.
Mr. Scarterr.—l beg your Lordship’s pardon I thought you
had. I, Gentlemen of the Jury, have often been engaged in such
eases, and I can assure you that I do not recollect any instance
where the parties accused, who were generally the ringleaders, have
not brought witnesses to prove that no riot existed. If Mr. Hunt,
instead of forty, had called 4000 witnesses to prove that they would
not have gone or taken their wives and daughters to the meeting,
still it would be but trifling with the case. But I must confess, that
I did expect to see witnesses brought forward who have not been
called, and the absence of whom shews that there was dexterity at
least, if not craft in the defence. You have all heard of the seven
hundred respectable inhabitants by whom the requisition, calling the
meeting, was signed; where are they now? The learned Doctor
spoke of them in his defence. Mr. Hunt at one timesaid the requisition
was signed by one thousand seven hundred persons. Why
were not some of them brought forward? Do the Defendants
think weare to be caught by chaff? But no, not a man ofthem is put
into that box. Mr. Hunt’slegal adviser has not called them, because
he knew that not a man of them could stand the fire of a
cross-examination. If they could, I put it to you, Gentlemen of
the Jury, whether the Defendants would not have called them?
What are we trying? Are we not trying whether the meeting was
not an unlawful assembly, calculated ‘to inspire terror in the minds
of the inhabitants? What, then, more natural than to expect that
the accused would have vindicated themselves from the charge of
having called it, by bringing forward the requisitionists, or some of
them? Ihave taken some pains to ascertain the fact, and yet I
have been unable ‘to find that there exists any such persons as those
described in The Manchester Observer. Yam warr nted, therefore,
in inferring that the whole is a fabrication founded on the shallowest
artifice. In inquiring whether the meeting was calculated to inspire
terror,'we must look to what was going forward in the different
towns in the neighbourhood of Manchester. Now the witnesses on
both sides have'told you, that for many days previous to the 9th.of
August, it was knownthat training and drilling was publicly practised:
This! circumstance was enough to create in the minds
-of the Magistrates alarm for the public safety, which they were
bound to protect. But’ mark, Gentlemen’ of the Jury, the Defendants
bave not brought forward a single witness who had been of the
‘drilling parties
Mr. Hun'r.—Yes, we brought one.
> Mr. Scarrerr.—Will thetDefendant'still interrupt me? Gentlemen
of the Jury, the unparalled affrontery of the Defendant is
only equalled by the shallow craft of ‘his defence; but I shall before
[sit down, expose both.’ Why, Twill'ask, were not some of these
trainers and drillers brought forwards, to shew that they had no‘other
object in view than that of being able to proceed to Manchester with
‘163-
more ease and eonvenience? Here then is a meeting of 80,000
people, principally from. the country, marching in regular orders
Our evidence, as well as their general appearance, prove them to
have beentrained, and yet not one manis called to swear what the
object of this training was. Have they attempted to contradict
Chadwick? No} we have given evidence on this point which they
have not dared to rebut. So muchfor the history of this part of
the defence. Next came the case of Bamford; and here I am
obliged to observe, that no one regrets more than I do that this
man should have placed himself in such a situation.—Hehas conducted
his defence throughout with great reverance to the Court,
and has evinced a degree of talent highly creditable to him. I
wish he had kept company moresuited to his understanding than
that in which he is now placed. Both the Doctor and he say that
Annual Parliaments and Universal Saftrage are a part of the political
rights of the people. Johnson says the same, though he admits
that many honest men éntertain different opinions. I hope, however,
that, notwithstanding this admission, they do not intend to
frighten us out of our opinions. Mr. Hunt says, “we think An+
nual Parliamants aud Universal Suffrage the natural rights ofthe
people.’ Gentlemen of the Jury, I have alreadysaid thatthis is
not a queston of Reform to be decided by your opinions or mine;
whatever they may be they are of the utmost unimportance to the
cause, But because a man forms anopinion honestly, doesit follow
that he has a right to dictate to Parliament, and insist upon
what he calls his rights, or else he will accept of nothing?
A man expressing such an opinion, is opposed to the laws
and constitution of his country, and is the greatest enemy
of reform. It is vague and absurd to talk of Annual Parliaments
as the political rights of the people. Thepolitical rights of the people
are founded on the laws of the country. The people never had
nor ever can have, anyother political rights. Mr. Hunt says they
are the natural rights of the people. As well might he argue that a
House of Commons was the natural right of the people. But I should
be glad to hear in what part of the Book of Nature the words House
of Commons are to be found? Youall know, Gentlemen, that the
House of Commons is an emanation from the Crown ; that in pro+
gress of time, and from various circumstances, it has grown to what
it now is; and that it may still he improved, if not assailed and
overturnedby the rude hand of viclence. But at no period of time
did Annual Parliaments exist in this country. Those who look back
to that period whenit was directed “that Parliaments should be held
once a year, and oftenerif need be,” will, on consulting the history
of the country, find that at that time returns for counties were made
by writs issued, one from the King, and one from the Sheriffs, and
for towns by the Lord orprincipal officer of each town; and by degrees
after a lapse of ages the representation was brought to its present
form. Are we thenat once and by a single blow to alter what
it has heen the work of so muchtime to elevate and establish? If
such an alteration were attempted, it would at once cause the entire
destruction of the venerable fabric. To insist on any such political
principle as a sine qua non, would in effect be to say we must have
this or we perish. A person holding such opinions would have a
x

‘164
165
right to say, “We ought to have no body of legislators between the
Crown and the people. Weareall equal, and all laws ought to be
enacted by the votes of the majority of the different parishes.” But
has a man, entertaining this opinion, a right to hold public meetings,
with banners, bearing the inscription “ Universal Suffrage” upon
them? The ihing carries absurdity on the face ofit. Suppose Mr.
Hunt or Mr. Bamford were to say (I do not meanto insinuate it is
their opinion) that the glorious memory of Tom Paine wasthe pride
and boast of this country—that we ought to have no monarchy, that
a republic was preferable—ought they to be allowed to publish and
meuleate such doctrines ? Every man has aright to prefer one
form of government to another, but has he a right to inculcate upon
the minds of the people the necessity ofaltering the existing constitution
to that which best pleases him !. If this be the case, thenfare.
well to law and constitution at once. As well might Mr. Carlile
ineulcate on the minds of the people that a republic was the
best government, deism the best religion, and that no therreligion
was true. Ifa manwereofopinion that men perish like the beasts
of the fiell—that the frame of the universe is governed without a
soul—that the heavenly bodies move in their orbits with that beau. ,
liful regularity we observe, without a great first cause presiding over
and directing their course—that salvation was a fable, and religion a
farce, invented bythe rich to keep down and oppress the poor—supposing,
I say, that a man entertained such opinions, has he a right
to undermine our holy religion by publicly inculeating them: These
observations are not unconnected with the case before us, for I ask
you, Gentlemenof the Jury, to put your hands to your hearts, and
say what motive could have induced the invitation ‘of Mr. Carlile to
the meeting? It is well known that Mr. Carlite is a bookseller, and
keeps a shop in Ileet-street, Loudon, called «« The Temple of Reason,
the Office of the Republican and Deist;”? and that at the time
ofbeing invited to this meeting, he was whder an indictmentfor blasphemy
and sedition, Who can inform us what fame it was that
indu¢ed thé invitation to Mr. Carlile to attend this meeting,
or what was it that made him worthy to ride in the carriage with the
Lord of the Manor of Glastonbury, and once the cultivator of5,000
acres? Was not the motive in inviting him to give countenance to
his conduct—to shew respect to a man whe said there was no God,
who neither understood his own or any other language, aud who
it was perhaps intended should be the colleague of Mr. Hunt
asa Representative for Manchester, had the meeting of the 9ih
taken place? If the reasons why Mr. Carlile was invited are left unexplained,
do I Gentlemenofthe Jury, act unjustly in asking you to
draw the inference that this was the objectof his invitation? Mr. Hunt
has said thathe could defeat the administration of justice, by bringing
into Court some thousands of witnesses, by 30 each day. Gentlemen,
it is very probable that he could do so; because if the doctrines of
Mr. Carlile be disseminated among the people, what, in God’s name
becomesof the sanctity of an oath ? What witness could be depended
upon who took his religion from a tinman, and his politics from the
Lord of the Manorof Glastonbury ?
Now, Gentlemen, we come to the evidence for the defence, and
I will venture to say, that unless I am much deceived, [am asfally
entitled to a verdict as I ever was in any case in my life. We
here charge the Defendants with conspiring to call a meeting
for the purpose of exciting discentent and disaffection in the public
mind. We charge them with conspiring to assemble in a formidable
manner, and also with having unlawfully met for the above purposes.
Nowlet us see how the charge of assembling in a menacing and formidable
manner is borne out by the facts stated. There has been
no contradiction on this point by the evidence for the defence ; on the
contrary, there has been the strongest confirmation. And lel. me
ask any man whose mind is not prejudiced, whether he has any
doubt on the subject ? You have it in evidence from Mr. Fitzpatrick,
that a meeting was beld in Smithfield, in Julylast, _at which
Mr. Huut presided. On that occasion a string of Resolutions were
put by the Chairman, passed, and by him handed to Mr. Fitzpatrick,
who attended as a reporter from The New Times paper. I
did not, when I opened this case, read those Resolutions, as I was
not satisfied that I should trace them to Mr. Hunt. I forbore, therefore,
giving any thing more than a general character of the meeting.
Mr, Huntis pleasedto say, that as no bad consequencesfollowed the
passing of those Resolutious, at Smithfield, they are legal. I deny
that. [Tsay that the people of Smithfield were deluded by those
who had criminal designs: and we shall see by and bye, whether
Reform or the destruction of the Constitution was their object—
[Here Mr. Scarlett proceeded to read the Resolutions]
*‘ Resolved, That the people are by inherent right free.”
This is, said the learned Counsel, perfectly just. ‘There is no
eountry in which the liberty of the subject is better perserved than
in the land in which welive. If a proofof this were necessary, I could
not cite a stronger than this very trial, where the Seateed
charged with an attempt to overturn the Constitution, were allowe
to sit in Court, and take their trial before an impartial Judge and
highly intelligent Jury. lu no other country would equal justice
have been extended to persons accused. What was the practice in
ancient Rome? There the Consuls had the power of immediately
utting to death any man who attempted to overturn the State.
What Country ever possessed such tribunals as this? of what
eountry can it be said that the Government, the administration of
the laws were vested in the people, except of this?—The learned
Counsel proceeded to read and comment upon the other resolutions.
The Petition to the Prince Regent, praying him ‘to issue writs to
the unrepresented towns, is of itself treason. I say Ms boldest
man many other country would not attempt to do such a thing,
and I am astonished that an attempt so daring should have gone so
long unpunished. Mr. Fitzpatrick told you that these leat
came printed from Mr. Hunt, so that I suppose they came See E
Secret Committee. They were proposed and passed en masse, an
sent downto the country as a set of resolutions passed by a public
meeting in London. Inorder to prepare the public mind Me what
had happened, and invite them to follow the example, the reso utions
appear in The Manchester Observer, which contains the advertisement
of the meeting on the 9th. It was then know that a
Legislatorial Attorney had been elected in Birmingham. [Here the
Learned Counsel read the advertisement. It invited the people to

166
aliend for the purpose of electing a Representative, and of consider.
ing of Major Cartwright’s Bill. The Boroughreeve and Constables
were invited to attend, as also Sir C. Wolseley, Major Cartwright,
and Wooler.]—This advertisement wag signed by 700 persons. not
one of whom was brought into Court. The Learned Counsel, after
some remarks on ithe premidated insult offered to the Magistrates
and Boroughreeve, by thus inviting them to attend the meeting,
proceeded. Mr. Hunt, on bis arrival in Lancashire, states that he
eame from London
~ Mr. Aunr—I did not state that, Mr. Scarlett.
Mr. Scarvtetr—lIt appears that ng one knew of your movements,
except at Coveutry and Glastonbury. 1 suppose you fell
from the clouds,
Mr. Honr (smiling)—Thatis not in evidence.
Mr.Justice Ba1Ley—You know Mr. Hunt that the expression,
is only used as a figure of speech.
Mr. ScarteTr—I shall not notice the impertinence of the Defendant.
The Learned Counsel, after observing that Mr. Hunt?s
comparison of the Magistrates to the nine tailors, was intended to
bring them into contempt with the people, remarked that Mr. Hunt,
with the Legistorial Attorney for Birmingham by his side, had the
audacity to declare that the meeting of the Sth would, if held, have
heen legal, though he knew it had been declaredillegal hy the Magistrates.
We next find Mr. Hunt inviting the Stockport people to
come to the meeting of the 16th, and bring their neighbours with
them. After this we trace him to Smedley Cottage ; and here I
would ask, what was he doing there from the 9th tothe 16th? We
haveno account of his movements. Nothing was doing in Manchester
that needed his assistance. I leave you to draw your owninference
from his own evidence, as to how he was employed in the
interim. Yn the mean time, I shallread a part of a letter of his,
which appeared in The Manchester Observer, but which I could
not trace as evidence against him, because I could not procure the
manuscript copy. Mr. Hunt yesterday read a part of this letter
himself, but when I endeavoured to supply the blanks whieh he left,
he very dexterously and very seasonably, for I do not denyhis
talents, interposed. When I read this letter to you, Gentlemen
of the Jury, you must consider what was working in Mr. Hunt’s
mind; you mustrecollect the situation of the country at the time ;
you must recollect that there was training and drilling carried on in
every town in the neighbourhood, Do you think, Gentlemen, that
Mr. Huntwas ignorant of this? Does it not appear that a consultation
had been held, the result of which was, that the people should
come armed, and that the drilling and marching were in order to
enable them to use those arms more dexterously and effectively ?
Mr. Scarier? then read the following extract from the
letter :—-
“I suppose this would have been used to shew that I invited
the people to the meeting on the 16th, with no other armsthan a self
approving conscience.”
Who(said Mr. Scanterr) told him that the people intended
to come with arms, or what induced him to give that advice? Was
tt from Johnson or Knight that he received his information? But
167
from whatever quarter received, can it be doubted that he had his
secret information? Can it be doubted that when he told the people,
after the meeting of the 9th was put off, that he intended going
to London, he saw that the people were about to precipitate themselves
prematurely into a resistance of the constituted authorities :
and being afraid to lead them, he afterwards cautions them to come
armed only witha self-approving conscience. Let this be compared
with what was said by three of Bamford’s witnesses :—Anorder
(said they) was issued that there should be no sticks carried; three
were broughta part of the way, but were sent back in obedience to
that order.”—Werethe sticks then so important, or were the leaders
s0 cautious as to prevent au explosion from taking place until all the
parties were drilledIt was not considered safe for the conspirators
to shew their teeth, until they could bite. The letter invited the
Magistrates to come and reason them out of their Opinions,if they
thought them wrong. Where’was there any possibility of reasoning
with 80,000 men? This was done with a view to bring the Magistrates
into contempt among the people, Were they to go and argue
such topics with Bamford, Healey, Moorhouse, &e.? The last,
though he imagines himself the Demosthenes of his own Athens,
has not, if we may judge from appearances, yetattained the reputation
of the Athenian Cobler. I venture to maintain here, and I shall
do every where, no matter what my opinion of the final events of
that day may he, that if the Magistrates had felt alarin for the public
safety, from the information they had received, and from the
knowledge they had that training was going an, and had they not
taken precautions to preserve the peaceof the town, they would ae
serve to be dismissed, and punished as traitors to their functions!
They did take precautions by placing, as was their duty, the military
on the ground. And now, Gentlemen of the Jury, comes the
evil day, and I ask you whether Hunt and Co. are free from the
charges against them? [Here the Learned Counsel went over
Chadwick’s evidence, as to the training at White Moss] The next
day Chadwick sawtheleader of the drilling party doadingabe Rigs
dleton party to the meeting. Do you helieve Chadwick or not? ‘I'he
Defendants would have served their cause better thanthey have done
had they called the different leadersto falsify Chadwick’s story. But
they do not call a single man who hasbeendrilled, though they
found itinecessary to call two persons who had been seen drilling.
He next adverted to the evidence of Murray, the constable. This
man had been nearly murdered, and was,in order to save his life,
obliged to abjure his allegiance to the King. Chadwick heard He
ory of “ a spy,” and saw Murray attacked. After a few adtiene
remarkson this part of the evidence, the Learned Counsel said, the
hissing at the Star Inn had been proved by Mr. Smith, and more
fully by Mr. Tyas. I am happy to have this opportanity of iy
ing with respect to Mr. Tyas, that since myarrival in York I have
been informed that he belongs to a most respectable family in ae
city ; and much to bis honourbeit spoken, that he was highly ny
tinguished at the University of Cambridge,where he studied. The
hissing at the Star Inn was at the nine wise Magistrates, as Mr.
Hunt called them. What was that for? Was it meant to inculcate
reverence and obedience to them, to the local authorities >—No.

168
The Magistrates would not he long obeyed whenonce their persons
and office were brought into contempt; and Mr. Hunt knewthis as
well as any man. The procession which accompanied Mr. Hunt
proceeded to St, Peter’s-field by a round about way, for the purpose
of enjoying their insolent triamph, in defiance of the Magistrates and
the other authorities of the town, who were their Magistrates and
special Constables.—The evidence of Mr. R. Grundy (I thank the
defendants for calling him) was sufficient to establish the respectability
of the latter; of the former I do notfeel it necessary to speak.
So far with respect to Mr. Hunt. Look, Gentlemen, to what took
place at Oldham, Lees, Saddleworth, Rochdale, Middleton, aud the
other places, and judge for yourselves whether the proceedings were
not the result of previous concert and discipline. Bamford is stated
by his own witnesses to have addressed his party when formed into
a hollow square, and to have requested them to demean themselves
properly. But when the witnesses are asked did they feel alarm,
they answer; “Oh no, every thing was quiet.” If so, where was
the necessity of exhorting them to act peaceably ? Mr. Hunt too is
said to have taken pains to keep the people quiet, and I helieye he
did so. He was perhaps afraid of their breaking out on that day.
It is stated by several witnesses that Mr. Hunt spoke to the people
of their enemies—whomdid he meanby their enemies? Wasit the
soldiers? Was it the constables? Was it the Magistrates? Good
God! is any itinerant demagogue to point out the Magistrates
as the enemies of the people? Does it look like peaceable or orderly
conduct to shew the Magistrates that the people were determined
to do what they thought wrong; to shew them that you
have the power totrample on them, but that you have uot the
will to exercise thal power? Mr. Hunt seemed determined to
shew that he had the power to destroy Manchester, but that he
wished to save it. Js this acting according to law? I solemnly declare,
that muchas I regret the events of that day, I give credil to
those, who, underthe impression that the town was in danger, took
measures to saye it. After some observations on the dangerous consequences
of not having at once checked Lord G. Gordon’s riot in
1780, the Learned Counsel stated that the then Lord Mayor was
prosecuted for not having at once taken the necessary steps to preserve
the public peace. I say no more, said Mr. S. on this part
of the question, except a word or two in praise of a gentleman of
high family and connexions, whose character has been grossly vilified
during this inquiry. ‘There existed not a more humane or a
more honourable man than Mr. Hulton. That Gentleman had sworn
to somehissing, and to having seen stones thrown inthe air on the
approach of the cavalry; and the only contradiction to this was,
that certain other witnesses had not seenit. The Learmed Council,
after a variety of arguments, concluded by calling upon the Jury
to give a verdict, unbiassed by, any public or party feeling.
The case being closed on both sides,
Mr. Justice Bartey addressed the Jury as follows :—Gentlemenof the Jury,
the period is now arrived when it is necessary for me to offer to you such observations
upon this important cause as, in summing up, itis my duty to make.
I shall, as accurately as I can, lay down the law to you upon the subject ; and
also offer such observations as strike me upon the evidence. I shall commence
as the Counsel on both sides haye done, by entreating you to dismiss from your
169
minds all political or party feelings in considering your verdict. I must also
entreat yon not to consider what may be the consequence of your verdict either
one way or the other, and to come to a decision upon the evidence only: It will
be for you to weigh seriously the observations I shall make to you, and not to
adopt unless you fully occur in them. shall endeavour in this case to leave
out of the question all matterforeign to it. In giving your yerdict you must not
look to the manner in which it will affectany party. I am quite sure, Gentlethen,
that in the case of any doubtarising in your minds you will give the defendants
the full benefit of it ; and that if, on the contrary, you should deen
the evidence sufficient, you will boldly and fearlessly pronounce your verdict
accordingly. His Lordshipthen read over the different counts of the indictment,
Tt set forth, ‘* That the defendants conspired to meet, and to cause
and procare other persons to meet, for the purpose of disturbing the public
peace, aud the common tranquillity of the King and Realm.’”’ This was one count;
and it would be forthe Jury to say, whether any conspiracy was made out, so as to
authorise themto find a verdict of guilty. The Count further charged that the
Defendants met together for the purpose ofraising and exciting discontent and
disaffection in the minds of the subjects of our Lord the King, and also to incite
them to the contempt and hatred of the Government and Constitution as
by law established. Therefore there were here three heads of eharge—lst, that of
a seditious meeting, to disturb the public peace ; a second purpose was to raise
and excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of the
King ; and the third purpose was to incite the subjects of the King to contempt
and hatred of the Government and Constitution of the realm as by law
established. In a conspiracy it is by mo means necessary to prove that
the parties did actually meet together, it is enough to shew that they
could not have procured this meeting without previous.consent. If you think,
however, they did not actually so meet, then you will have to say whether the
subsequent circumstances justify us in implying that previous concert must
have taken place. Of course the mere mecting together does not of itself imply
previous concert, tnless you are justified in it by considering all the accompanying
circumstances. You have also to bear in mind that only those who
are the framers, and who concur in the plan, can in the eye of the law be deemed
conspirators. It may be that one alone among the Defendantsis guilty, inasmuch
us he might have conspired with others who are not nowin Court. Ail who assemble
are not equally guilty, for many might have gone for innocent and not illegal
purposes, without any knowledgeof, or participation in, the original project. In
an unlawful assembly you must take in the whole of the accompanying circumstances
of the meeting, their manner, their form; their conduct. In
Yooking at it this way, your attention will be naturally called to the banners,
but yet you must take care thatnone are implicated in the inscriptions upon them,
except those who caused them to be made, or who subsequently, by their acts,
approved and adopted them. On the subject whether this particular meeting was
calculated to inspire terror, you must take the proof of such witnesses as shall
prove to you that such was its inevitable tendency in the view, of rational
miuds. That terror may be mediate or immediate, perhaps under all the circumstances
of this meeting, no immediate breach of the law was in view—that
looks likely, from the promiscuous assemblage of women and children, who
were in the crowd. But then there may be a contemplation of prospective
danger, and the parties may be sounding their way towards the accomplishment
of their ultimate object. It is my duty also to tell you that a meeting
may assemuble for a perfectly legal purpose, and yet may becomeillegul from
Subsequent acts ; such as, for instance, if any evil person should have the will
and power to give a wrong direction to a body of people, who were thereby renderedcapable
of doing great mischief. It is true, that you have no evidence
here that those who were the leaders of that meeting did so instigate the people; on
the contrary, you have heard that their addresses were recommendatory of peace and
quiet. With respect to Mr. Moorhouse, they had it in evidence that he was a
religious man; Such a person was therefore unlikely to do an act that would
militate against the precepts of religion. Mrs. Moorhouse, was also at that
meeting, and in an advancedstate of pregnancy, a circumstance strongly in his
favour. It is most important that you should keep your eye upon the structure
of the indictment. In the first Count, the Defendants are charged with asseim-
% }

170
bling together with others, for the purposeofinciting the liege subjects of the King
to a contempt and hatred of his Majesty’s Government. They are also charged
with meeting in what is called military array, and with divers seditious and inflammatoryensigns,
to the great alarm and terror of the peaceable subjects of our liege
Lord the King. I will tell you what the best writers say on the subject of what
constitutes an unlawful assembly : ‘‘ Any great meeting which is attended with such
circumstanees as cannot but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jealousies
among the King’s subjects; for instance, meeting together armed and in
a warlike manner, in order to consult about a redress of grievances, for no one
can foresee what may be the effect of such an assembly? If, therefore, taking
altogether, the circumstances of the meeting were calculated to produce terror,
then it becameillegal. It is not necessary, I repeat, that the danger should be
considered immediate; it is enough if it be only prospective, then you will find a
special verdict, finding the Defendants guilty, if such you think was their prospective
object of intending ultimate, though not instant danger. You have heard
much said of the movements of crowds of people marching in whatis called
*« military step ;’’ and with respect to this it might be as well to state at the
outset, that as it seemed Mr. Hunt and Mr. Moorhouse proceeded in a coach, it
waspossible they could not have seen this sort of marching, and ought not therefore
to be held responsible for it. Again, with respect to the banners, unless they
were meant in anillegal sense by the parties, who concurred in bringing them
to the field, they could not be held answerable for them—for instance, the
flag with the inscription, ‘* Equal Representation or Death,’’ must be considered
in the sense in which we are to presume it was intended. It no doubt is highly
illegal and seditious, if intended to recommendor imply by the alternative, that
equal representation must be unconditionally obtained, orlife sacrificed in the
attempt; but again, it may not beso, if meant as Mr. Huntsaid it was, to
explain that unless they (the people) were equally represented, the consequence
must be that they should be statved to death. As to the flag inscribed “ No
Corn Laws,” if it were to be construed as meaning that the people would have
no such laws, that they would forcibly resist them if énacted by the Legislature,
then indeed such an inscription must be considered as illegal in an extreme degree,
but if it merely meant to express an opinion that the people disliked the Corn
Laws, that they wished not for their enactment or continuance, and respect
fully recommended their opinions to the consideration of the Legislature, then
indeed the case was different, and the inscription harmless. Something had also
been said of a Cap of Liberty. I knownot whatsignification attaches to this
emblem in this part of the country, but in general I know it is not a seditious
symbol, for it is actually one of the insignia of our Crown, and is carried about
by an officer of state at times of public procession where the King moves. You
have also in evidence that no public or private business was stopped by the
meeting ; this strongly confirms the opinion that no immediate danger was contemplated
by the meeting. Much of theevidence before you was conversational.
I think it my duty to state to you that. this is the very worst species of evidence
that can be received in a Court of Justice ; parties are liable to constant
misapprehensions respecting conversations; the alteration of a word so alters the
tenor of expressions, and they make so different an impression upon the recollections
of different people, thatlittle reliance can be placed upon them;I therefore
attachlittle importance to what Mr. Entwisle saysin this respect, for I think it clear
he is mistaken. It is, then, much more desirable to rest upon acts than words.
As to the phrase used by a man in the crowd, “ We'll make a Moscow of is
that I think of little value, and not to be charged on the meeting, for perhaps
you will feel that a crowd so mixed upon that day with women and children, was
little calculated to enter, at that time, into the views of incendiaries. If the
object of this meeting was reform—and that it was meant to be pursued without
any breach of the law, then the people hada right to remain and express their
resolutions accordingly, so long as they kept themselves within the pale of the
law. As to the linking of arms, this could not have been meant to present
opposition to cavalry, for the superiority of a man on horseback would enable
him to surmount anysucheffort to retard his progress. It was very probable that
this arrangementalone took place to secure an open space immediately around the
hustings.”—The Learned Judge then recapitulated the voluminous evidence
given upon thetrial. When he came to that of Mr. Hulton, he remarked, he
thought it probable that a Magistrate, knowing the great responsibility intrusted
17]
to him, and that drillings had been carrying on, and that his imperious duty
called upon him to act upon a sudden emergency, he thought it probable that a
manso placed maybe agitated, and not cool during the time he was considering
that he might become highly criminal if he suffered such proceedings to go to
such length as to endanger the peace of the town. That witness stated the
depositions respecting the alarm of the inhabitants; but here those depositions,
if there were a niillion of them, could be of no ayail ; for the Jury were bound
alone to attend to viva voce evidence given in open Court, Nadin’s statement to
Mr. Hulton mayjustify the latter in issuing the warrant ; but then the Court and,
Jury were placed in a situation of difficulty respecting the necessity of Nadin s
application in the first instance, in consequence of that person’s not being pro
duced in the witness box. He believed Mr. Hultonto be a respectable man, who
would not mislead them, but he must say, that such important evidence as he
had given, ought not to be permitted to want that corroboration whichit might
have had from his brother Magistrates who were in the room with him, and from
Nadin the constable. It was due to the Defendants to urge this want of carroborative
evidence on such important facts, and if the omission were calculated to
raise a doubt in the minds of the Jury, the Defendants were most certainly entitled
to the benefit of that doubt. ;
The Learned Judge, at a quarter before eight o’clock in the evening, had
only gone through the evidence so far as Mr. Hulton’s. The evidence of three
witnesses remained to be detailed before his conclusiou of the case for the prosecution.
Je then observed to the Jury that he thought they had gone asfar as
theycould for this night. There was still a great mass of evidence to detail, and
the momentous importance of the case would necessarily require from him many
observations in detail. He would, if the Jury pleaséd, sit at eight o'clock on
Monday. . i F
The Jury thanked his Lordship, but said that the usual hour of nine o’clock,
would, if he pleased, be more convenient for them. 1
Mr. Hunt expressed a hope, that as the Jury would have a day of leisure tomorrow
(Sunday), they would refrain from looking into some of the Government.
Prints, which during the last week had been Ibelling him in the grossest
manner.
Mr. Justice BarLey said, that if Mr. Hunt wished, the Jury should be
sworn to hold no communication with any body on the subject of the trial.
Mr. Hunt replied he had no wish to put them to their oaths ; they were men
of honour, and he trusted to their words.
Several Jurors said, they had determined from the beginning to hold no communication
with any body respecting the trial, and that they had read no
newspapers.
7 Me Justice Bartey—‘‘ Indeed, Gentlemen, I believe none of us have had
time to read newspapers since this trial commenced.”
Adjourned to nine o’clock on Monday.
: Monday, March 27.
The utmost anxiety was manifested to obtain early admission
to the Court this morning,as it was generally known the Judge
meantto conclude his charge early in the day. At eight o’clock
everypart of the Court was occupied. Precisely at nine o’clock
Mr. Justice Baitey entered. All the Defendants soonafter took
their seats. The Learned Judge throughout the dayseemed oppressed
with indisposition, and repeatedly took medicine.
His Lordship in his commencement this morning said, that he had on Saturday
night advanced so far in his charge as the evidence of Shawcross, -who merelyproduced
the placards. The Learned Judge then proceeded to detail the remaining
evidence for the prosecution, with respect to the part taken by Mr. Hunt at the
Smithfield meeting, the Resolutions of which, on the 21st July, his Lordship
read seriatim, the Jury were, from a consideration of the tone and temper of those
Resolutions, to form a judgment of the disposition of the individual who, recom-
‘mended them. He commented with severity upon that one which pointed out, that
the people were absolved from any obedience to the Jaws, except on snch conditions
y

!
| :
as were therein expressed, from and after the Ist of January, 1820. How farsuck
Resolutions were consistent or inconsistent with due subordination to the law, he
left it to the Jury to consider; as well as how far they were or were not calculated
fo bring his Majesty’s Government into hatred and contempt. ‘The next evidence
was that which related to Bamford, andit only shewed that he recommended peace
and order, still he was identified with the placards, if they thought them illegal.
If a meeting for considering a Reform in Parliamentbe illegal, he is an offender;
but it was his Lordship’s duty to tell them that it was not. ‘There was noillegality
in carrying sticks, unless they were for an unlawful purpose ; nor banners, unjess
their tenor was such asto excite suspicion of the objects of those who carried
them there, or concurred in bringing them there with an evil intention. As to
numbers, they alone did not make a meeting illegal, unless attended with such cireumstances
as did actually excite terror, or were reasonablycalculated to excite
terror. Such circumstances were forbade by the law. They had truly heard that
where there was no law, there was no transgression. If the meeting was innocently
intended, then the law was not violated. You then come, observed his Lordship,
‘to Dr. Healey’s admonitory remark to me, to take care and not in any thing I say
prejudice your minds against him. IfIf do, Gentlemen, discard any expression of
gnine haying such a tendency altogether from your minds. I meanto do my duty
with integrity to the best of my poor judgment. If I err, and err with intention,
then, Genllemen, there is that power to which I am awfullyresponsible. Before
‘the Crown on the onehand, and my country on the other, I shall do, I hope, equal
justiee ; the Defendants, I trust, shall suffer no undue prejudice at my hands—my
eonscience will uphold mein what I have to say to you ; and he who will sit in
judgment upon all our poor acts, will have to say what motive dictated them. 1
‘have nowclosed myobservations upon the evidence for the prosecution, and before
I'sum up that for the defence, I wish to state that I have made a summary of
“it, which will bring its leading points with less fatigue to your minds. If, however,
Lomit any thing material for any of the Defendants, or as I go on, shall mise
“one touching upon any fact in their favour, then it will be only necessary to remind
me of the omission, and I shall read in detail the part to which myattention shall
‘be culled.
_ Mr. Honr—Probably youwill allow us, my Lord, to avail ourselves of your
“kind permission, as you go on, without deeming our interruption obtrusive.
Mr. Justice Bainey—Yes, Mr. Huut, I not only allow you, but desire you
‘promptly as I go on, to call my attention as you mayplease.
The Learned Junce then resumed his charge, and said, that, with respect to
“Bamford, all that had been proyed in his speech was a recommendation to peace
and order.—There were nosticks in his group, save a few common walking-sticks
earried by old men ; there were women andboysin the throng ; andit was for the
Jury to consider whether Bamford and these people, carrying their wives and daughters
with them in such a crowd, meantto create on that day riot, tumult, or disorder.
With such an intention, nothing wasless likely than that they would carry
to the scene those who were the dearest objects of their affection.—According to
the evidence for Bamford, the people in his party, so far from being tumultuous,
were peaceable and joyful; and the drilling, as it was called, so far from being
legal and nocturnal, was open and innocent ; the only object being merely to
enable the people to attend the meeting as conveniently for each other and the public
as it was possible. The Learned Judge then enumerated the namesof the witnesses
who swore the parties on the 16th of August went to the meeting in the utmost
peace, and conducted themselves while there with equal tranquillity. There
_ Was no actof violence, according to these witnesses, committed by them, no violation
of peace, whieh would bring them underthereprehension of the law. So far
in favour’ of Bamford. With respect to Saxton, the Crown had abandoned the
“ease. In behalf of Mr. Hunt, three different propositions were established in. his
~ favour, by the witnesses produced in his defence. First, that the procession
moved to'thefield in the utmost order—that all the exhortations to the people
were in thespirit of peace, and that they imbibed and adopted that spirit in every
respect. There was no insult, no offence given, except some few loose expressions,
only implicating the individuals using them, and ‘not fairly . aid :
attributable to the
| Wutk of the People. There ‘Were none saw sticks thrown, nor bludgeons, ‘nor
biickWats; nolpanic'In Marchester, all was tranquil ‘and free from uppreheénsion
. f | Wpto the monient the’military artived on the round. It Was ‘adimitted that the
173
people shouted when the cavalry came; some said this wes in defiance, but for the
Defendants a different construction was put upon the act, and thatit merely signified
their confidence in being legally assembled, and their determination to remain
in the discharge of what they considered ajustifiable duty, without fear of interruption.
If the object were legal, and the means ofeffecting that object legal,
then the people had undoubtedly a right to remain while so conducting themselves,
and there was no proper reason why they should be disturbed. Under such cireumstances
the people had aright to stand firm. It also was deposed, that besides the
promiscuous group of women and children who came into Manchester; there
were many others, to all appearance respectable females who walked to and fro
among the multitude, without seeming to apprehend any danger from their situation.
There was also in evidence, that marks of respect were paid to loyal tunes,
that not the slightest indication of disturbance took place, and that no stones,
brickbats, or sticks were flung up in the air during the day, nor hooting norhissing
at the cavalry. The Learned Judge then enumerated the witnesses, who
spoke to the peaceable character of the meeting. As tothe drilling, if it were
only intended to promote regularity and convenience at the meeting, then it was
notillegal. He thought they might put out of their consideration, that the words
“* these are your enemies,’’ were addressed by Mr. Hunt to the soldiers, in Dickinson-street,
for that must have been a mistake; such an expression could not
have occurred, according to the witnesses for the defence, or they must have
heard it. This was the summaryof the evidence for Mr, Hunt.—(Mr. Hunt suggested,
that when he saw the black flag, he expressed his opinion to those around
him, that it was very foolish. The Learned Judge assented, that it was inevidence
Mr. Hunt made that remark}—The Learned Judge then proceeded to notice
the cross-examination of the witnesses for the defence. With respect to the
animadversion cast upon the use which Mr. Scarlett made of Carlile’s name in his
opening speech, it was in evidence that Carlile was on the hustings; the allusion
to him was therefore justifiable, and not, as Mr. Hunt had said, an unwarrantable
calumny. It happened, asit often did, that the opening speech did contain matter,
which, though justifiably introduced, was not subsequently proved in evidence.
Whenthe Learned Judge touched upon the evidence given by the Dissenting Ministers,
he applauded the observations made by them, that they abstained from any
interference in party politics. In their ministry ‘* charity thinketh noill,” and
as teachers of the Gospel, it became them to remain aloof from the angry politics
of the day. With respect to Moorhouse, it was in evidence from the witnesses
called in his defence, that he did not mount the hustings, that he was not in the
carriage until after the hissing took place at the Star Inn and the Police Office,
and therefore not responsible for those acts of contempt towards the Magistracy, if
they were intended as such ; and it ought also to be borne in mind, that one witness
had an indistinctrecollection that Johnson attempted to stop these expressions
of popular displeasure, by a motion of his hand. The evidence of Mr. ‘Tyas was
very important to shew the apparently pacific demeanour of Mr. Hunt, for he
deposed to his repeated and continued exhortations to peace, whenthe cavalry
came on the ground, and while they were advancing to the hustings ; that he used
the words ‘‘ By all means be quiet ; dont resist. If they want me, let me go at
once.’ Then as to the panic, it would seem that in so populous a place as Manchester,
if that panic at the congregation of such a meeting was any way general,
a multitude of witnesses could be brought to state the fact, and thatit would not
be left on the part of the prosecution to depend upon the evidence which had been
produced. Of this, however, the Jury were alone the competent Judges. Of the
general character of Mr. Hunt’s life, he must also remind them, they had the testimonyof
one of his domestics, who proved that his master was. always in the habit
of visiting the Clergyman and the ‘Squire of his neighbourhood; that he has
seen his company often, and never remembers any man riotous or intoxicated in
his house, but on the contrary the utmost regularity and sobriety. He added, that
he had often heard his master’s doctrines, but never any which had the smallest
tendency to encourage the working classes to look for support to any other means
than the fruits of their own industry—he had heard him say, that he thought the
sober and industrious man, who worked from Monday morningto Saturday night,
ought to be able to earn alivelihood for himself and family. A placard has been
put up in which was represented as being one of those in pursuance of which the
meceting of the 16th of August was conyened ; it represented the meeting to be
ealled “ to consider the most lawful meansof procuring a Reform in the Commons

174
House of Parliament.’* Such a meeting for such a purpose had certainly nothivg
illegal in its mode of convocation, unless in its accompanying circumstances it sa
sumed a different character, and did either actually excite aoe or bees ee
lated byits appearanceto inspire such a sensation, in the mindofa rational person.
The question then, in the first place, was, was this meeting, or wasit +
legally convened ? secondly, was it or was it not peaceable ? Ifee aa so 3
third question arose as fo the persons who became criminal by their conduct. The
meeting may beillegal in the first instance, circumstances may make it so in its
subsequent conduct ; but ineither case there may be a number attending it Sitobe
intentions were perfectly innocent. It was the provinceof the Jury fe ascertain
and arrange this distinction, if the evidence bore them out in forming it; and b
the evidence could they alone ascertain and fix that point. A meeting ta Te
mend a Reformin Parliament was clearly legal, unless from its mens and the
subsequent misdirecting of themit assumed adifferent character. If the manner
made the meeting legal, then those only who.countenanced that manner, and
who went ta promoteit, incurred the displeasure of the Jaw. With a view ean
sider that point, they must scan the evidence minutelyas it affected each of the Defendants.
: It must be clear that the manner, the numbers, the banners, the apparent
military sep, had au evident tendency to produce terror, and then the individuals
who had so produced the terror, or who knowing it, attended to aan to
its effect by thedemonstration of their numbers, must be specifically designated just
as the evidence, and uothing but the evidence, shall warrant thatdskpaaien If
this terror hein this particular case excited, its existence or effect must be made out
previous to the dispersion of the mab, It was suggested on the part of the Crown
that it was not intended to produce the mischief at the exact time the meeting e
sembled; perhaps not on that day, but to have a prospective operation that the
public pulsewas onlyto be felt on that day, andthe full panic only prepared for
a future. To judge of the legality of the motives which actuated the principal personages
on that day, wasthe arduous task entrusted to the Jury, and they oe to
form their opinion upon the impressions which the evidence produced upon their
minds. With respect to the numbers composing the meeting, they were so great
as to warrant any bodyin rationally concluding that achpemtion was not their oh-
Ject— that was actually impossible. Oneof the counts in this indictment charged
the Defendants with conspiring to bring together a meeting to raise Meaecten
and discontent in the minds ofhis Majesty’s subjects andto incite a hatred and
contempt of the laws and constituted authorities of the realmas bylawestablished
In the first place, for what was this meeting called ? they had heard that sti was bh ;
700 of the respectable householders of Mauchester, andfor the Gurnee set forth
in the placard, nanely, “* Parliamentary Reform.” What was intended to be proposedat
that meeting ? ~ where are the resolutions ?—whichof the 700 res bade
inhabitants wascalled to state the precise object of the meeting. They ie therepore
ae far in the dark as to the purposes of the meeting. It was in evidence
pe Lary. Pe Sialhe Pod. of nly, Mr. Hunt attended a meeting at Smithfield,
yh : olutions were proposed and adopted, which they had heard readin
evidence. It was for the Jury to say whether such resolutions were or were not calgulated
to Saree disaffection. Did My. Hunt mean to tender resolutions of the
sme repr" at Manchester, he must, one would imagine, have conversed upon
1e resolutions intended to be proposed there ; he has brought no evidence to rebut
the presumption, if the Jury thought it fairly to arise, that he meant to pursue
the same course at Manchester, which he hadjust before pursued in Smithfield. If
they thought that were his object, and that the Smithfield resolutions were re be
f aii BeeeeRoeaL, then, quo ad, Mr. Hunt’s attendance at the meeting was
_ilegal; but this did not implicate the other Defendants, unless they were knowingly
and wilfullyassisting and co-operating for the same purpose. The Learned
Judge said he would nextcull the attention of the Jury to the inscriptions upon the
flags, and again remind them, that such as were illegal could only affect es who
arres nee or who followed them, assenting to their meaning and character: to
auchoo yond the eee apply. They would see from a perusal of the inscriptions
hether any and which af them bore anysimilitude to the Resolutions of
eeBhat? meeting, already adverted to. One of them (the Stockpor»
ieBESeee “Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage,
tien hy fate Seca hese inscriptions were merely to express an opiee
le ne auc 1 doctrines, and merely an opinion without meaning
y agt upon it ilegally, then they were not guilty of a criminal intention.
175
he same observation applied to the inscription, ‘‘ No Corn Laws.”—
Many opinions prevailed respecting these laws, and there was no illegality
in expressing them, provided the intention was not to intimidate
or overawe the Legislature. ‘‘ No Boroughmongers?” That
phrase had certainly a reference to one of the Smithfield Resolntions.—*
Unite and be Free?” If that merely recommended harmony
as essential to the enjoyment of freedom, it was harmless; if it meant to
insinuate a unity of effort to promote anobject inconsistent with the spirit of the
Jaw, then it was criminal. ‘* Equal Representation or Death.” The same observation
there again applied. It might be harmless with the meaning attached to it
by one of the Defendants ; but if it held out the alternative of risking life for
the attainment of a particular object, then it was for them to say, whetherit
was not a criminal allusion. ‘‘ Taxation without Representation is unjust,”
If by that is meant to inculcate the opinion, that it is criminal and unjust to
levy taxes upon any man whohasnota direct share by a vote in returning a Representative
to Parliament, then it was for the Jury to say, whether such an
insinuation had not a tendency to excite in the minds of the King’s subjects a
hatred and contempt of the constituted authorities of the realm. There never
was a time in the history of this country, when every individual had a vote in
the election of Members to serve in Parliament. Every Member who was elected
was certainly considered not the Representative alone of the place from which he
was sent, but of the people of the country at large. He was not only bound to
take care of the particular interests of his constituents, but also of the general
safety and prosperity of the kingdom at large. No copyholders, as such, had
a vote. No Leaseholder for a term of years, as such, had a vote. In
all counties, towns, cities, and boroughs, there were always a vast number
of persons who had no votes, and had they a right, without incurring the
responsibility of an illegal offence, to say, that because the law conferred upon
themno yotes, that therefore they wereillegally and unconstitutionally taxed 2
Heentreated the Jury, however, not to make applications to any of the mottoes
which could in the result affect any of the Defendants, without feeling the full
conviction that they were warranted to the application by the fair reason of the
thing. Another motto was, ‘‘ Labour is the source of wealth ;’’ that was a
true inscription, and long may labour continue to be the source of wealthin this
country, and long may the inheritance which it is so prosperously found to
bequeath, rest on the safe protection and stability of the law! The Learned
Judge recapitulated many of the leading points of his charge with respect to Mr.
Hunt ; they had evidence of his being at Smedley Cottage on the eve of the
intended meeting at Manchester on the 9th August, that he had that day expressed
himself in terms not very respectful of the local Magistracy ; he was
not indeed found at Oldham, at Leeds, or at Bury, he was at Manchester, and
had given no evidence respecting the Resolutions which it was meant to propose
at. the meeting that had been broken up.
Mr. Hunt—MayI submit, my Lord, that the Resolutions intended to be
proposed at that meeting were snatched by Nadia out of Knight’s hands, when the
yeomanry came up to the hustings : we have since made every effort to. obtain
them, but without effect, and have served a notice on the Prosecutar te produce
them, which your Lordship sees has been disregarded.
Mr. Lirriepaxr said no such notice had been given.
Mr. Justice Barney resumed his charge. He said that with reference to
Johnson, it appeared that he had gone from Bullock Smithy to Manchester, with
Mr. Hunt; he had appeared with him on the hustings, whether according to a preyious
concert, and foran illegal object, the Jury, according to their construction
of the evidence, must decide. As to the case of Moorhouse, there was evidence
of still less participation. He was not on the bustings, if the evidence adduced
on his behalf were to be credited. Wherever there appeared doubt of
criminality of intention, should they decide upon fixing on anyof the
parties the guilt of any of the counts in the indictment, the safe course
for the Jury to pursue wouldbe to record a verdict of acquittal. Swift
was on the hustings, but there was no proof of his being criminally
engaged there, and for an illegal purpose, if his witnesses statements
were correct. Against Healey there was the black flag, if they inferred
any criminality from that emblem. The inscription it bore was as follows
:—“ No Boroughmongers ; Unite and be Free ; Equal Representation
or Death; Saddleworth, Lees, and Mosley Union; No Cora

176
Laws; Taxation without Representation is Unjust and Tyrannical,”
If these devices were, as he repeated, calculated, from their nature, to
excite in the minds of the people hatred and contempt of the Authorities
of the State, then they were certainly illegal, and the parties
bearing them and concurring in them, amenable to the law for their
conduct. With respect to Bamford, who carried the Middleton flag,
nothing could be more decent than his conduct throughout the whole of
the day. If the accountgiven bythe witnesses he adduced be a correct
description of it, he was every where described as recommending peace
and order. Then camethe flags with the mottoes « Unityand Strength,”
“ Liberty or Death.” Now, these were, like the others, innocent or
culpable according to the meaning affixed to them by those who brought
and concurred in bringing them into the field. “If that unity and
strength would overawe the laws, was the meaning attached, then it was
an illegal emblem. Another party was led up by Wilde, but what their
banners were did not appear in evidence. Jones merely put up the
hustings, and whatever else he had done appeared, according to the
evidence, as of little importance ; he recommended what every body
would wish to see adopted, namely, union and harmony. ‘fhe Learned
Judge was then once more about to revert to the Smithfield Resolutions,
when—
Mr. Hunt begged leave, with great deference, to submit to his
Lordship, whether a Chairman, who merely received such Resolutions at
the moment of the meeting, and possibly without his concurrenceintheir
formation, ought to be held sostrictly responsible for their contents ?
Mr. Justice Barrey—The law imposes upon a man so acting the
responsibility to which Tallude. I have in my charge, Mr. Hunt, dono
fairly by you, in putting to the Jury those circumstances which may
bear in your favour, as well as those which may have a contrary operation.
Ihave done so I hope impartially, I know conscientiously ; and
Tsolemnly declare, that if this were to be the last moment of mylife,
Ishould charge as I have now charged. The Learned Judge then proceeded
to refer to the evidence, and to enforce upon the minds of the
Jury, thatthe main question they had to try was, whether the meeting
was or was not, according to its manner, calculated to produce terror,
either in the manner in which it was formed, or in the circumstances
that ensued before its dispersion. If they thought it was so constituted
or conducted, then the parties, with that view attending it, were eriminal,
and the Jury would specially record the species of criminality
they attributed to them.. The Learned Judge concluded thus :—You,
I have no doubt, have considered throughout this arduous trial, and
with patient attention weighed the evidence on both sides. Between
the Defendants and the public, I know you will impartially and justly
judge, laying aside, as I implore you to do, all considerations of party
or prejudice which may prevail elsewhere, and give your verdict, as you
upon your solemn oaths are bound to do, upon the evidence alone. I
have only one observation more, and I peremptorily. require attention
to it, out of respect to the Court, and out ofits difference to the laws
when your verdict is given, beit one of Guilty or Not Guilty, I require
that no symptom of approbation. or disapprobation shall be
uttered within these walls ; any such demonstration of feeling is a high
contempt of this Court, and caleulated to subyert. the principles on
which Juries should always act. If a judge or Jury should ever act on
the popular effect which any particular decision may create, or travel
out of the evidence before them.to form: their opinion, their conduct
would not only be highly erroneous, but most criminal. Find no Defendant
guilty, Gentlemen, whose guilt is not in your minds clearly
established by the evidence—find no Defendant innocent, if you think
the evidence establishes his guilt; wherever a doubt arises, the Defendant
ought to have the benefit of it.”
At a quarter past twelve o’Clock, the Learned Judge closed his
Charge, and the Juryretired.
Shortly before five o’clock the Jury returned into the box.
The Foremanheld a paperin his hand, and said the Jury had agreed
upon their yerdict, which he read as follows :—
177
“Moornovse, Jonrs, WitpE, Swirr, and Saxron—NO'l
GUILTY.
“Henry Hunt, Josepu Jounson, Jonn Knieut, Joseru
HeaLey, and Samuet Bamrorp—GUILTY 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 at the same.”
Mr. Justice BatLey.—Do you mean that they themselves intended
to excite?
Tue Forrman.—Yes.
Mr. LirrLepALE.—This verdict should, I think, be taken on
the fourth count to which it moreparticularly applies.
Mr. Justice Baitey.—Let the verdict be recorded. Youfind,
Gentlemen, on such counts as the wordsof your verdict are applicable
to. You do not meanfo find that they created terror, or incited
it in the minds ofthe liege subjects of the King?
THE Foreman.—We meant, my Lord, to find on the first
count, omitting a few words.
The learned JupeéE then requested they would retire and look
over the counts ofthe indictment again, particularly the 4th and 5th,
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 on the
aining counts.
bis Mr.J ustice BaiLey—I take it for granted the Defendants are
still under recognizance?
Mr. Hunr—Weare, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BatLEy—Thenlet 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 £2,000, Mr. Johnson
in £1,000, Bamford and Healey in £500 each. :
(The parties immediately entered into their several recognizances)
Fourth Count of the Indictment.
¥——“ And the Jurors aforesaid upon their oath as aforesaid, do
further present the said Henry Hunt, John Knight, Joseph Johnson, John
Thacker Saxton, James Moorhouse, Joseph Healey, Samuel Bamford,
Robt. Jones, George Swift, and Robt. Wilde, being malicious, seditious,
disaffected and ill-disposed persons, and unlawftly, and maliciously, intending
and devising to disturb and molest the peace and commontranquilityof
our Sovereign Lord the King, of these Realms, and unlawfully,
and maliciously aforesaid, heretofore, to wil, on the 16th day ofeae
in the 59th year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord the King, Ke. ae
force and arms at Manchesteraforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlaw fy :
maliciously, and seditiously, did meet and assemble themselves together
with divers other persons, whose names are to the Jurors unknow n, toa
large number, to wit, to the number of sixty thousand andmore, for the
purpose of raising and exciting discontent and disaffection in the minds of
theliege subjects ofoursaid Lord the King, andfor the purpose of ping
and exciting the liege subjects of our said Lord the King to hatred and contempt
of the Government andConstitution of the Realm, asby Law established,
in contempt ofour said Lord the King and his Laws, ie evil
example of all others, and against the Peace of our said Lord the King,
his Crown and Dignity.”

178
179
Mr. Hunt—Whatis meant by good behaviour, my Lord—itis
a very indefinite term ? : )
Mr. Justice BatLey—Thelaw defines it, Sir.
.2pagel always, my Lord, wish to shew good behaviour
Mr. Justice BammEY—Then youhave only to continue to shew
the same good behaviour you observed in Court during this trial.
+ iae hope I shall always do so, my Lord: in any
thin ee irons, at fell from me, it was f: ar from my intention iti to give any
Proceedings in the
APPENDIX.
Court of King’s Bench, on Mr. Hunt’s Application for @
new Trial.
Mr. Justice BaiLEY—You gave me no offence, Mr. Hunt
Mr. Hunt—I never will, I hope, my Lord. I have to inne
your Lordship much for your patience duringthis long trial.
_ Mr Justice Bartey.—You owe me no thanks for doing that
which was my duty, norin what I say to you do I do more than
state a facl, I do not mean civil expression.
__ Mr. Hunt.—If I move the Court of King’s Bench for a new
trial, I suppose, my Lord, the Defendants who are acquitted need
not attend, though the indictment charges a conspiracy ?
; Mr. Justice BarLey.—I cannot advise ; but there was a case
in ‘Surrey ; I forget the name; Ill recollect it directly.—His Lordship
then turned round to the Jury, and said, they had his best
thanks for the patient attention they had bestowed upon this
arduous trial. He was very much obliged to them. Thenfacing
the body of the Court, his Lordship added, «I very much a rove
of the conduct of the Court at the time the verdict was elite’ee
It was near six o’clock before the Court broke up.
POMPIDIOLGGDR
On Wednesday the 26th of April, Mr. Hunt attended in
Court, and stated to the Lord Chief Justice, that he had several
grounds of objection to thetrial at York, and he nowapplied to his
Lordship for a rule to shew cause whya newtrial should he granted
to the defendants. These objections were briefly as follows:
First; That evidence had been rejected which ought to have
been received.
Secondly; That evidence had been received, which ought to
have been rejected.
Thirdly; That evidence had been received of the training,
drilling, and an assault at White Moss.
Fourthly; That evidence of the flags and banners had been
received, which was notthe best, as they themselves oughtto have
‘ been produced.
Fifthly and lastly; That the Judge had misdirected the Jury.
These objections the Lord Chief Justice deemed sufficient to
call upon Mr. Justice Bailey for the production of his notes, which
were so voluminous that the learned Judge was several days in going
through them. At length, on Friday, May 5th, he concluded the
evidence, and stated the leading features of his charge to the Jury
at York.
Mr. Hunt was then heardin supportof his objections. In the
course of his arguments very longdiscussions frequently arose, and,
it was not until late on Saturday, May 6th, that he concluded. The
Judges deferred giving their opinions until the following Monday.
On this day, May 8th, the Court delivered its judgment
seriatim :—
The Lord Chief Justice ABgort said he would deliverhis opinion
withas muchbrevity as possible. “The first point (he said)
is the rejection of evidence as to the supposed misconductof the mili-~
tary in the dispersion of the meeting, which evidence I think decidedly
irrelevant to the matter in issue. The matter in issue was the
intention and object of the meeting. Lam, therefore, of opinion, that
such evidence was properly rejected. The second pointyis, as
to the admission of the Smithfield Resolutions, to which tqeobjection
is two-fold: first, that the best evidence was not produced,
and, secondly, that no evidence was admissible on the subjects) As
one of the defendants had been chairman of the meeting at which
those resolutions were passed, I think that evidence was relevant to
the matter in issue, and therefore admissible. On the third objection,
the Lord Chief Justice remarked, that the question before
the Jury was the general behaviour of the persons who: composed
) a

|
180
the assembly, as in all cases of riot and conspiracy ; and next,
how the particular charge was connected with that general chaaia
racter. Now, the evidence of the drilling and training, and the
Hi | assault on an individual, was unquestionably evidence, both as tothe }
al) general character of the meeting, andas far as affected the particu-
Male lar defendant who camefrom that place. With respect to the last
nn point, he did not think it necessary to produce the flags and banners,
and that the inscriptions on those flags were more in character
of speeches, uttering the sentiments of the meeting, rather than
writings. As to the alleged misdirection of the Judge, he thought
ia
that the whole of this evidence was properly left to the Jury, who
Ht
had cometb a conclusion warranted by that evidence. Therefore, he
; was of opinion, that the rule should be refused.
Mr. Justice Horroyp and Mr. Justice Bestverybriefly
expressed their concurrence in his Lordship’s opinion.
Mr. Justice BarLey went over the same grounds, and concluded
by stating, that he persisted in the same opinion which he {
held on thé trial.
The ArTrorNEY GENERAL prayed the judgment of the Court
on the defendants, who requested time, and obtained leave to send
to Manchester for affidavits in mitigation. %
} They were directed to appear in Court on the following Saturry,
day, whichthey did, and stating that their affidavits had not arrived,
farther time was allowed them, until the 15th of May.
On Monday the 15th, the day appointed, they appeared” in
Court, and put in a number of affidavits, after which Mr, Hunt
addressed the Court at considerable length, more in behalf of the
other defendants than himself. In the course of this address, he
said, that it gave himgreat pleasure to perceive that Mr. Knight
was not brought upfor judgment, he, therefore, supposed there was
no intention of punishing hint any farther. The’ Lord Chief Justice ’
said in reply, “ Knight’s case is not before us, Mr. Hunt.”
. After a few observations from the Court, on some parts of his
(Mr. Hunt’s) speech, Mk, Justice BatLey pronounced upon the
defendants the following
| SENTENCE:
Henry Hunr to be imprisoned in Ichester Gaol for the term
of two years andsix months,andto find sureties for his good behaviour
Ha 4 forfive years, himself in One Thousand Pounds, and two sureties
t in Five Hundred Pounds each. ‘
Josepu Jounson, Josepn Harry, and Samugy Bamrorp, }
to he imprisoned in Lincoln Gaol for one year, and at the expiration |
of that time each to enter into sureties for his good behaviour during
Jive years, himself in Two Hundred Pounds, and two sureties in
One Hundred Pounds each.
Mr. Hunt was then given into the custody of the tipstaff,
and the keeper of the house of correction removed the other Defendauts.
a FINIS.
t> The Brnper to cancel pages 177 § 178, and subshitute the+ sheet.
ool
ae