« 上一頁繼續 »
legitimate power of the other House of Parliament, as it does in upholding that supreme power (for such is the power of the purse) which resides in the democratical branch of the Constitution. Whatever beyond its just proportion was gained by one part, would be gained at the expense of the whole; and the balance is now, perhaps, as nearly poized as human wisdom can adjust it. I fear to touch that balance, the disturbance of which might bring confusion on the Nation.
"I remember that most excellent and able man, Mr. Wilberforce, once saying in the House of Commons, that he never believed an Opposition really to wish mischief to the country; that they only wished just so much mischief as might drive their opponents out, and place themselves in their room? Now, Gentlemen, I cannot help thinking that there are some persons tampering with the question of Reform something in the same spirit. They do not go so far as the Reformers; they even state irreconcilable differences; but to a certain extent they agree and even co-operate with them. They co-operate with them in inflaming the public feeling not only against the Government, but against the support given by Parliament to that Government, in the hope, no doubt, of attracting to themselves the popularity which is lost to their opponents, and thus being enabled to correct and retrieve the errors of a displaced Administration. Vain
and hopeless task to raise such a spirit and then to govern it! They may stimulate the steeds into fury, till the chariot is hurried to the brink of a precipice; but do they flatter themselves that they can then leap in, and, hurling the incompetent driver from his seat, check the reins just in time to turn from the precipice and avoid the fall? I fear they would attempt it in vain. The impulse once given, may be too impetuous to be controlled, and, intending only to change the guidance of the machine, they may hurry it and themselves to irretrievable destruction.
"May every man who has a stake in the country, whether from situation, from character, from wealth, from his family, and from the hopes of his children,-may every man who has a sense of the blessings for which he is indebted to the form of Government under which he lives, see that the time is come, at which his decision must be taken, and, when once taken, stedfastly acted upon-for or against the institutions of the British Monarchy. The time is come at which there is but this line of demarcation. On which side of that line we, Gentlemen, shall range ourselves, our choice has long ago been made. In acting upon that our common choice, with my best efforts and exertions, I shall at once faithfully represent your sentiments, and satisfy my own judgment and conscience."
AND OTHERS AT YORK.
Murray and Shawecross were so outrageously assaulted. Hunt took an objection to this evidence, and Mr. Justice Bailey doubted whether it could be received; but Mr. Scarlett proceeded to shew that some of the persons who were in training, and who assaulted Murray, attended the meeting on the 16th; the evidence was then allowed to be given.-This important investigation continued Friday and Saturday. Their evidence was designed chiefly to prove that the Manchester meeting excited terror, alarm, and danger in the town, and therefore was illegal: while Hunt, who cross-examined witnesses in his bold, fearless manner, endeavoured to substantiate that the meeting was per
TRIAL OF HENRY HUNT The Trial of Mr. Hunt and nine others, charged with a Conspiracy to alter the legal frame of the Government and Constitution of the Realms, and with Meeting tumultuously at Manchester, on the 16th August last, with 60,000 persons, many armed with sticks, &c. commenced at the York Assizes on Thursday, March 23, before Mr. Justice Bayley.—Mr. Scarlett conducted the prosecution.—Mr. Hunt conducted his own defence. The persons prosecuted were Henry Hunt, Joseph JohnBOB, John Knight, James Morehouse, Joseph Healey, John Tbacker Saxton, Robert Jones, Samuel Bamford, George Swift, and Robert Wilde. The number of witnesses put down for the prosecution exceeded 80; for the defence 105. The de-fectly legal, that the people committed no fendants' witnesses, in two bodies, marched from Rochdale by way of Huddersfield and Halifax. They joined at Leeds, where they slept. They carried two banners, inscribed "The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth."
The Examination, as far as it went the first day, related to facts antecedent to the 16th of August, particularly to the drilling at White Moss, on the 15th, where
breach of the peace, and that when attacked they offered no resistance. The Judge objected to have evidence gone into as to the conduct of the Yeomanry, because they were not trying their conduct.
Mr. Scarlett entered into a luminous detail of the circumstances connected with the Manchester proceedings; and Mr. Hunt defended himself in an energetic speech
of considerable length; but as Mr. Justice Bayley's admirable and impartial charge to the Jury contains the substance of the whole evidence, we shall content ourselves with presenting a copious abstract from the same.
Mr. Justice Bayley, in summing up, said, it was his duty to lay down the law, and to make such remarks on the evidence as might assist them in forming their judg. ment. They were to put entirely out of view, on the present occasion, the conduct of the magistrates and military, whether right or wrong, and to confine themselves to the consideration of the character and conduct of the meeting, and those of the defendants as connected therewith. The indictment against the defendants contained a charge of conspiracy, a charge of unlawful assembly, and a charge of riot. The last-mentioned charge might be, in this case, put entirely out of consideration. There were different counts; one charging the defendants with conspir ing to meet, and causing others to meet, for the purpose of disturbing the public peace; another charged them with having met together for the purpose of raising and exciting discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of our Lord the King, and also to incite them to contempt and hatred of the Government and Constitution, as by law established. Another count set forth, "That the defendants met and assembled, together with divers others, to a very great number, in a threatening and menacing manner, with sticks and other offensive weapons, and with divers seditious ensigns and flags, on which there were various inflammatory inseriptions and devices, to the great terror of the peaceable subjects of our Lord the King." It would be for the Jury to consider whether the conduct of the defendants fell under any, and which of these charges. It had been laid down by Serjeant Hawkins, that bodies of armed men meeting to consider of grievances, or numerous bodies meeting, though unarmed, under such circumstances as could not but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jealousies among the King's sub. jects, were unlawful assemblies. In applying this doctrine to the case under consideration, the Jury were to look to the purpose for which the people met, the manner in which they came, and the means which they were using to effect their purpose. A great number of persons might meet under such circumstances as were not calculated to raise terrors, fears, or jealousies, in the minds of the people in the neighbourhood. But, in an assembly so constituted, and met for a perfectly legal purpose, if any individuals introduced themselves illegally, in order to give to that meeting an undue direction,
which would produce terror in the minds of bis Majesty's subjects, although 59,000 persons out of a meeting of 60,000 were completely innocent, yet there might be twelve or twenty illegally met there, and those twelve or twenty would be liable to be tried on the ground of having illegally assembled. The case, as it was stated by Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, seemed to contemplate the event of immediate danger resulting from the meeting. He, however, was not prepared in his own mind to say that the appearance of immediate danger was necessary to constitute this offence. If the Jury conceived that, from the peaceable demeanour of the people at the time, and the association of the women and children on the ground, the meeting was not sufficient to produce a feeling of immediate danger, though it might of future danger, he would recommend it to the Jury to find a special verdict. With respect to the subject of conspiracy, it was necessary to observe that the defendants were not liable to be found guilty, although they were seeking the same end, if the Jury were not of opinion that they were acting in pursuance of one common design, with the privity of all. It might be, that, in a case of this kind, twelve or twenty persons might go to a meeting, each of them iutending to sow sedition; yet, if such person intended to sow that sedition, from the mere motive and impulse of his own mind, and not in common with the other parties, they could not be found guilty of conspiracy. On the other hand, to prove conspiracy, there was no necessity to show the absolute meeting together of the parties accused. If the circumstances were such as to induce the Jury to believe that they could not have occurred without the previous concert and combination of the parties accused, it was sufficient. But if the Jury were of opinion that they might have met together by accident, without previous arrangement, then the charge of conspiracy must be dismissed from their minds. A party expressing an iutention to go to this or any other meeting might induce other persons who heard of it through him, to attend also, without any previous design. They could only implicate, in the offence of conspiracy, those persons who the evidence showed either actually were, or from circumstances must have been, parties to the formation of the original plan. Those who joined in a plan, thougli at a late period of the transaction, could not be distinguished from those with whom it originated, because they agreed to all that had previously been done, and thus became couspirators. As to the question of assembling it might be, that the avowed object of the meeting was lawfui, but it might be attended by twelve persous intending or attempting to give an improper
improper direction to the conduct of those who were lawfully met; in that case such persons would be guilty of unlawfully as sembling, though there should have been no conspiracy. With respect to banners bearing inscriptions, their illegality did not extend to every man present at the meeting, but only to those particular persons who adopted those banners, and the sentiments inscribed on them; or who, with a full knowledge of their existence, gave perfect confidence and co-operation to the meeting. So also in case of drill ing. It could only affect those who knew that drilling was practised for illegal purposes. To show whether tefror was or was not produced, he would state the testimony on both sides in this case. They would find in the evidence on the part of the prosecution a great deal which imported that no apprehension of immediate danger existed; and the circumstance of women and children being present would be worthy of their consideration in that respect. It was admitted that an attempt was made to keep peace at the meeting. But this might have been done in order to forward future objects. It might have been hoped, that, by this meaus, the prepared seed would be sown, while those who pursued this course would wait till the time of harvest to reap the benefit of it. The Learned Judge then proceeded to recapitulate the voluminous evidence adduced in the course of this interesting trial, briefly commenting on it as he went on. He observed, that a meeting of 60,000 persons, if they all came to a certain point, with a common knowledge of what was to be done, might create terror. With respect to the banners, he again observed, that those only who showed that they were favourable to any motto inscribed on them, by carrying, or immediately marching under them, could be considered as liable to any penalty which the illegal nature of any of their inscriptions might warrant. It was given, he observed, in evidence, that Moorhouse was a religious man, and constantly read the Bible to his familya fact stated to induce the inference that he would not be guilty of an illegal or immoral act. It was also stated that Mrs. Moorhouse, though in the family-way, went through the crowd; and it was not likely, if danger had been apprehended, that her husband would have permitted her to attend. With respect to persons walking in the military step, to which several witnesses had sworn, it could not affect the persons charged, unless they were proved to have been cognizant of the fact. With respect to the inscription, "Equal Representation or Death," if it meant that those who adhered to such a standard would lose their lives unless they procured what they deemed "Equal Re
presentation," it amonnted to sedition; but if, as Mr. Hunt explained it, the inscription merely meant, that if the people did not procure " Equal Representation," they would be starved to death, it would not come within the character of sedition. Again, the inscription of "No Corn Laws” left the Jury to consider whether the meaning of it was that the corn laws were so oppressive, that every means, legal or illegal, were to be taken, in order to get rid of them; or whether it was a mere uxpression of disapprobation. In the former case it would certainly be sedition, in the latter it would not. As to the cap of liberty, it was one of the insignia of the crown; and when the King went to Parliament, an officer of state always bore it before him. It did not, therefore, of necessity, meau any thing seditious. With respect to any stoppage of business occasioned by the meeting, it was positively sworn, by a great mass of evidence for the defendants, that it was not at all interrupted. The phrase sworn to by one of the witnesses, as having been used by a person going to the meeting, namely, that they would "make a Moscow of Manchester," seemed to be inconsistent with the general intention expressed by the reformers on that day. There was every reason to believe that Mr. Entwistle was mistaken in the expression of Hunt about their enemies, as applied to the soldiers. With regard to the shout set up when the military appeared, it might be the shout of consciousness of innocence, and a determination to remain on that consciousness, or it might be the shout of intimidation. Its nature was to be determined by the circumstances in which it was uttered. There was no other witness that spoke to threatening expressions but Mr. Francis Phillips. The multitude round the hustings appeared to this witness disciplined troops, ready to protect funt in case of any molestation. If he had a false impression in this case he might in another, and there seemed to be no evidence that the multitude were ready to fight, as the majority of them had no arms, most of them being even without sticks. With regard to Mr. Hulton, the magistrate, it was to be considered that he was not in that situation which enabled him to observe so accurately what passed as many of those whose evidence negatived the throwing of sticks, stones, and brick-bats. Situated as Mr. H. was, and having heard of drillings, &c. he might be 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. The depositions submitted to Mr. H. had there been a million of them, could be of no avail, for the Jury were bound
alone to attend to viva voce evidence, given in open Court. Nadin's statement to Mr. Hulton might justify the latter in issuing the warrant, but Nadin had not been produced to prove the circumstances under which he acted; neither had any of the magistrates been brought forward in corroboration of Mr. Hulton's evidence; and sitting there, as he (the Judge) was to administer equal justice to all, it was his duty to tell them, 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.
His Lordship then went on to recapitu. late the leading points of the defence, as it bore on the defendants generally. As to Saxton, the Crown has very properly given up the case against him. The character of the meeting was decidedly peaceable, and no proof had been adduced that terror was excited in the town of Manchester; but it had been suggested that future and not immediate disturbances were in contemplation; this was for the consideration of the Jury. He then repeated his observations as to what would constitute the meeting, or any part of it, illegal or otherwise. The meeting, it was said, had been called by 700 housekeepers, but of this no proof had been given. It did not appear what resolutions Mr. Hunt intended to propose; if the same as at Smithfield, and that the Jury conceived they were calculated to excite discontent and disaffection, then quoad Mr. Hunt, the ineeting would be illegal; and if he communicated such intentions to any others, and that they approved of them, theu there would be a conspiracy; and if any three of them went to the meeting with such intent, the meeting would, as far as they were concerned, be illegal. He then stated the mottos on the different banners, with the interpretation put on them by the defendants and the prosecution. If any of those banners were meant to convey to the eye what in such a meeting no voice could convey to the ear-if they meant that the people should be disaffected or discontented till they had obtained those objects-then the parties who bore the flags, and those who marched with them, would be guilty of an illegal act, and the meeting, as far as they were coucerned, would be illegal. The training and drilling, if intended merely to produce greater order and regularity in those who attended the meeting of the 16th, was perfectly harmless; but if it was intended, by giving this regularity, to give a greater degree of strength to the party, and thereby to overawe the Government, or to gain coufidence to any seditious opinions to procure a legal object by motives of fear, them it would have been illegal, and the
meeting at which they assembled, after such training, would be illegal also, as to those privy to such purpose, though it might have been attended by thousands of innocent persons. The Learned Judge then took a brief view of the evidence on both sides, as it affected the defendants individually.
He would now leave the case to them, with this one observation-not to give a verdict of guilty, unless they were fully satisfied of the sufficiency of proof-nor a verdict of acquittal, while such proof existed in their minds. If they had any doubt, they would give all the defendants the benefit of it.
It was very near twelve o'clock when his Lordship concluded; and, in a few minutes after the Jury retired, and, after consulting together for five hours, returned into Court at five o'clock. The Foremau held a paper in his hand, and said the Jury had agreed upon their verdict, which he read as follows:
"Moorhouse, Jones, Wild, Swift, Saxton-Not Guilty. Henry Hunt, Joseph Johnson, John Knight, Joseph Healy, and Samuel Bamford-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 batred of the Government and Constitution of the realm, as by law established, and attending of the same."
Mr. Justice Bayley. "Do you mean that they themselves intended to incite?" -The Foreman. "Yes."-Mr. Littledale. "This verdict must be taken on the fourth count." Mr. Justice Bayley. "Let the verdict be so recorded. find, gentlemen, ou such counts as the words of your verdict are applicable to. You do not mean to find that they created terror, or incited it in the minds of the liege subjects of our King."-The Foreman. "We meant, my Lord, to find on the first count, oinitting a few words.”— The Learned Judge then requested they would retire and look over the counts of the indictments again, and say to which count they meant to apply their verdict.
The Jury withdrew for a few minutes, and returned with a verdict of Guilty generally on the fourth count, and Not Guilty upon the remaining counts.-Mr. Justice Bayley, "I take it for granted the defendants are still under recognizances."— Mr. Hunt. "We are, my Lord.”—Mr. Justice Bayley. "Then let them now additionally, in Court, enter into their own recognizances to keep the peace and good behaviour for six months, Mr. Hunt in the sum of 2000. Mr. Johnson of 1000! Knight, Bamford and Healey 500/. each.
The parties immediately entered into their several recognizances.
Letters from Angouleme contain the ollowing account of a borrible outrage committed near Confolers:-A young couple, who were on the point of being married, went together to invite their relations to the nuptials. The girl was mounted upon her lover's horse, followed by him on foot. On their arrival at a village where the young man wanted to see some person, he left his destined bride to wait his return in the road. Immediately after three ruffians arrived, who, after grossly insulting the young girl, obged her to alight from the horse, stripped her naked, committed outrages on her person which decency will not permit us to relate, and threatened to murder her; they then killed the horse, cut open his belly, took out the entrails, and in their place put the unfortunate young woman, sewed up the animal's skin, and made off. Some children who were passing by afterwards heard cries issuing from the bowels of the borse, and immediately ran in great fright to tell their parents that the devil was in a dead horse lying in the road. In the mean time the young man arrived and heard the groans of his expiring mistress. She was dragged out of the horrid situation where the villains had placed her, and transported to the nearest barn, where every attention was paid to her. police set directly about pursuing the horrid monsters who had committed an offence new in the annals of crime, and were fortunate enough to arrest them. They were recognized by the young woman upon confrontation. The unfortunate victim could not survive the outrages which had been perpetrated upon her, and expired five days afterwards. SPAIN.
The Revolution in Spain has received its consummation by the acceptance, on the part of Ferdinand, of the terms proposed to him by the Constitutionalists. The following interesting particulars describe the circumstances which led to this most important event. From the beginning of March to the 8th, but especially from the 6th to that day, dispatches arrived at Madrid in rapid succession from the provinces, which convinced the Government of the impossibility of supporting any longer the system of arbitrary power. They were too well apprised that the insurrection which broke out in the Isle of Leon was making a gcGENT, MAG. April, 1820.
neral progress throughout the uation, and the intelligence was assuming every instant a character more alarming. The troops under the command of Joseph O'Donnel had passed over to Riego. Those before the Isle of Leon had joined Quiroga; while the Count L'Abisbal, who had secretly left the capital for Ocauna, abandoned the Royal cause, and proclaimed the Constitution, which was swor to by him and his troops, and also by a regiment of cavalry quartered at the lat ter place. The news of these events was accompanied by information, not g conclusive, from Gallicia, Leon, Old Castile, and Murcia. It was known, also, that the fine regiment of Malaga, with its Colone!, Picquero, had taken the oath to the Constitution in Ciudad Rodrigo, and was marching upon Astorga. These important events burst upon Ferdinand like a clap of thunder.-Ballasteros was sent for from Valadolid, whither he had been banished, and vested with the command of the army of the centre. On receiving this charge on the 5th instant, he observed to the King, that, under existing circumstances, it would be necessary to convene the Cortes, and the powerful reasons he gave had great effect on the King's mind. As a preliminary step, however, the decree, calling on the various branches of the Administration for their opinions, was issued; but it was not satisfactory, and created general murmurs. The people openly declared they would not be satisfied with any thing short of the Constitution of 1812. Such was the state of things when Abisbal's defection threatened the capital, if the King did not ixstantly proclaim the Constitution. Scarcely was this known, when two expresses brought advices that Arragon bad revolted, as well as Valadolid, the moment Baliasteros left the latter city. These incidents caused a confusion that presaged a Revolution in the Capital, which must have been extremely serious; and in order to prevent it Ballasteros went to the Palace, and firmly told the King, that between the acknowledgment of the Constitution and his dethronement, or perhaps worse, no alternative was left. He must now choose one extreme or the other, but not a moment was to be lost. Such was the dilemma in which the King stood at the moment, and thus in fact was he brought to bis senses. He consented, and Bailaste108 instantly went forth to tranquillize the