CO 
 
 ijl4l t>| 
 
 
 ■ , t 
 
 ? ' F rv-. '*! ^ 
 
 V^-- \v..<>i^, ■'. ' S V ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 (XXL 
 
 
 aJt 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the collection of 
 James Collins, 
 Drumcondra, Ireland. 
 
 . Purchased, 1918. 
 
 330.94.15 
 
 Oc5l s 
 
 I 
 
r ' 
 
 1 
 
 
 t 
 
 % 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 
 I-: 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ■i"! 
 
 r -ft 
 
 \ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive - 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/stateofireland00ocon_0 
 
S T A T E 
 
 OF 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 BY 
 
 ARTHUR O’CONNOR. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN CLEAVE, 1, SHOE LANE, FLEET STREET, 
 AND May be had oi- '4 ll booksellers and newsvenders 
 
 IN TOWN AND COUNTRY." 
 
 1843. 
 
. S' ^ (3 
 
 330 , 1415 ’ 
 
 ©c-B-ls 
 
 TO 
 
 THOSE WHO WERE ELECTORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COUNTY OF ANTEIM. 
 
 Fellow-Citizens, 
 
 The year which has intervened since I last addressed you, has been filled with 
 events the most trying for the present, and the most auspicious for the future, that 
 have ever occurred in our mournful history. It is twelve months since I promised 
 to give you a State of our Country ; but such has been the tyranny under which 
 Persecution has laboured to destroy'the freedom of discussion, that, until within 
 these few days, it has not been in my power to perform my promise. It was my 
 intention to have addressed it to you as the only independent part of the then Con- 
 stituent Body ; but since the present Ministers and their Accomplices have de- 
 stroyed every vestige of Election by Martial Law, and by imprisoning your Candi- 
 date upon false pretences, on the eve of a general election — abandoning all idea of 
 considering you as a part of what no longer exists, I have addressed the State of 
 our Country to you in common with the rest of my Countrymen united in the 
 glorious cause of regaining their Freedom. They who expect to find a detail of 
 the horrors of which Ireland has been the theatre, will be disappointed ; those have 
 been already written in tbe blood of our Countrymen ; your sufferings have flowed 
 from the System ; I have therefore mounted to the source, and detailed the System 
 itself. Convinced that such a System should not, nor cannot, be longer continued ; 
 convinced that Murderers must capitulate, and lay down their arms at the feet of 
 the Nation they have outraged, I have hastened to give a State of our Country, 
 . that Irishmen might be furnished with an account of those wrongs they have to 
 redress, and of those rights they have to regain, before their Liberties can be 
 secured. 
 
 I have given you this Statement with all its imperfections on its head, rather than 
 
11 
 
 wait to abridge its redundances, or to correct the numerous faults with which it 
 abounds. If I have shown you the truth, it is of trivial consideration in what 
 garb I have dressed her ; the crisis is too momentous, her presence too necessary, 
 her charms too lovely, to need decoration. The inviolable fidelity with which my 
 beloved Countrymen have kept their engagements one to the other, and that spirit 
 which has risen in proportion as dangers and difiiculties have multiplied, augur that 
 Liberty will exalt the fame of Irishmen as high in the future history of nations, as 
 rapine and tyranny have depressed it in the centuries that have passed. What I 
 have said has flowed warm from a heart unsubdued by persecution ; and my utmost 
 w ish will be accomplished if it finds as warm a reception in the unbroken hearts of 
 my United Countrymen. ' , 
 
 - ARTHUR OUONNOR. 
 
 February 1, 1798. • 
 
DEDICATION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 WORKING CLASSES OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 
 
 My Friends, 
 
 While the existence of Irish grievances is denied, and, while 
 the history of that devoted country is but little understood, I 
 hope by the publication of the following work, written by Arthur 
 O^Connor in 1798, to furnish such a compendium of Irish history, 
 and such a catalogue of Irish grievances, as will in somewise satisfy 
 the sceptic. 
 
 The reader, when perusing the state of Ireland as described by 
 Arthm* O’Connor in 1798, would, if dates were omitted, imagine 
 that he was reading the present history of that countiy. In it will 
 be found the real and substantial grievances of which Ireland then 
 complained, and not one of which up to the present hour have 
 been redressed. The author assigns the law-church, and the 
 application of its educational funds, and the Irish landlords, and 
 their management of their properties, as amongst the greatest 
 grievances of that country ; he shows the pernicious effect of the 
 laws of primogeniture, of settlement, and entail, and their minute 
 connexion with the state church and its dependents. 
 
 Upon the subject of the land, he contends, as I contend and as 
 every honest man must contend, that no country can be considered 
 prosperous or her people independent wherein the system of pro- 
 prietorship of small farms, and universal suffrage, do not form the 
 base of her social and political institutions. Had I looked for a 
 compilation of matter pertinent to the present position of all classes 
 in this empire, I coidd not have gleaned from all ancient and 
 modern writers, as much valuable matter as is contained in the 
 state of Ireland which I am about to republish. As, however, it is 
 well known that scores of prostitute historians have been hired by 
 the English ministry from time to time to give such a colouring 
 to the revolution of 1798 as would suit their own purposes, and 
 which has gone far to leave Ireland without record to be relied mp- 
 on, it may not be amiss to give a brief sketch of the political life of 
 the author. 
 
 Arthur O’Connor, in 1793, was appointed High Sheriff of his 
 native county, Cork ; in the discharge of his duties during office, 
 
 B 
 
11 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 he introduced so many reforms, and evinced such a leaning towards 
 democracy, that the aristocracy of the county took alarm. In 1795 
 he was returned for Phillipstown, a pocket borough of his uncle 
 Lord Longueville, and in the following year, when the question of 
 Catholic emancipation was discussed in the Irish House of Com- 
 mons, he made that celebrated speech in favour of complete emanci- 
 pation which remains fresh in the minds of the Irish people, and 
 which can never be effaced. For that speech he sacrificed twenty 
 thousand a year and a peerage, and refused to retract one sentence 
 that it contained, upon the understanding that both should in such 
 case be confeired upon him. In 1796 he established the ‘Northern 
 Star’ newspaper, which was subsequently suppressed by military 
 force. When that paper was destroyed he established the ‘Press’ 
 newspaper, and so powerful an opponent was it looked upon by 
 the English Minister, that it was thought impossible to effect a 
 union between the two coimtries so long as that journal existed. Ar- 
 thur O’Connor was tlien attacked by all the powers at the disposal 
 of the English Minister and the Irish executive. The ‘ Press ’ was de- 
 stroyed. He was tried at Maidstone, on the 21st and 22nd of May, 
 
 1798, for High Treason ; three months after he had published that 
 work which I am now about to republish. From 1 797, to the end of 
 
 1799, when the union had been effected by an incalculable amount 
 of blood and treasure, Arthur O’Connor was transmitted from 
 prison to prison, and Jfrom dungeon to dungeon, until at length 
 the powers of tyranny became too powerful for the individual, and 
 he was compelled to submit to banishment for life, and still lives, 
 having seen more than fourscore years, vigorous in body, and 
 sound in mind, perhaps the best specimen that Em’ope can furnish 
 of a patriot, a statesman, a scholar, a politician, and a gentleman. 
 He married the only daughter of the celebrated French philoso- 
 pher, the Marquis Condorcet ; and may he live to see that union 
 repealed, which he laboured so honestly to prevent, is the sincere 
 wish of his nephew, and your devoted friend, 
 
 FEARGUS O’CONNOR. 
 
 Note. — The reader, in perusing the following work, will he careful to keep in 
 view the time at which it was written, as many statements, if applied to the present 
 day, would he irreconcilable with facts; for instance, the author estimates the 
 amount of Church property in 1798 at £500,000 per annum, whereas at the pre- 
 sent day, including Bishop-lands, Corporate-endowments, and emoluments, and all 
 other good things, it amounts to over two million sterling per annum ; and no doubt 
 the great improvement in Church tr?ide will be relied upon by the political econo- 
 mist as another feature in Irish improvement. 
 
TO 
 
 THE IRISH NATION. 
 
 J ^ 
 
 Fellow- Citizens, 
 
 That I should attempt to inquire into the state of ourcountry in its present woeful con- 
 dition, does not arise from any overweening conceit that I possess abilities adequate to 
 so arduous a task. It would argue a total ignorance of the extent and intricacy of the 
 system which has caused the poverty of Ireland — it would argue a total ignorance 
 how much this system was interwoven, not only with the fortunes of the herd of lit- 
 tle gentry, but with the fortunes and consequence of the most powerful families 
 amongst us, — were I not Sensible of my inability to do the subject that justice its 
 importance deserves. But, although I am not gifted with that commanding elo- 
 quence which can fortify irresolute virtue, and appal the daring efirontery of inve- 
 terate guilt, I trust you shall not find me w^anting in perseverance to trace the mi- 
 sery and sufferings of my country to their real source, nor in resolution to brave the 
 persecution and calumny of detested criminals. ^ 
 
 Hitherto, the state of /he has been so mistaken for thestate of the country, that, 
 as often as the public mind ha*s been led to hope that an inquiry would be made into the 
 state of the nation, it has always ended in recitals of the contests of the different factions 
 under the different administrations, with reciprocal animadversions and eulogiumson 
 those by whom they have been supported, and on those by whom they have been op- 
 posed— by w'hich reiterated disgraceful recriminations the people of Ireland have at 
 length learnt wnth what undeviating uniformity their dearestinteresis have been sold. 
 Detestingfaction, detesting the entire principles on which Irish administration is formed, 
 I am free to investigate the purposes for which the public money, or, as it is called, the 
 patronage of Ireland, has been distributed by the agent of a British minister, and the 
 services for which it has been received by an Irish legislature. I avow myself openly- 
 the implacable enemy of the whole system under which venality, con-uptiorr and ty-- 
 ranny, have dared to trample on the liberties of my country, where emoluments are 
 peculation, and what are called honours a disgrace. Appearances are so strong 
 against this system — they carry with them such evident marks that the foulest trea- 
 son has been practised against the people of Ireland — that, were I to content ray- 
 self with the mention of general abstract facts, I know not how the most shameless 
 prostitution . could deny the necessity of instantaneous reformation. If internal 
 tranquillity, and a willing obedience to the laws, be the best criterion to judge of the 
 justice or wisdom with which they have been made, or of the moderation with wdiich 
 they have been administered, in what period of our history, in yvhat quarter of our 
 country, shall the government and legislature of Ireland find their justification ? If 
 the condition of a people be the best criterion to judge of the excellence of their 
 practical government, how shall the people of Ireland, worse housed, worse clad, and 
 worse fed, than the subjects of the most inveterate despotism in Europe, divest them- 
 selves from thinking that they live under one of the worst practical governments in 
 the w'orld If the respect in which a nation is held abroad be the best criterion to 
 
4 
 
 judge of the ability or integrity with which its affairs have been conducted at home, ' 
 bow shall the people of Ireland, without rank, or without a name among nations, 
 force themselves to believe that their affairs have been conducted with either ability 
 or integrity ? Is it by comparing the rank which this beauteous island holds with 
 the rank held by the swamps of Holland, the mountains of Switzerland, the dimi- 
 nutiveness of (leneva or Genoa, or the sterility of Portugal, suffering under the 
 double lash of civil and religious despotism, that the people of Ireland should be sa- 
 tisfied with the fidelity of their government, or with the purity of their representa- 
 tives? Shall beggary and famine stalk through your country, so blest \rith a tem- 
 perate climate and a fertile soil, without the strongest suspicion that the people have 
 not been done justice ? Shall a brave, healthy, intelligent, generous people, be 
 doomed to the most squalid misery at home, and be famed for enterprize, activity 
 and industry in every country but their own, without the strongest suspicion that 
 they have been made a prey to peculation, injustice, and oppression ? Shall a 
 country be endowed by Providence with the advantages of coasting canlage, of na- 
 vigable rivers, and with the most convenient form, and yet its industry be at so low 
 an ebb, that the principal manufactures for home consumption shall be furnished by 
 a neighbouring nation, without the strongest suspicion that her industry has been 
 sold ? Shall a country be gifted by the hand of nature with the advantages of in- 
 sular situation — be indented with numerous safe and commodious harbours, and be 
 most advantageously placed on the globe between the old and the new world, and yet 
 possess such an inconsiderable foreign trade, as that no ships scarcely, but those of 
 one nation, shall enter her ports, and those the ships of that nation which appoints 
 her government and distributes her patronage — without the strongest suspicion of 
 perfidy in her government, and treason in her legislature ^ 
 
 The contrast between the condition of our country and the natural advantages 
 with which it has been gifted, forms a paradox which calls aloud for inquiry. I will 
 not waste time in proving that we are immersed in a state of poverty, and wretched- 
 ness which ill accords with the natural advantages of our country. He must be 
 blind who does not see it; he must be deaf who has not heard our complaints; and 
 there are none hut those who haye been sharers in the plunder that have not felt for 
 our distress. I know there are traitors amongst us, who say that our misery is caused 
 by our indolence, and that idleness is an innate vice in the people of Ireland. If so, 
 why do they come from the most remote quarters of the country to the vicinage of 
 the towns, to seek for employment ? Why do they leave their habitations, their fa- 
 milies and their countiy, in such numbers, every year, to seek for employment 
 in England and in Newfoundland ? If idleness be an innate vice in us and in our 
 soil, how has it happened that we have surpassed the people of England in the only 
 manufacture in which our industry has been done justice ? Or, if we are this itido- 
 Icnt people, why was it necessary for a legislature of Ireland to write its own indeli- 
 ble infamy in the blapk character of that law by which it destroyed the woollen 'raa- 
 nufacture in Ireland in order to promote it in Great-Britain ? But these are the 
 calumnies of men enriched by emoluments which their prostitution, not their abili- 
 ties, has gathered — of men who are bribed to betray tlie people they vilify -^of men 
 who seek to lay the effects, of their own treason at the door of the nation they have 
 sold, oppressed, and ruined. It is time to unmask them, and to prove to the world, 
 that the want of industry so foully charged on the people of Ireland originates in 
 the plunder and poverty of their country, and that tliis plunder and poverty origi- 
 nate in a system of corruption and usurpation which those ivlio have destroyed 
 every vestige of our liberties call glorious and happy. 
 
 Of the sacred Funds iKhk'h 'pciy ike W(iges of Industry. 
 
 Industry is the source of human prosperity, and the \y ages of industry are its 
 excitement. In every civilized countiy, the wealth gathered by industry forms a 
 fund for the employment of the industrious ; and as the existence of ibis fund is 
 the, great discriminating mark between civilization and barbarism, so the state of 
 
5 
 
 this fund is what regulates the condition and character of every people upon earth. 
 If the government and legislature protect the people in their industry and in their 
 national rights, this fund will answer the population : It will grow with a growing 
 population, and population will be a blessing : Industry will flourish ; and, with it, 
 plenty, honesty, sobriety, cleanliness and the rest of her delightful companions, will 
 follow in her train. These are the effects of good government ; these are the fruits 
 of liberty : these are the blessings which the Almighty showers down upon a people 
 who have the spirit to assert their rights, and the courage to maintain them, against 
 governments which exist but by the means they have of corrupting, and against le- 
 gislators who live but on the wages they receive for betraying, the people they pre- 
 tend to represent. But when the fund^ for the employment of industry have been 
 squandered — when the government and legislature, by treason and plunder, have 
 perverted this fund from answering the population, or from growing so as to answer 
 a growing population, population becomes a curse; Idleness must predominate ; and 
 with k, poverty, dishonesty, drunkeness, filth and the rest of her horrid crew, most 
 be the inevitable consequence. These are the unerring marks of an enslaved na- 
 tion : These are the evils which visit a people cursed with a foreign government and 
 a venal legislature : These are the calamities which afflict a people, the fund for the 
 employment of whose industry has been drained, to swell the funds for the employ- 
 ment of that nation which appoints their government and distributes their patronage. 
 It is the proportion which this fund bears to the population tliat stamps the charac- 
 ter of indolence, or of industry, on e^very people on the globe. It is this proportion 
 which regulates the happiness, or misery, of every nation upon earth. If, then, this 
 sacred fund has been squandered by the government and legislature of Ireland — if 
 every means by, which Irish industry could acquire frish capital has been sacrificed, 
 to swell the funds, and to promote the industry, of Great-Brilain, I do liot hesitate 
 to assert that the government and legislators of Ireland have been the most prosti- 
 tute hirelings, that they have committed the foulest treason against the people of Ire- 
 land, that ever government or legislature committed against a people. But, that 
 you may judge of the fidelity with which your government and legislature have pro- 
 tected and husbanded this sacr;ed fund, we must examine how far the sources from 
 which it could he supplied, have been applied to their proper use. 
 
 THE FIRST SOURCE. 
 
 The first, the most permanent and the most abundant source for supplying the 
 fund for the employment of national industry^ is the produce of agriculture. Does 
 the produce, of the lands of Ireland go to supply the fund for the employment 
 of its people ? No ! your corn, your cattle, your butter, your leather, your yarn, all 
 youi’ superfluous produce, and much more than w’ould he superfluous if the people 
 of Ireland were lurnished with the common necessaries of life, are all exported with- 
 out a return to pay the rents of Irish landlords who do not think the country wor- 
 thy of their residence, every particle of which is as utterly lost to the fund for the 
 employment of the people of Ireland as if it had been thrown into the sea. The 
 whole is exported, to swell the funds for the employnient of the people of England ; 
 whilst the fprsaken, plundered people of Ireland are left to languish in famine and 
 misery, for want of that wealth, in , the shape of wages, which the labour of their 
 hands, and the sw'eat of their brow, had originally produced— exhaling the sap and 
 moisture of the Irish soil to fertilize Great Britain. 1 ask, if this country were to 
 wage an endless war, which should be defrayed by tlie annual exportation^ of two 
 millions’ worth of her rude unmanufactured produce, how could the fund for the 
 employment of her industry be more impoverished than it is by this exportation of 
 her agricultural produce without a return ? If the Almighty were to afflict this coun- 
 try with barrenness and blighting to such adegreej that her annual produce should 
 he two millions’ worth less than it is at present — or, if the Almighty were to send 
 such inclement seasons, that the two millions’ worth of her rude produce were lo be 
 destroyed— in what respect could the fund for the employment ol the peonle of Ire- 
 
6 
 
 land 1)6 more injured than it is at present ? If this country was annually ravaged 
 by the most barbarous enemy; nay, if we were a conquered people — could the most 
 oppressive tyrants have exacted a more severe tribute, or could the payment be en- 
 forced in a manner more injurious to the industry of Ireland, than by rejecting their 
 manufactured produce, and obliging them to pay it in the rude unmanufactured 
 state ? Creative as this evil has been of the misery and wretchedness of the people 
 of Ireland — destructive as it lias proved to their industry — I ask, why have the go- 
 vernment and legislature ot Ireland resisted every attempt to correct or to prevent 
 it? Although the properly of the non-resident, and the resident, are equally pro- 
 tected by the Irish government, yet so wholly has the property of the non-residents 
 been exempted from contributing towards its support, that the beggar who consumes 
 one penny-worth of tobacco in the course of the year contributes more towards the 
 maintenance of Irish government than all the non-resident landlords put together. 
 Give me one instance in the history of nations, in which the interest and industry 
 of a people calling themselves free has been so wholly sacrificed to the accommoda- 
 tion of a few individuals. Give me one instance in the annals of the world, where 
 llie most sacred rights of a nation calling itself independent has been so ireaclicrous- 
 ly abandoned to aggrandize another people. 
 
 THE SECOND SOmCE 
 
 The next source from which the fund lor the employment of national industry 
 can be supplied, is the profits ol the national capital employed in commerce. For 
 a nation to be commercial, she must he free. It is the exclusive privilege, it is the 
 most glorious attribute, of transcendent liberty, that she protects her votaries in the 
 freest exercise of their industry, and in the fullest enjoyment of its produce. Com- 
 merce must be free from embarrassment, froiii injustice, and from oppression. How 
 then, shall a country, subject to such a code as the revenue, laws of Ireland, become 
 commercial ? How shall commerce, which shrinks from embarrassment, and flies 
 from injustice and oppression, take up its residence in a country wliere- its most im- 
 portant branches are made to bend under the weight of the fees and exactionsof the 
 officers of revenue ? How shall commerce take up its residence in a country where the 
 laws which regulate trade are calculated to make the independence of the mercantile 
 body crouch to revenue clerks, at once legislators and commissioners, at once makers 
 and expounders of the laws ? How shall commerce take up her abode where the 
 laws are made to sap the independence of a county, or to colonize a borough, with 
 the instruments of venality, extortion and pillage ? Speculation is the soul of com- 
 merce ; and an extensive market is the life of speculation. How, then, shall Ireland 
 become commercial, where the legislature has thrown open every market in Ireland 
 to every species ofBritisli manufacture, whilst every market in Great Britain is shut 
 against every species of Irish manufacture, with one solitary exception, which, after 
 every effort, British industry could not compass ? Your legislature has not only sa- 
 crificed your home trade to the most commercial nation in the world, hut, by giving 
 this powerful nation an unbounded nght to fill your markets with the produce of 
 her own and of every other nation, while a reciprocal right of sending foreign pro- 
 duce to her markets is strictly denied you, your foreign trade undergoes the fate of 
 your home trade. Yes ! your own legislature has laid your home trade, they have 
 laid your foreign trade, at the feet of British aggrandizement; and they have pro- 
 cured your exclusion in return. Does this look as if the legislature of either coun- 
 try represented Ireland ? Does not this look as if both represented Great Britain ? II 
 this be Irish legislation, what man who loves his country durst dispute the virtue of 
 your senate ? If this he British fraternity, what Irishman so ungrateful that will not 
 fall with Biitiiin, and think his blood w'ell shed for such a benefactor. 
 
 THE THIRI) SOURCE. 
 
 The next source from which the fund for the employment of national iiidiisirv 
 
can be supplied, is the profits of the nalional capital employed jn manufactures. 
 For a people to become manufacturersi they should have materials to work on, and 
 
 f rovisioiis to maintain them whilst they are at work. How shall the people of 
 reland become a manufacturing nation, whose materials and provisions are annually 
 exported without any return ? Robbed ol their home market, robbed of the foreign 
 market for the surplusage of their work after the home market is supplied, where 
 are they to dispose of their manufactures, even though they were not robbed of 
 their materials and provisions without a return ? Your home market is narrowed 
 by an inundation of every species of British manufacture, whilst every market in 
 Great Britain is closed against every species of Irish manufacture, with the solitary 
 exception of your linen. Your industry is robbed of its native food, chained down 
 on its native soil. Thus famished, manacled, and in infancy, it is thrown a 
 prey to the monster of mercantile avarice, whose insatiable appetite has plundered 
 and devoured the mild inhabitants of the East Indies — reduced the human species 
 to the state of the brute creation in the West Indies — would have subjugated the 
 brave Americans — and, after deluging all Europe with blood, making it a prey to 
 famine and civil discord, has expended its treasures to instigate exhausted com- 
 batants to a farther continuance of a war, and of a carnage, the most destructive 
 and bloody that has been ever recorded in the annals of the world. 
 
 FOURTH SOURCE. 
 
 The next source from which the fund for the employment of your national 
 industry could be supplied, is your fisheries. What a source of wealth and industry 
 would they have proved to a well-governed nation, blessed with the natural advan- 
 tages with which Ireland has been gifted ! Yet how has this treasure been destroyed 
 by that law intituled An Act for the encouragement of the Fisheries of Ireland 1" 
 An act in which you will see as much human presumption as ever yet appeared in 
 human legislation. 
 
 The revenue code had established the omnipotence 6^ lis commissioners; this 
 law establishes their omniscience. It says, that three of them shall annually inform 
 th.e fishermen of Ireland of the exact spot where the fish are to be found. It not 
 only directs where they shall fish, but it directs, in the most precise manner, how 
 they shall fish, and how they shall be equi})ped ; and, if the illiterate fishermen of 
 Ireland do not take, and comply with the contents of, eleven long oaths set forth in 
 this law, although they should catch all the fish in the sea, they cannot catch one 
 shilling of bounty. To follow this law through all its absurdities, would be to 
 recite every letter of the act. Legislators, who, from their situation in life, could 
 not have the skill or knowledge of the meanest fisherman on the coast, have pre- 
 scribed the exact manner in which a wdiole people, under all the variations of time, 
 situation and circumstances, shall exercise their industry in one of its most important 
 branches. It is not onl}’- that vast sums of the public money of an impoverished 
 country have been squandered, but, that, they should be expended for the purpose 
 of destroying one of the most valuable sources of national industry^ — and this, after 
 a similar attempt had been made in Great Britain, and failed, although a much 
 greater capital had been subscribed, and a much higher bounty had been given. 
 O ill-fated country ! where the crime of wasting the public money merges into 
 insignificance, compared with the mischief its expenditure creates ! There is a 
 history in every Irish job. This job having ruined the jobber, has not rendered 
 it less injurious to our national industry. But as the proprietor is dead, as the job 
 has not answered, this great branch of your industry may revive, when relieved 
 from the contagion of parliamentary bounty. 
 
 FIFTH SOURCE. 
 
 The only remaining source from which the fund for the employment of national 
 industry could be augmented, is the savings made from the wages of the industrious. 
 But when beggary, misery, and famine, present themselves at every quarter of our 
 
s 
 
 country, expiriug witnesses of the robbery and plunder of this sacred fund, how 
 can I insult you by talking of savings from wages, in a country where the nation 
 has been converted into an almshouse, and (lie industrious into beggars ? If there 
 be a country uj)on earth where the accursed trade of corruption, prostitution and 
 treason, has been set up, to destroy the fair and honest occupations of commerce 
 and industry — where men are accounted great in proportion to the extent of the 
 trade they drive in buying and selling the rights und interests of their country — 
 where public money, extorted from wretchedness, is the capital they trade with/and 
 public welfare the commodity they ckeal in — where a degraded and debased gentry, 
 in one continued chain of mercenary dependence, have been bred up to the trade— 
 where agriculture is drained to the dregs, where manufactures are strangled in their 
 cradle — How, in the name of heaven, in such a country, is the fund for the em- 
 ployment of national industry to derive any succour from a capital thus mutilated, 
 jobbed and plundered ? 
 
 I have now enumerated every means by which national industry can acquire 
 national capital. I have shewn you bow fa: these means of acquiring wealth have 
 been wrested from you, my countrymen ! and transferred to aggrandize Great 
 Ilritain ; yet this were to recount but half your wrongs. It is not enough that you 
 should know the manner by which you have been deprived of the means of acquiring 
 wealth. You should, also, l>e informed of the various ways by which the pittance 
 of wealth your industry has acquired, under its mutilated means, has beetj robbed 
 and plundered under a system of corruption and treason, to the beggary of the 
 Irish, and the ruin of their country. 
 
 The ivaijs by which the Capital the JSTation has acquired, is drained. 
 
 The first deduction I shall state, is the enormous drain which is extorted from 
 industry, under the head of religious instruction. Whilst the clergy for instructing 
 three millions of Catholics receive but £60,000 annually, and the clergy for in- 
 structing six hundred thousand Presbyterians receive but £25,000 — the clergy for 
 instructing four liundred thousand Parliamentary Protestants are maintained at the 
 enormous annual expence of half a million. When I contemplate the various 
 attributes of that mighty Power which has created and moves the myriads of worlds 
 I see floating round me— when, as an inhabitant of this globe, which the same 
 Power has created and animated, I attempt, from the contemplation of his works, 
 to collect the numerous laws by which he ordained his creatures should be directed 
 und governed — when I consider the difficulty of knowing which to admit, and 
 whicli to reject, of those writings, which, in so many ages, and in so many nations, 
 have been received and accredited as coming from God, for the rule and direction 
 of man — when I consider how many various interpretations the mind of man 
 has given to those Scriptures, received and accredited among Christians, written 
 in trope, in metaphor, in figure, in parable, and in allegory — I cann ot con- 
 ceive how any two thinking men (and I hold those who think not for them- 
 selves, but leave it to others to think for them, of no account) could form 
 the same opinion on such an extensive and diflSciilt subject. Can the human 
 mind conceive a greater absurdity than that one man should direct what another 
 should believe ? What point of contact exists between man and man, on this 
 great and difficult subject of faith and belief? What possible right can one 
 man set up, to interfere with the faith or belief of another ? What standard have 
 those Avho do not agree, by which they can settle their difl’erence ? or, without such 
 a standard, how can the controversy be ever- decided ? These considerations, and 
 a thousand others, with imperious mandate, consecrate the right of the individual in 
 his religious opinions against the whole' world beside. It is a concern between him 
 and his God. Tyrant, avaunt ! Opinion is too subtle for your grasp. You may 
 force it to hypocrisy and dissimulation; but to man, and his Creator only, can it 
 he known. If, then, the right of the individual stands good against the rest of 
 mankind, what can be more prcsiimjituons, or unjust, than that a minority should 
 
n 
 
 set up a right to coutroul the majority ? If a whole nation has no right to interfere 
 with the most insignificant citizen in his religious opinions, so as to do him the 
 smallest injustice for the freest exercise of this imprescriptible right, by what title 
 does one class of Irish Protestants, not one tenth of the nation, arrogate the power 
 of appropriating such exorbitant funds for the ministers of its religion, to wliicli 
 the other, nine tenths are not only made to contribute, but to pay for their own 
 religious instruction besides ? But what will be the indignation, not only of the 
 majority, whose interest is sacrificed, but also of these Parliamentary Protestants, 
 if 1 shall prove, that this flagrant violation of imprescriptible right is not less 
 injurious to the religion it was done under the pretence of promoting, than it/s 
 oppressive to those against whom it acts with such destructive injustice ? 
 
 Man, when he becomes the minister of religion, does not lay aside the passions, 
 the desires or the propensities of his nature ; the strongest and most uniform of 
 which, is a constant desire to better his condition. Hence the minister, who is 
 appointedtiito an annual income in contempt of the approbation or choice of his 
 parishioners .^^nd receives it independent of the zeal or the diligence with which he 
 discharges its duties, has no excitement to call forth his exertions. The most atten- 
 tive discharge of his miiiistry adds nothing to his annual income, if he were ever 
 so well read in the doctrines it is his duty to teach. If he were to recommend 
 himself to his parishioners by the most exemplary life and the most unwearied 
 attendance, they have it not in their power to better his fortune. Hence, if his 
 exertions be directed to this farther advancement — and, as long as human nature 
 continues, you will not find one in a thousand with whom it is not the paramount 
 object — the minister, under sach an establishment, will relinquish the barren, un- 
 profitable occupation of religious instruction, to devote his time and his exertions 
 to gain those by whose means and whose interest he may be further promoted. 
 He will devote himself, with the most servile obeisance, to the wishes and will of 
 his bishop, or to the government, however corrupt, which can advance him to the 
 highest state of affluence, of patronage, and of political power, rather than to the 
 discharge of his parochial duties. The larger his stipend, the greater his temptation, 
 and his mear|,s, to desert his parishioners. Alter wealth, patronage, and power, have 
 been set in his way, it is vain to expect that he will not desert those of inferior 
 cGjidition who stand most in need of his constant attendance, that he may join those 
 in that sphere with whom this monstrous establishment ranks him, with whom it 
 is his inclination, as well as his interest, to mix. Not only his own inclination 
 draws him away from his duty; but the vanity and love of pleasure, so natural 
 to the rest of his family, are ill satisfied with displaying the equipage and 
 finery their great income allows them to purchase, before their gothic parishioners, 
 which might be exhibited with such eclat in Dublin, in London, or in Bath, or at 
 the, Hot-wells of Bristol. If the enormity of the establishment of the present 
 Protestant clergy takes away every incitement to an active discharge of their dut}', 
 the inequality of the preferment is not less fatal. Instead of sitting down for life 
 amongst his parishioners, to study their dispositions, their weaknesses, or their vices, 
 without w'hich it is impossible he should be able to correct or amend them, under 
 the present inequality of church preferment, the Protestant minister must regard 
 every instant he remains in his actual condition, as the loss of his fortune; and, 
 from the instant he obtains one preferment, his thoughts are employed in devising 
 means for attaining another. If the poor and the uneducated stand most in need 
 of religious instruction, are they not most likely to receive it from a clergy, w'hose 
 stipends place them in a state above that meanness which too often attends upon 
 want, hut below that affluence wdiich creates arrogance, and contempt of inferiors? 
 If tlie furtherance of religion be their object, should not its clergy he placed in that 
 situation, where it wall be their interest to cultivate the good opinion and good will 
 of the poorest parishioners ? Should not the clergy he placed in such a situation 
 as w'ould oblige tliern to build their character and consequence in the Avoiid on the 
 most exemplary life, and the most active and faithful discharge of their sacred 
 functions ? Why, ilicn, have tliey been placed in a situation, w^here the mode by 
 
10 
 
 which they are paid has been tlie source of endless litigation and enmity between 
 them and ihe people ? Why has their prefennent been made to rest on the for- 
 feiture of tlieir independence, and the most abject sacrifice of their duties as citizens, 
 at tlie shrine of corruption ? Why has the mode by which they are paid been made 
 to act as a bounty on idleness, by falling heaviest on those who are most industrious, 
 and lightest on those who are least so ? If the Founder of Christianity were to 
 descend upon earth, with what indignation would he behold the heads of his 
 ministry iii vested with wealth, with patronage and political power ! With what 
 indignation would he behold the cringing, the meanness and the servility of the 
 subaltern clergy towards these superiors — to see his mild, disinterested religion 
 coupled with political faction — to see woildy preferment their only pursuit, and the 
 sacrifice of independence, public virtue and honour, the only means of attainment — 
 to see the most lofty ambition, the most selfish avidity, and the most persecuting 
 spirit of tyrannic ascendancy, concealed under the colour of sanctity and the garb 
 of hypocrisy! Well might he ask what part of his sacred wnitings authorised his 
 ministers to rank themselves at the head of the opulent lords and most puissant 
 princes of human creation — instead of that self-denial, that humility, that meekness, 
 that contempt of riches and honours, which he preached in every line of his gospel ! 
 
 If those of what are called the learned professions, physicians and lawyers, w^ere 
 paid regular annual stipends, like these Protestant clergy, independent of any exer- 
 tions they made to deserve them, in vain w'ould you look for ihe present competition, 
 and unwearied attention to patients and clients. No longer would physicians retain 
 that spirit of independence for which they are so deservedly noted. No longer 
 would an apostate minister have to dread, that an attempt to punish with death those 
 principles which had raised him to the zenith of power, would be baffled by incor- 
 ruptible honour, transcendant genius, and unwearied exertion. Genius, independ- 
 ence, honour, exertion, and patriotism — all, all would be engulphed in the abyss of 
 corruption. 
 
 Is it upon divine authority that sects of Christian ministers are linked to govern- 
 ments by these monstrous establishments ? On the contrary, Christ has denounced 
 it. After Christianity having made its way among nations, not only without the 
 aid or adoption of governments, but under their most severe persecution, how can 
 it be said that now, when it has been so deeply rooted in the habits, the education 
 and prejudices of the people, it should stand in need of such a connection ? Look 
 to its history : Have not its ministers, in every instance in which they have been 
 linked to government by wealth, patronage and power, filled the w’orld with torrents 
 of blood, and mountains of carnage ? Have they not instituted the most horrid tor- 
 tures, and the most dreadful persecution ? Have they not been the most formidable 
 tyrants that ever conspired against the progress of knowledge ? Have they not been 
 the most constant abettors of despotism, and the vilest tools of corruption ? Take 
 Ireland as an example — Are the ministers of the * Presbyterian and Catholic religion, 
 who are independent of the Irish government, on their moderate stipends, less zealous, 
 less diligent, less resident, less beloved or revered, than those with this enormous en- 
 dowment ? Contrast these unpatronized ministers with the government clergy — see 
 the former resting in peace, because they rest on the affection of their parishioners ; 
 see the latter, in every quarter, seeking the aid, not only of the civil power, not only 
 of the most sanguinary laws, but the still more unnatural aid of military execution. 
 Set not up this fatal connexion, this destructive establishment, as the friend of 
 religion, which it betrays ; set it not up on divine authority, which has denounced 
 it ; set it not up as the creator of the peace, the happiness, the science, or the 
 liberties of mankind, which it destroys : but hold it up to public view as the ally 
 of despotic power, the champion of ignorance, and the hireling of prostitution. 
 What has this monstrous establishment in Ireland of the benevolence, the humility, 
 the disinterestedness or the mildness of the Christian religion ? Set it down, what 
 
 * Fortunately the connexion between the Presbyterian clergy and the Irish government is in- 
 considerable. 
 
11 
 
 it is, the tool, the accomplice, the creature of Irish admiuistration, Irish prostitution 
 Irish corruption. This is its true destination : here you behold its ministers militant 
 magistrates, hurrying the people to the dungeons, the gallies or the gallows ; or 
 merciless extortioners of exorbitant stipends, wrung from heart-sick misery and 
 despondent poverty. Follow them to the courts of law — you will see them attended 
 by sheriffs, by bailiffs, by perjurers, by spies and informers, by tithe-proct('rs, pro- 
 cess-servers, and civil bill attorneys ; and after they have tutored the witnesses, and 
 modelled the juries, behold with what keenness they hunt down their prey ! 
 Heavens ! what an office for a minister of the Christian religion ! How shall I 
 withhold my indignation, when I behold a Christian minister, who has persecuted 
 his fellow-creatures to death, on some clause of those sanguinary laws made at his 
 instance and for his use, accompany his victim to the place of execution, under the 
 mockery of affording him a last consolation! How figure to my mind a minister 
 of religion, hurried on to prosecution by the thirst of power and wealth, enlarging 
 on the virtue of forgiveness and charity, and the merits of poverty in the eyes of a 
 Cliristian Redeemer 1 How endure to hear this relentless persecutor dwell on the 
 mercies of Christ who has himself shewn no mercy whatever, or, with unparalleled 
 effrontery, remunerating the miserable sufferer for the ])ainfu] death his malice 
 has dealt him, by the most liberal assurances of life and happiness in an etenial 
 hereafter ! 
 
 THE SECOND DEDUCTION. 
 
 The next deduction I shall state, which is made from your slender acquirements, 
 is the expence at which the laws are administered. When you consider the number 
 of lawyers, attorneys, and clerks, which swarm about us, maintained at such enormous 
 expence, the exorbitant fees of the officers, the numerous law offices, and the barefaced 
 creation of more — you must he sensible how enormous a drain the administration of 
 law must occasion from your national capital. To comprehend this aright, we must 
 look to the origin of our laws. We must look to those barbarous times when a fevv 
 despots were %e sole proprietors, and the mass of the people belonged to the soil, like 
 the herds they attended. We must look to those laws of primogeniture, entails and 
 settlements, which have been set up to secure and perpetuate the despotism of the 
 few, and to ensure and perpetuate the exclusion and slavery of the many. We 
 must examine how these despotic laws of a barbarous age have been strained, 
 wrenched and twisted, by fiction, form and quibble, to answer a commercial and 
 civilized age. Instead of a clear, digested and uniform code; customs, traditions, 
 precedents, laws, written and unwritten, heaped together, have been consecrated ; 
 and their contradictions and confusions have been celebrated as a glorious uncer- 
 tainty by the professors. No wonder, that, in this barbarous mass of complexity, 
 chicane, and fraud, it were vain for those who seek justice, to consult the professors 
 to tell them the law. No wonder, that precedents equally strong should he found 
 on one side as well on the other. The whole is enveloped in form and fiction ; and 
 in the slightest omission of either, substantial justice is lost. Trial after trial may be 
 had in the same cause ; and whilst innumerable forms enable the agents to increase 
 the expences, and to prolong the duration, it is their interest to extend both as far 
 as they can. In vain shall the upright Judge hold the balance of justice with equal 
 hand, if it is placed scarcely within the attainment of the rich, and out of the reach 
 of the poor. It cannot be justice, unless it is common; it cannot be common, 
 unless it is cheap. 
 
 As the exertions of judges, of lawyers, of attorneys, and the whole tribe who live 
 by the trade, as well as the ministers for religious iustrucliou, are all unproductive — > 
 as the whole labour of the entii’e professors of religion and law, would not maintain 
 the most humble individual amongst them, for a day, in one single necessary or 
 convenience of life— as thev^ are Avlioliy maintained from the produce of national 
 industry, to wliich they in no way con tribute — it may he imagined, that, as popu- 
 lation, and the difficulties of the indusUious to provide the means of existence. 
 
12 
 
 increased, imperious necessity would instigate your Legidature and Government 
 to moderate the expences of Religion and Law. JRit when the privileged and the 
 rich have taken up the idea, that the government which can buy up the reason of 
 mankind is the only government which man can endure — when economy or retrench- 
 ment is regarded as the weakness of government, and waste and extravagance as 
 its strength -no wonder reformation should be scouted as fraught with ruin. True 
 to this ridiculous and destructive notion, your Legislature and government have been 
 increasing the funds of corruption, even to National Bankruptcy, when, with an 
 empty Exchequer, they have created two-and-thirly mongrel Judges, gleaned from 
 the refuse of tiiose numerous blanks which the lottery of law turns up every hour. 
 How shall we hope that a government, where the gentry are Jts only alliesj will 
 retrench the expences of those burdensome corporations, in which there is not what 
 is called a Gentleman’s family which has not one or more members ? How shall 
 we expect, that, by cleansing such Augean filth, that vast portion of ability and 
 unwearied exertion which is at present employed in briefing, in pleading and in 
 judging the most absurd and frivolous quibbles, to the ruin and beggary of. both 
 loser and gainer, will be turned to useful occupations, in which it would increase 
 the necessaries, the conveniences and comforts of life ? 
 
 n 
 
 THE THIRD DEDUCTION* 
 
 The next deduction I shall mention, which is made from your national capital, 
 is the expellee of education. The funds for defraying this charge are very conr 
 siderable in large tracts of lands, partly public grants, and partly private donations, 
 together with , a portion of the tythes, which the established clergy do not> but 
 which by law they are obliged to contribute ; amounting altogether to a fund fully 
 adequate to defray the expences of the most complete system of education that 
 could be adopted. But what will be your indignation on being informed, that this 
 sacred fund has been embezzled by this already exorbitantly endowed protestant 
 clergy ? . ^ rr 
 
 Some years ago, a committee* was appointed to examine the stato*of this fund, 
 when, after a most diligent search, they discovered that the lands had gotten into 
 the hands of protestant clergymen, under the appointment to schools with scarcely 
 a scholar, who had leased these vast tracts of land to their own families at the twen- 
 tieth part of their value ; by which the funds for the purposes of education had 
 dwindled almost to nothing. These sacrilegious transactions were faithfully dcr 
 tailed by this committee, and reported to the then Irish administration, and, as I 
 am informed, has been by them suppressed, that their ally and creature may not be 
 exposed. I have not this report by me at present hut. I calculated, when I last 
 read it, that if this fund bad been faitlifully managed, it would have been ample for 
 the establishment of parish schools throughout the whole nation ; where the poor 
 might be instructed in reading, in writing, and in keeping accounts, paying each 
 master for the number of scholars he really taught ; also for the establishment of 
 barony schools, for teaching mathematics, geometry, and such other practical 
 sciences as are essential to national industry ; county schools for those who had 
 shewn genius in the graduate schools, and provincial universities for all, sorts of in- 
 struction — where, by instituting public examinations, and making the higher semi- 
 naries judges how far the junior teachers had eai'ned their salaries — by discriminat- 
 ing those scholars who had been instructed, from those who had been neglected — 
 the diligence and exertions of the public teachers would have been called forth, by 
 making their industry and their interest go hand in hand, o But, instead of adopt- 
 ing a system conducive to diligence-^ and industry, these immense funds.have pbeen 
 lavished as corruption has thought fit? to bestow them— where it has beeu invaiia- 
 bly found, that the greater the salary^ the fewer the scholars, and the more neglect- 
 
 * If 1 mistake not, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Isaac Corry the late Provost, and the late Mr. I'ojbcs. 
 vcrc of this Committee, 
 
13 
 
 fal the masters have proved, whilst that class of citizens, whose poverty called most 
 for instruction to keep them from ranking with the brute creation, has been robbed 
 of this sacred fund. Already I hear the blustering tyrant exclaim against instruct- 
 ing that people, on whose necks he has been bred up in the habit of thinking he 
 was born to trample. Already has the French Revolution alarmed these monsters 
 lest education should destroy the usurpation of the tyrant, by restoiing the rights 
 of man. O ignorance ! thou guardian of bastilles ! thou parent ot famine ! thou 
 creator of slaves, and supporter of despots ; thou author of every mischief and of 
 every ill! — how long must we bear thy accursed dominion .f* O knowledge ! thou 
 god of our worship ! thou parent of freedom, and destroyer of anarchy 1 thou foun- 
 tain of virtue I thou leveller of vanity, of pride and injustice I — how long must 
 we adore thee in vain. 
 
 FOURTH DEDUCTION. 
 
 The nekt deduction I shall mention that has been made from your national 
 stock, is one whibh is not only ektorted in the most iniquitous manner, but is levied 
 on the poorest and most oppressed part of the nation : I mean those vast sums 
 which are half-yearly levied, for making and mending the bridges and roads, the 
 new establishment of the cavalry constables, and, in short, all the money raised by 
 grand jury assessment. These burdens have kept pace with the rest, and have 
 Wn tripled within these very few years. This enormous and growing land-tax is 
 liable to every objection. It is levied on the tenantry of Ireland ; and t'lat tenants 
 who have but a few years or but one year of their lease unexpired, should be forced 
 to pay for the making of bridges and roads, and not the landlord, whose estate is. to 
 be bettered for ever, is the height of injustice. But, unjust as this is, the injustice 
 is carried still farther : for, in violation of every principle of taxation, that taxes 
 should be paid according to the ability of the contributors, these taxes are levied on 
 plowlands, which are districts of various extent, and of different values ; that whose 
 produce amounts but to fifty pounds, being assessed as high as the plowland which 
 produces five hundred. And, even in assessing each plowland held by different 
 tenants, the violation of principle is carried still farthei’i each tenant being rated ac- 
 cording to the number of acres he holds; whereby the man whose acres are not 
 worth fifty pence pay.s as much as the man whose acres are worth fifty shillings. 
 But when the appointment of sheriffs constitutes a part of the wages of the borough- 
 monger in every county, and that he who appoints the sheriff appoints the grand 
 jury, where shall we look for that privilege of freemen, of paying no tax but of our 
 own or our delegates’ granting ? Or, why should we be surprised that a system 
 originating in the foulest corruption, should branch out into the perjury and jobbing 
 of gentry, the oppression of the occupant tenant, and the peculation of the funds 
 for facilitating national industry in agriculture, manufactures and commerce ? 
 
 FIFTH DEDUCTION. 
 
 The next deduction I shall state whichihas been made from your national capi- 
 tal, is those vast sums which are annually given in bounties, under the pretence of 
 promoting national industry. That for the encouragement of vour fisheries^ which 
 has destroyed it, I have noticed already. As to the sums annually squandered by 
 the Dublin society, and the sums granted for the encouragement of linen and yarn, 
 and such like, they are expensive and mischievous jobs, by which the national 
 wealth has been lavished ; and the gentry who pocket the plunder have been, long 
 since, branded with the infamous title of jobbers. But that which is paid for the 
 export of Corn deserves to be noticed, because the expence is excessive, and its ef- 
 fects are ill understood. As it is generally thought this bounty has had the public 
 welfare in view, it might seem injudicious in me to do more than remark it as a 
 deduction from the national capital. But, satisfied of its pernicious effect, I will 
 not prostitute my conviction of mind to popularity any more than I will to courtly 
 
14 
 
 joiTuption : for I esteem the one as ill earned when it is to be gained by the sup« 
 pression of truth to humour popular error, as the other when it is received for be- 
 traying popular right. If popularity follows strict adherence to principles, I will 
 gladly accept it ; but I will never make it my guide. 
 
 The effect of this bounty has been to raise the price of corn in Ireland ; and it is 
 impossible to raise the price of corn, without raising the price of all the other 
 produce of land, as well pasture as tillage, in a like proportion. Let*rae ask, what 
 would be thought of a direct tax upon the whole of our raw materials in the infanc}'’ 
 of our manufactures? Yet this mischievous bounty has not only had the same 
 effect, but it has gone infinitely farther. It has not only raised the price of the raw 
 materials, but it has raised the price of the manufactures, through all their stages to 
 their final completion, by raising the price of provisions, which enter more largely 
 into the price of the manufactures than the materials; and the finer and more valu- 
 able the fabric, the more provisions make pait of its price. For instance, in a com- 
 plete piece of steel work or lace worth £ 1 00, the raw materials, the iron and flax, 
 may not be worth five shillings, whilst the provisions consumed by the workman 
 may be worth eighty pounds. Thus, by this bounty, the productions of agriculture, 
 manufactures, and every species of national industry, are mot only rendered consi- 
 derably dearer than they otherwise would be ; but, by a parity of reasoning, these 
 of every other nation to which our corn is sent, must be made considerably cheaper ; 
 whereby we are not only prevented from exporting our manufactures to them, but 
 they are enabled to send their’s to us cheapen- than we can make them at home. 
 When such are the pernicious effects of this destructive bounty, need I mention, 
 that when they shall be fully developed, it will not be found to have promoted our 
 tillage ? The mode by which the authors of this bounty propose to increase tillage, 
 is by enhancing the price of its produce above the produce of pasture, by which the 
 farmer would be induced to employ more ground under tillage ' than under pasture. 
 But they seem to have forgotten, that the more they increased the quantity of til- 
 lage, the more they diminished the quantity of pasture ; and that, supposing the 
 demand for the produce of pasture to remain the same after the bounty as it had 
 been before it was granted, the price of the produce of pasture must rise in an exact 
 proportion to this diminution in quantity, which the bounty must cause : whereas, 
 to ensure the advantage the first effects of the bounty had given to tillage, it was 
 necessary to ensure it this enhancement of price over the produce of pasture, which 
 it is manifest cannot be done. So that, after the first run of this bounty in favour 
 of tillage is over, the original competition between the produce of tillage and pas- 
 ture resumes its former condition, which the bounty disturbed ; with the great and 
 important national detriment of having taken both pasture and tillage from off the 
 solid basis on which the order of nature had placed them, to place them on stilts, 
 by which the national industry has been both really and relatively impaired — 
 really, by raising the price of every species of provisions, of every species of manu- 
 facture, of the whole produce of national industry, the necessaries and conveniences 
 of life, and consequently by depreciating the value of money in Ireland— relatively, 
 by reducing the price of provisions, materials and manufactures, and consequently 
 by raising the value of money in those countries to which our corn is sent. 
 
 The advocates for this bounty seem not to know that there is a natural alliance 
 between tillage and pasture which should never be broken ; that the manure which 
 is furnished by pasture, is the only one which affords strength or nutrition ; and 
 that all other manures are merely excitements, calling out latent powers, but bring- 
 ing no additional new ones. 
 
 It may be asked, if this bounty is thus injurious, how has it been the subject of 
 praise of both tenants and landlords ? I answer, to the tenant whose leases were yet 
 unexpired when the bounty was granted, the enhancement in the pri^e of provisions 
 was a real advantage in the payment of rent, though a disadvantage as a CQiisumer 
 in supplying himself and his family with the necessaries and conveniences which he 
 had occasion to purchase : But he gained more as a tenant than he lost as a con- 
 sumer ; though, when his lease shall expire, and that he shall renew it at the en- 
 
hancement in the price of provisions, the disadvantage as a consumer remains, 
 while the advantage as a tenant will vanish. 
 
 The landlord was pleased with the bounty, because it enabled his tenants to 
 pay him his rents with more punctuality ; and when the leases expired, he found 
 the rents were advanced. But he did not know, that in the first instance, as long 
 as the original leases existed, although he received the same rent in money, yet as 
 the price of all the articles of consumption were raised by means of the bounty, 
 that these money rents had ceased to be of the same value as they had been when 
 the leases were granted, and before the bounty was given. Nor did hs perceive, 
 that, even after the leases expired, and that the rents had been raised by means of 
 the bounty — that as every article of consumption had been raised in the same, or 
 in a greater proportion, his new rent-roll was not of greater, nor perhaps of so great 
 value, on account of the advancement in the price of goods, as his former rent-roll 
 when the prices were lower ; whilst the tenants, knowing that when the leases ex- 
 pired the rents would be raised, have been led to exhaust the ground by over-crop- 
 ping, to throw down the ditches, to plough up the earth of a part of the field, and 
 spread it out — thus destroying the fences, and one half of the land, in order to force 
 a crop from the other. Hence the only advantage that could have accrued from 
 this bounty, was a temporary benefit to those tenants wdiose leases were unexpired 
 when the bounty was granted ; whilst the tenants who had to renew, the entire 
 'classes of labourers and manufacturers, and the rest of the nation, as producers and 
 consumers, have been, both really and relatively, grievously injured, and the seeds 
 of such mischief have been sown, that the longer they are suffered to grow, the more 
 difficult it will be to destroy them hereafter. 
 
 Thus far have I considered this bounty on its own merits. But has there been 
 nothing in the state of Europe for these last eight years, to which the encourage- 
 ment which Irish corn has met with in foreign markets should be justly ascribed, 
 which cannot be due to this bounty ? If the bad effects of this bounty have not 
 been yet felt, have they not been postponed by the extraordinary demand for even 
 Irish corn, which has arisen from the disturbed state of the agriculture of such a 
 vast portion of the best-cultivated nations in Europe ? Is it possible that the unex- 
 ampled waste of the labour of Europe, in a war of such carnage, such havock and 
 plunder, should not have caused an extraordinary demand for the productions of 
 Ireland, situated at the extremity of the theatre of war, and an island ? Will it be 
 said that this bounty would have had the same success in the markets of Europe, if 
 the millions who have been slaughtered, and if the millions who are still employed 
 in the business of slaughter and war, had been engaged in the peaceful occupation 
 of husbandry, and if the waste and destruction of provisions and labour had not 
 been substituted in place of the thrift and good management of domestic life ? Is it 
 not fact, that from the vast rains which fall in seed-time and harvest, our flour is 
 from fifteen to twenty per cent, inferior in quality to the flour of most parts of Eu- 
 rope ? From this extraordinary moisture, is it not fact that our lands retain constant 
 verdure, when most of the pastures of the other nations of Europe are shrivelled 
 and parched ? — ^And does not this clearly demonstrate, that we are by nature infe- 
 rior in tillage, but superior in pasture ? 
 
 But analyse this bounty, and take it on its own merits — ^You will find it a part 
 of a system in which plenty is accounted the heaviest curse, because it would pre- 
 vent the tenants of Ireland, a numerous, industrious class, from performing those 
 cruel conditions with which they are loaded. You will find it a part of a system in 
 which scarcity is esteemed a blessing, because it enables one class in society to make 
 good its engagements, at the expence of millions whom it dooms to misery and fa- 
 mine. You will find it a part of a system which subsists by the incitement of a 
 goading necessity, and not by the cheering reward of liberal wages. You will find 
 it a part of a system of infernal invention, whose prosperous state is made to depend 
 on the fortuitous evils of the neighbouring world. 
 
 If this bounty, from its own nature, must prove subversive of national industry, 
 it is no less so of national justice. The funds by which this bounty is paid, are 
 
16 
 
 raised by taxes on consumable goods, to wliich every resident inhabitant contributes^ 
 whilst the vast absentee-property does not contribute one shilling. Yet, if the prin- 
 ciples from which I have reasoned be just, the absentees are the only persons who 
 should defray the expence of the bounty. For, every resident landlord, although 
 he should gain by the bounty, yet does he pay a more considerable tax, which Yhis 
 enhancement of price on every article of consumption imposes ; and the rest of the 
 nation who are not landlords, are not only obliged to pay the tax which defrays the 
 expence of the bounty, but the still heavier tax in the advancement of price on the 
 necessaiies and conveniences of life they consume — no part of which applies to the 
 absentee Irish landlord, who expends his income abroad, where neither the price of 
 consumable goods, nor the value of the money he draws, have been affected by the 
 bounty : whereby this notable scheme has imposed a heavy and ruinous tax, in 
 order to increase these exports, which bring no return ; furnishing another instance 
 of Irish legislative justice, laying burdens where none should have been imposed, 
 and wholly relieving those who should pay the entire. That a legislature should 
 attempt, on a slender population, sunk in indolence from the ease with which they 
 subsisted on the almost spontaneous productions of nature, to rouse them to indus- 
 try by causing an artificial scarcity, I can easily conceive : but that such expence 
 and pains should be employed to cause such scarcity and dearness of the necessaries 
 of life, by this forced exportation, in a teaming population, is a system of which 
 language affords me no terms sufficiently strong to express my abhorrence. 
 
 SIXTH DEDUCTION. 
 
 The last deduction I shall mention, which is made from your national wealth, is 
 the enormous expence at which your Government is supported. 
 
 In the twofold objects of government, the first is the affording protection to every 
 member of the community from the violence or injustice of his fellow-citizen. The 
 expence of defending citizen against citizen, must ever depend on the degree of 
 justice on which the constitution and laws are established. When they are such as 
 to secure to every member equally, the fullest enjoyment of his natural rights, the 
 freest exercise of his industry, and the most undisturbed fruition of its produce — 
 when they open to him every means of acquiring the most ample and liberal wages, 
 by which he may procure the necessaries and comforts of life — when, by securing 
 to his industry the most extensive markets for the work he has wrought, it ensures 
 him constant employment — when he suffers no peculation — when no deductions 
 are made from his earnings but what his own interest tells him he should readily 
 and willingly grant trust me, fellow -citizens, a government founded on prin- 
 
 ciples like these, would require no expence to support it. In such a government, 
 every citizen would find a protection for every blessing, and every comfort, human 
 society was meant to afford. Here the laws would be held in veneration, and the 
 legislators would be respected, revered, and beloved. In this state, no militaiy exe- 
 cution, no bastilles, no gibbets, no gallies, no burning of houses, would be required 
 to protect and uphold usurpation, corruption, and treason. At the waive of the 
 constable’s staff, like the wand of the magician, thousands would flock to his 
 standard in aid of the law. But when, instead of the solid basis of virtue, govern- 
 ment is founded on oppression, and the infraction of national right — when a nation 
 is robbed of its agricultural produce — when the doors of your home-markets are 
 thrown wide open to a powerful neighbour, who slaps her’s in your face— when 
 corruption, when treason and usurpation, have squandered the sacred funds of her 
 wages — when public virtue is private ruin, public apostacy the sure road to fortune 
 and what are called honours — when truth is culled treason, and traitors called loyal 
 — no wonder an insulted, a pillaged, ^and an oppressed people, should require the 
 bayonet, the, flames, and the more deadly corruption, to keep dowm their wwithing; 
 no wonder usurpers who wallow in the riches their treasons procure them, should 
 seek that shelter from tyranny which justice denies them. In a state of this kind 
 as the discontents of the people increased, in proportion as tyrannic means had been 
 
17 
 
 used to suppress them, au enllglitcned mind would perceive that force could not put 
 down a reasoning people, whose growing knowledge enabled them, whose growing 
 independence entitled them, and whose growing numbers compelled them, to demand 
 the abolition of the mass of abuses, which, originating in ignorance, have grown 
 into corruption, and, if suffered to continue, must terminate in famine, in revolution, 
 and in blood. It is not by war, which has immolated the youth of the nation ; it 
 is not by war, which has lavished the wealth of the people ; it is not by war, which 
 has heaped debt upon debt, and burden upon burden; it is not by annulling the. 
 trial by jury, nor by exiling thousands without any trial whatever; it is not by 
 repealing every law by which opinions and persons had been protected, and by en- 
 acting the most sanguinary laws in their stead ; it is not by destroying the press ; 
 it is not by introducing foreign mercenaries, stimulated with additional hire, and 
 letting them loose with lire and sword on the people— that they are to be convinced, 
 that a system which could require such means of support, does not call for amend- 
 ment. It is not by heaping calamity on calamity in rapid succession, that the 
 public mind can be dissuaded from believing, that these obvious reforms, which 
 such tyrannic measures have been adopted to stifle, are not now, with more imperious 
 necessity, more loudly demanded than ever. 
 
 But, why should I waste time in proving that government, in the hands of Irish 
 administration, has been a system for supporting the few in oppressing the many, 
 ins.lead of yielding impartial protection ? Has it not been by sowing, maintain- 
 ing, and fomenting division that Irish administrations have governed Ireland P 
 Look to the continuation of civil discord, of plunder and bloodshed which has 
 infested our island since the Welch landed in 1165 to this instant, that these hell- 
 hounds intituled Ancient Britons are butchering our disarmed people. Look in 
 this century to the writhings of wretchedness, of misery, of want and oppression, 
 under the difTerent shapes of White-boys, Right-hoys, Hearts-of-oak men, Peep-o- 
 day boys, and Steel-men. Yet where is there an instance on record in which the 
 Government or Legislature in Ireland have inquired into the causes of these con- 
 stant unerring marks of oppression P No ! A system of smothered war between 
 the oppressors and the oppressed, could not bear inquiry, for it would bear redress. 
 Redress means restoration of plunder and restoration of rights, ^riierefore san- 
 guinary laws and military outrage, whose expences are endless, have been substi- 
 tuted for justice, whose expences are nothing. 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to confute my assertion, that disunion, corruption, usur- 
 pation, and treason, are the means by which England has maintained her dominion 
 in Ireland. I will convict her agents from the writings and dispatches of Strafford. 
 
 I will convict them upon ,the testimony of Clarendon. I will quote their own 
 words against them from the letters of Archbishop Boulter, who, talking of Wood’s 
 halfpenccj says, But the worst of this is, that it tends to unite protectant ivith 
 papist; CLiid whenever that happens, good-hye to the English interest in Irelaiid 
 for ever.'* Great Heavens ! on this scale of deserts, what should be the merits ot 
 the present administration in the eyes of their British employers ? With what a 
 dispatch might Lord Camden emblazon his merits P 1 ask the drowsy conscience 
 of this deputy — •! ask the vindictive accomplices of his administration, who think 
 they are enveloped in the darkness of their murderous deeds — why, in a Govern- 
 ment maintained at such an enormous expence, a banditti of sworn extirpators have 
 been suffered to massacre such numbers in the county of Armagh, to demolish so 
 many bouses, and to drive so many thousands, men, women, and infants, into the 
 most distant parts of the country for protection ? Why, with such numbers of 
 troops, have they not only not protected these persecuted citizens, but why, after 
 disarming the nation, have they armed these infatuated bigots ? Let me ask this 
 administration, whether the enormous expences of government in their hands do not 
 arise from the means which they use to oppose the union, the brotherhood and oblivion 
 of religious feuds, in a country hitherto woefully torn witli religious dissensions? 
 Nay, let me ask them, whether sums are not issuing, at this instant, from the Public 
 Exchequer, for the in fenial pui-pose of organizing a renewal of religious massacre 
 
 c 
 
and carnage, under the banners of Orangemen, whose bond of association consists 
 in an oath to extirpate their fellow-men who do not profess their religion ? 
 
 The other office ot Government is to protect the whole Nation, her Industry, her 
 Rights, and her Commerce, from the injuries or interference of any other nation 
 whatever. If there he a nation on earth which should be defended at a moderate 
 expence, Ireland should he that nation. 
 
 Nations which violate the sacred rights of other nations, to mate constitutions, 
 and to establish governments of their choice — nations which usurp dominion in 
 every quarter of the globe; pillaging, starving and slaughtering the unoffending 
 inhabitants of the East Indies; lashing the wretches they have doomed to slavery 
 in the West Indies ; partitioning whole countries for having put down governments 
 they felt oppressive, and for forming constitutions they thought free — nations which 
 dignify Usurpation and Robbery with the title of Empire, who gloss over slaughter 
 by calling it glory, and justify their insolence towards every other country under 
 the pretence of maintaining national honour — with violators of the rights of nations 
 like these, warfare is so engrafted in their state, that you have no means of estima- 
 ting the expence of their wars but by their inability to continue them, nor of the 
 continuance of peace hut by the time it will take to recruit them. Violators of the 
 rights of nations like these, must be in a state of eternal hostility with those coun- 
 tries whose rights they usurp, or with rival robbers that would deprive them of their 
 prey. Their arm is raised against every nation upon earth, and the arms of the 
 riations of the earth are raised against them. That violators of the rights of 
 nations, who dissipate the earnings of industry, and accumulate burdens, should 
 not sink in the corruption of the ill-gotten wealth they acquire by plunder, extracted 
 from the blood and torture ot innocent, unoffending nations, would be to suppose 
 that distributive justice was banished from the earth, and to set at nought the moral 
 principles which govern the world. I ask, in what instance has Ireland violated 
 the sacred rights of fellow-nations ? What country does her insatiable avarice lay 
 in desolation and in ruin? In the face of the world, in the name of the Irish 
 nation, I ask, what possible cause for war can Ireland have with any nation on the 
 earth } None, as an aggressor. The only cause for war Iier interest or her honour 
 can call on her to tvage, must be against the usurpers of those sacred rights which 
 she never violated in other countries, and which, it she has the spirit of a nation, 
 she will never see passively violated in her own. 
 
 That you may judge how far protection against the interference of other nations 
 has to do with the monstrous expence of that (orce with whose maintenance your 
 industry is so grievously' burdened, compare the condition of Ireland during the 
 American war with her present condition. At the former period, the Catholic of 
 Ireland lay prostrate under the iron hand of oppression, in sorrow, in poverty, in 
 filth, in famine ; robbed of his liberty, stript oi every privilege that belongs to man 
 or his nature, without one particle of property he could say was his own ; his pro- 
 testant countryman placed on his breast, calling to Britain to load him with chains, 
 that with their additional weight he may obstruct the respiration of his Catholic 
 brotlier — whilst, pitiless from bigotry, remorseless I'rora rage, and setting at defiance 
 every principle of patriotism, honour or justice, he basely surrendered the freedom 
 and rights of his country to Britain, for her unnatural service, and called her his 
 guardian, protector and friend. 
 
 Thus stretched on the burning lake of religious dissension, the most humiliating 
 spectacle of human debasement, disheartened, disgi*aced and defeated — Ireland, 
 exhausted by her intestine divisions, was regarded a prey too contemptible to merit 
 attention. Hence, in the American war, four thousand of the refuse of the troops 
 of Great Britain were held sufficient to guard us. But, now that the Catholic has 
 been set on his legs, and that his Protestant brothers stand by him — now that we 
 are an united and powerful people, sixty thousand men have been thought in- 
 sufficient. I ask you, is'this force to defend us from an invasion of France, or to 
 secure an invasion of Britain ? Look to the facts. Before the American war, 
 England usurped your legislative power and external dominion, and, by' an open 
 
avowed domination, had seized on your rights and your commerce. Seats in Par- 
 liament for the King’s or the purchaser’s life, sold for £500 ; when a road or a 
 bridge job, or a turnpike bill, were thought good prostitute wages. But, now that 
 the sacrifice of Irish rights and Irish commerce can be made through the channel 
 of the Irish Parliament only, £3000 have been the ordinary price for a seat, though 
 but for eight years ; whilst sinecure places, pensions and jobs are daily created, that 
 the wages o( treason may answer the new rate of purchase. Under the open domi- 
 nation ol Britain, your taxes amounted to but half a million ; but now, in a few 
 years interval only, during which the Parliament of Ireland has become independant 
 of England, your taxes amount to £3,000,000 and your debt, which was nothing, 
 is now full ten millions. 
 
 • Let me unmask the real invasion ; let me ask, is this enormous and overwhelm- 
 ing progress in venality and prostitution, for the pm-pose of perpetuating to England 
 by corruption and treason, the usurpation of the rights and interests of my country, 
 which, openly, she so lately relinquished ? Is it to support this accursed invasion of 
 our national rights, that our country has been filled with the troops of Great 
 Britain ? If the independence of our couniry is but a name, and that the open, 
 avowed domination of great Britain has been exchanged for a deadly influence 
 gained by coriuption and treason, to what end have we been drained, even to 
 beggary and famine, to pay for a government to guard us from foreign oppression ? 
 With the strongest pretensions to cheap government, with compactness of territory, 
 with insular strength, and without a single act of injustice on our part against any 
 nation upon earth, where is there a country whose expences are more enormous 
 from such mutilated means, or whose progress in debt is more rapid ? To detail the 
 various extortions of Irish Government, would fill a volume of such jobbing, such 
 corruption and plunder, as is not to be found in history, nor even in fable. Were 
 it not that it would lead me too far from my subject, I could shew you that a 
 revenue extorted by intoxication and gaming from the poor and the wretched, 
 whilst the lands of the rich were free from all taxes and burdens, fully answered 
 the injustice and vices by which it was raised, by the waste and corruption with 
 which it has been expended. I might ask, what had £120,000 annually paid in 
 pensions to the Members of both Houses of Parliament, their assignees and their 
 creatures, to do with your external or internal protection ? I might ask, what had the 
 enormous sum of £500,000 annuall} paid in sinecure places in the same Parlia- 
 mentary channel, wuth overpaid deputy on deputy for transacting the business, if there 
 chanced to be any, to do with your external or internal protection P I might ask, 
 what account has been given of the £120,000 annually passed in the public- 
 accounts as incidents, a term which is well known to mean the peculation and jobs 
 for which some plausible name cannot be found ? I might ask, why those ogres of 
 the revenue continue to plunder the nation, nominally of twenty per cent, for its 
 collection, but really of forty ; the exactions and extortions of a single collector 
 often amounting to one thousand pounds yearly, whilst the salary which appears in 
 the public accounts does not amount to more than one hundred ? But if you wish to 
 be informed of Irish politics, and Irish finances it is not by reading Harrington, nor 
 Sydney, nor Locke, nor Stewart, nor Montesquieu, nor Smith’s “ Wealth of 
 Natiorls.” No ! it is the Court Calendar * you must examine. 'Ihere the con- 
 stituents, representing themselves, with a correct list of the sinecure places and pen- 
 sions they hold, will exhibit a faithful description of Irish administration, Irish 
 politics, and Irish finances. 
 
 Having now given you a summary account of the manner in which you have 
 been robbed of your unalienable, national means of acquiring national capital, and 
 of the various ways by which the slender stock your industry ha,s gathered, 
 under its mutilated means, has been plundered and dissipated; I trust I have 
 
 * So unblushing is Usurpation and Corruption in Ireland, that the coramon Almanacks contain 
 the names of the Proprietor of each seat in Parliament, with a faithful Catalogue of the Wages 
 which each Prostitute earns. 
 
20 
 
 Impressed upon your minds, that your national capital, that sacred fund for the em- 
 ployment of your national industry, has been cruelly, corruptly and enormously 
 plundered. 
 
 How the Rate of Wages has been reduced by this Plunder of the J^ational 
 
 Capital. 
 
 The first evil -which I shall state, that has arisen from this robbery of your 
 national capital, is the low rate of wages by which your national industry is so 
 miserably paid. This is an obvious and incontrovertible conclusion — the fate of 
 wage<5, in every country, must depend on the proportion which capital bears to 
 population. If the sacred fund for the employment of industry has been protected 
 and fostered by an honest Goverement and a faithful Legislature, its .abundance 
 must ensure the industrious ample wages with all its blessings. But when it has 
 been betrayed and dissipated by corruption and treason, the laborious are thrown 
 at the mercy of their employers, and the industrious mass, instead of receiving 
 liberal wages as a right, are reduced, by an accursed chain of systematic oppression, 
 to prostrate themselves with abject servility before their employers, and to beg for 
 their miserable hire, more as alms than as wages. Often and often have I heard 
 humanity call out for a law for doubling the wages of the People of Ireland. This 
 was indeed the language of humanity; but it was the language of one who knew 
 not the means by which his prayers could be accomplished. No law to oblige the 
 employer to augment wages, can create one farthing of capital or diminish the popu- 
 lation ; and yet, to enable the employers to augment wages, it must have done one 
 or the other : For it is manifest to the meanest capacity, that, as the present na- 
 tional capital can do no more than furnish the present low wages to the existing 
 population, a law which would oblige the employers to double the wages must leave 
 one-half the population without any wages at all. Although it cannot be effected 
 by direct laws, forcing the employers to pay the labourers more than the proportion 
 between capital and population would have obliged them, let us not hence conclude, 
 that the Legislature cannot pass laws by which the national capital could be aug- 
 mented, and the wages of the industrious bettered. It is by passing laws founded 
 on national justice and national right, that this great end can be obtained. It is 
 •by these laws only that nations can acquire national wealth; and it is the 
 abundance of national wealth which ensures to the industrious, liberal, generous 
 wages. “ ^ : 
 
 That from the Robbery of the National Capital, the Tenants are forced to pay 
 such immoderate high Rents. 
 
 ^ The next evil which has arisen from this reduction and pillage of the national 
 capital, is the present high rents which the tenants of Ireland are obliged to pay fpr 
 their farms. - - 
 
 The value of-Iand, like every other article for human use, is regulated by the pro- 
 portion which the quantity bears to the number of bidders who must be supplied. 
 -By dissipating the national capital, and by sacrificing the markets and commerce of 
 ^Ireland, the people have been prevented from selling manufactures, if they could 
 make them, as effectually as- if the Legislature of Ireland^ had passed a law which 
 directly prohibited their ikhrication aor sale. Thus, by sacrificing every other 
 species of industry but that which is employed in famished and beggarly fanning, 
 the renting of land is almost the only means by which the People^ of Ireland can 
 ■procure a subsistence.- ’Hence, as the population increases, the number of bidders 
 who cannot live '-without land is alao. augmented, until they so bid against one 
 another, that the porlron'of the produce, which they can retain for themselves, is not 
 sufiBcient to afford shelter, clothing or food for them, their wives and their children. 
 If the national capital, instead of being pillaged and plundered, had been protected, 
 millions would have flowed upon agriculture ;-whdreby the present wretched farmers, 
 without means, and without capital, would be succeeded by wealthy intelligent yeo- 
 
21 
 
 men. The place of the present half-starved working cattle would be supplied by 
 strong welhfed teams:- houses fit for ha man beings, out-houses and barns for 
 farming us^e,‘WOurd be built: lands would be drained and manured i and gates be 
 erected : millions would be employed in manufactures and commerce, whereby 
 thousands of occupations would be created, which would prevent lands from being 
 at a monopoly price :■> home markets would start up. at - the door^ of the farmer as 
 the manufactures increased ; and the vast deduction which is now made from the 
 vaJue^Qf materials and provisions, hy the transportation and freight of such bulky 
 commodities. Would he saved, and ten times their Value virtual ex^poried in the 
 complete manufacture ; whereby the lands of Ireland Would yield fourfold more 
 than at present, the rents of the landlords might be increased, whilst that part of 
 the produce which w'ould be retained by the tenants wmiild be fully adequate to sup- 
 ply them and their families with every comfort of life.. 
 
 The Destruction of Kntional Industry from the high Profits of Capital. 
 
 Thk next evil I shall state which has arisen from the pillage and robbery of your 
 national capital, is the destruction of every species of national industry W'hich it has 
 caused. 
 
 The profits of capital are regulated in every country by the competition which ex- 
 ists between the capitalists. The more ahundantthe capital, the greater the competi- 
 tion, and, consequently, the lower the profits. The more scanty the capital, the less 
 tlie competition, and, consequently, the profits are higher." When it is considered 
 bow largely the profits of capital enter into the price of every species of merchan- 
 dize and manufacture— when it is observed w'hat an advantage the industry of these 
 countries possesses, whose profits of capital are moderate, over those whose profits are 
 high — w'heii it is considered, what a greater division of labour takes place, what' a 
 superiority of machinery,, and wlmt a vast ahridgement of labour, these circum- 
 stances occasion— it is impossible not to he strongly impressed with the extent Wf 
 the deterioration which a nation must suffer, in every part of its national industry, 
 from the plunder and robbery of its national capital. 
 
 The National Mind is injured by the Plunder of Industry s sacred Funds. 
 
 That the industrious classes,^ on.w^hpse laFonr the prospei'ity and happiness, hot 
 only of themselves, but of every other class in society, so AVhoily depend, should not 
 receive sufficient wages to rescue them from famine and misery, is a reflection at 
 which the heart, sickens, and humanity grows pale. But in what terms shall I de- 
 scribe this last evil, which aaises frean the sacrilegious plunder of industry’s holy ex- 
 chequer ? — whereby the human mind is debased and brutalized ; that mind which 
 converts sw'amps and harretiness into fertility, or reduces the most fruitful soilj"- the 
 most favouted situdtioh, rnio a brothel for prostitution, a stye fw wretchedness, and 
 a receptacle for every species of oppressor and oppressed. The most valuable pro- 
 perty a nation can ^osse^s, is an highly^ cultivated anind. ^No property gives so de- 
 cided an advantage to one country over another, let the soil, the climate, or the situ- 
 ation on the gl6be, he wliiit they may, as a superiority of intellect. In vain shall 
 you have a fertile soil, a temperate ch mate, and an : insular slate^ unless you have 
 minds sufficiently educated to know how to turn them to the greatest advantage. 
 Look to Holland f froni the moment she threw* off the Spanish yoke, ^nd 
 established liberty, how ' she Converted swamps, rescued fromi the sea, into 
 a garden ! Look 16 Switzerland! from the moment she ^hrew off the Austrian 
 yoke, liovV ’$hd,has^6hliivated her mountains.’ to the highest summit ! Looli to Ame- 
 rica ! froni the* ddy^ she freed hefself and her industry from the domination of Eng- 
 land, with vrhat rapidity' she has, Cleared her w6ods and drained her morasses i jCom- 
 pare the wealth, the corfifOrts; and happiness of these nations, under the obstacles 
 which nature has placed itl their way, with the most favoured countries whose indus- 
 try is obstructed by tyranny, and sold by treason. See what extremes of wealth 
 
22 
 
 and poverty, insolence and meanness, luxury and famine, idleness and meagre exr 
 ertion, their inhabitants exhibit. O liberty ! deity of my adoration ! in vain shall 
 the foul calumny of prostitution attempt to sully your purity, by confounding you 
 with that licentiousness which you abhor, that anarchy you execrate, or with the 
 violation of that property you only can raise, you only can protect. Yes ! Industry 
 is a scion of liberty : she can spring but from her root : she can exist but under her 
 shelter. Industry lives but by the sacred fund which rewards her exertions. It is 
 liberty which rears and protects this sacred fund ; it is by despotism, corruption and 
 treason, that it is squandered. You then, accursed ! who have betrayed and plun- 
 dered this sacred fund — it is you who have destroyed the industry of your country ; 
 it is you who have vitiated her mind. 
 
 Liberal reward invigorates industry. It leads the mind to activity and diligence 
 in the useful occupations of life ; teaches the comforts of cleanliness, the advan- 
 tages of sobriety and temperance, the love of order, and the observance of decency ; 
 ensures the calm serenity of a good conscience, and excludes the agitation and re- 
 morse of a bad one : it supplies the mind with constant employment, by which it at- 
 taches it to virtue, aird rescues it from vice; instils a love of the country by the 
 blessings it imparts ; establishes a proud independence ; and teaches the mind to ac- 
 count a life stained with disliouom', a burden too grievous to be longer supported. 
 These, honest patriots, virtuous legislators, and upright magistrates ! are the bless- 
 ings your labours bestow on a grateful, a virtuous, a prosperous, and a happy 
 people. 
 
 If these are the blessings that flow from a faithful guardianship of industry’s sa- 
 cred funds — if these are the praises due to those who have discharged this pious 
 trust witli fidelity — how shall I describe the misery that flows from the venality, 
 corruption, and plunder, by which these sacred funds have been dissipated ? What 
 are the execrations that should fall on the heads of the sacrilegious banditti by whom 
 they^ are seized and betrayed ? 
 
 Robbed of all its wages, industry sinks into lassitude. The mind, faint from hope- 
 less exertion, finds no inducement to action, no spur to invention, no desire for in- 
 struction. Indolence seizes on the victim, when industry brings no reward, no 
 blessing. It consigns the wretch it has made, to wallow in filth, by placing the 
 means of being cleanly beyond his attainment. His mind, surrounded with the 
 boundless prospect of misery, flies to the oblivion of intoxication, to relieve it from 
 the torture of thought : deprived of constant and cheering employment to attach it 
 to virtue, it falls into vice ; whilst, compelled by his own and his children’s wants, 
 the calls of nature convert crime into duty. Without property, comforts, or rights 
 to require protection, he regards laws as restrictions, which prevent him from seizing 
 on the means of relieving his wants. Robbed of the peace and security attendant 
 on the observance of justice — stung vviih agitation and fears which await its infi'ac- 
 tion — immersed in want, abject, dependant, and in slavery— losing all love for his 
 country in the misery it teems with — his mind lies vitiated, debased, and degraded. 
 These, stupid, venal, vicious legislators ! are your works. These, mercenary trai- 
 tors ! are your deeds. These, panders of legislative treason and national disho- 
 nour ! are the calamities with which you afflict a miserable, discontented, execrating 
 nation. 
 
 Compare the natural dispositions of my countrymen with the perversions corrup- 
 tion has wrought. Behold the host — with what hospitality he entertains his guests! 
 — what joy sparkles in his eves when he sees he has succeeded in rendering his 
 house agreeable 1 his wife and daughters amiable, affectionate, unaffected, partaking 
 and contributing to the general joy ! his boys, too, attentive, obliging, good-natured, 
 seconding the wishes and participating in the delights of their parents, which no- 
 thing disturbs hut the idea of departure^ when an entreaty from every tongue begs a 
 farther stay, and even the infants cling about the knees of the guest, and lisp out 
 thier little prayers, as if hospitality had been an intuitive virtue ! If you enter but 
 the wretchedest hovel, all the poor soul has he lays before you, whilst the loss of his 
 humble meal is forgotten in the exercise of this national duty !— These are the na- 
 
23 
 
 tural virtues of my beloved country ! In the boundless hospitality of my country^ 
 men, I behold the emblem of the fertility of its soil ; and, in the mild, endearing, 
 affectionate disposition of my countrywomen, I see the emblem of its temperate 
 climate. 
 
 But when I turn from this delightful contemplation — when I view the Gentry of 
 Ireland as public men, as citizens who should discharge their duty to their Country 
 — instead of that proud independence which dignifies the soul, instead of that love 
 of the country, that fire, which impels the patriot to offer up his life to its freedom 
 — my heart sickens at the sight of the continued chain of meanness, venality and de- 
 pendence, by which the entire mind is bound in an organized system of corruption, 
 from the Castle to the Cabin, where consequence and emolument are purchased by 
 the most abject, unlimited abandonment of the mind’s independence, of the impulse of 
 honour, of the dictates of reason, of the freedom of opinion and the choice of action. 
 When, amongst the youth of this Gentryship, I look for that indignant abhorrence of 
 oppression, that high spirit which spurns servile submission, or those ebulitions of 
 patriotism which overleap the discretion of riper years, pleads its privilege in justifi- 
 cation, and finds a ready acquittal from judges who have not forgotten the days of 
 their youth, I behold them sneaking into life under the yoke of prostitution and cor- 
 ruption, and into the Senate under the subjugation and suppression of every honest 
 thought and of every fine feeling — bred up in the principles of their fathers, in the 
 faith and belief that patriotism was ruin, but that venaltity and infamy were the 
 ways to preferment and fortune — with hearts so steeled against every generous prin- 
 ciple, that the glorious examples of Greece and Rome have become subjects for bru- 
 tal degeneracy to scoff at, where corruption had extinguished every propensity to 
 emulation, exhibiting all the depravity of age, without one single virtue of youth. 
 
 In vain I fly from this disgraceful debasement of mind in the upper class, to seek 
 content and happiness in the lower. When T have beheld a sequestered hovel. 
 Here, at least, said I, the owner must find a sanctuary from the ravenous gripe of 
 oppression. But alas ! even here, the land-shark, the tithe-shark, the collectors of 
 land-rates and church-rates, have prowled, one after the other ; like the hawk, the 
 kite, the eagle and vulture, passing in constant succession, in the most lonely retire- 
 ment, in search of their prey, where the sufl’erings ofjDoverty were secondaiy to the 
 dread and horror of being devoured. How many thousand instances of prowliwg 
 and prey have I witnessed in Connaught, in Munster, in Leinster, and even iu 
 Ulster ! in the awful presence of God, I ask those men who wring the wages of 
 their prostitution from the wretchedness they have created by an unconditional sur- 
 render of their opinion, their honour and character, by sacrificing the rights, the 
 interests and liberties of their country — are they aware of the humiliating state of de- 
 basement and misery to which their venality and treason have reduced the millions, 
 duty and justice required they should raise and protect ? 
 
 Instead of selling to Britain the several sources from which the sacred fund for 
 Ireland’s industry should be supplied and augmented, conceive what a vast accession 
 of capital the millions now annually exported without a return would furnish. 
 Conceive your home market, wdiich is now sacrificed to Britain by a total infraction 
 of reciprocity, placed on that equitable basis which national justice so imperiously 
 calls for — conceive the markets of England thrown open to Ireland, on the same 
 conditions the markets of Ireland are thrown open to her — conceive the millions 
 which are now squandered in these monstrous establishments, under the pretence of 
 promoting religion, the millions squandered in ruinous litigation, and in the thousand 
 channels of poisonous corruption, restored to the sacred fund for the employment of 
 national industry — conceive your commerce freed from those imposts with which 
 it is loaded to pay for its ruin, and rescued from those swarms of blighting locusts 
 that generate in corruption, fatten on extortion, and make perjury their ordinary 
 regimen, — could the mind figure to the most enraptured imagination, a more delight- 
 ful prospect than the harbours of Ireland would furnish, thronged with the ships ot 
 the commercial worlJ, crowding to supply an industrious an d^' prosperous country 
 with the productions of their’s, and taking the surplus of your’s in retuni ? Who 
 
24 
 
 can calculate the cirects of such an accession of capital acting on a papulation of 
 four millions of healthy, intelligent, enterprising people, with such advantages of 
 fertility, situation, and insular blessings ? Ho\y many millions, who now drag on a 
 miserable existence, in struggling to maintain themselves and their children upon 
 tlie wretched wages the present wretched capital adbrds them, would be restored to 
 plenty, comfort and ease ? Conceive how the present degraded and debased mind of 
 a people bent to the earth under poverty and oppression, would, under a just appli- 
 cation of the funds for instruction, be raised to independence and freedom — con- 
 ceive how many who now assume the name of Gentleman but to disgrace it — who 
 swarm through the Country under the various shapes of perjured grand-jury job- 
 bers, patronage expectants for prostituted dependence, revenue officers, land pirates, 
 tithe sharks, hedge attorneys, and thousands such like, who live by^ the oppression 
 and plunder of the poor and the wretched — would then be tempted to lay aside 
 their present disgraceful occupations, to seek their fortunes in the profits of well- 
 rewarded industry. 
 
 When I compare the proud situation ray country should hold amongst nations, 
 were she possessed of those unalienable rights no power on earth has a right to 
 usurp, with the contemptible insignificance to which I see her reduced — when I 
 compare the wealth and the blessings my country ought to possess, with the poverty 
 and wretchedness with which she is loaded — my heart is torn with indignation, with 
 shame, with grief. And whilst the gloom of a solitary dungeon, the calumny and 
 insults with which my name has been loaded, the being torn from every endearing 
 tie that w as linked to my heart, have not been able to extract one iron drop ; at the 
 recollection of the WTongs and sufferings of my beloved country, tears gush from 
 my eyes, and the hand which has been charged with having written treason against 
 her, would gladly grasp the sword to avenge injuries it can scarcely hold the pen 
 to describe. 
 
 The Remedy for the Evils of our Political State. 
 
 I’o remedy these manifold evils, to which I have traced the miseries and sufferings 
 of my country, it has been acknowledged by every man wdio is not within the pale 
 of usurpation and corruption,. that Catholic Emancipation, and a lestoraion of 
 Popular Representation, are the only efficient expedients. But if justice, which 
 requires that no man, much less the decided majority of a nation, should be deprived 
 of his political rights on account of his religious opinions, ordains that the Catholics 
 should not have fewer rights than the Protestants ; and if it is an incontrovertible 
 fact, that such is the present usurpation of rights, as well Protestant as Catholic, that 
 even though the Catholics were admitted to the fullest participation of the rights pos- 
 sessed by their Protestant fellow-citizens at present, both Protestant and Catholic would 
 find, that the rights of which they w^re robbed, were infinitely more numerous, and 
 more important, than those they enjoyed, even before the present annihilation of 
 every vestige of constitutional right— it must appear manifest to the most superficial 
 observer, that Catholic exaltation to the present height of Protestant freedom only, 
 must prove wdiolly inadequate to the establishment of our National Liberty. 
 Disdaining, then, lo add one argument more, to the thousands which remain already 
 unansweed, in favour of the Emancipation of my Catholic Countrymen, letting it 
 rest on the solid basis of justice, and blending it with the General Cause, 1 shall 
 conclude this address with an investigation of our General Right. 
 
 The Remedy to he had by establishing the true Political Principles only. 
 
 I am aware that I am embarking on that vast and important subject, the Rights 
 of Man, which agitates the most civilized parts of the world. I am aware that the 
 popular mind has been distracted with that chaos of controversy with wdiich it has 
 been overwhelmed by the furious, the bigotted, the ignorant, the prejudiced, and the 
 venal. I am aware that the public mind has been dragooned and deluded, by a 
 man notorious for the total abandonment of every principle which has recommended 
 
25 
 
 liim to the public confidence — at the head of every thing that was corrupt, or that 
 could he corrupted — supported by the wildest and most extravagant declamation of 
 men of the most ungovernable passions, the most inveterate prejudices, and of a 
 total deficiency of judgment — ^joined by the timid, the ignorant, and those who, 
 regarding public trust as a speculative profession for private emolument, made alarm 
 an excuse for deserting those whose adherence to the principles of Liberty appeared 
 to them too losing a game to answer their views. I am aware that this heterogeneous 
 collection of knaves and dupes, have branded every proposal for reforming monstrous 
 and growing abuses, and every reference to the principles of Liberty, as treasonable 
 attempts to subvert the constitution. I am aware that their leader, by making the 
 abuses of the constitution to stand for the constitution itself, has had the address to 
 convince them, that subverting the liberties of the country, was supporting the con- 
 stitution ; and that to tear away every restraint, by which the vast power with which 
 he is invested, had been controuled, to heap debt upon debt, abuse upon abuse, ex- 
 pence upon expence, and corruption on corruption, were the only effectual remedies 
 by which new and unheard-of calamities were to be cured. I am aware, that, as long as 
 the mover and manager of this aggregate mass can persuade them that the resources 
 of the country are inexhaustible, and that, as long as the facility with which he con- 
 tinues to draw millions after millions from the fund of national industry, to squander 
 them in supporting his power and projects, gains him credit for his fallacious asser- 
 tion of the prosperous state of the nation, it will not be in the power of reason to 
 work a conviction against the delusion : But T am aware, also, that when the confi- 
 dence which has arisen from this false assertion of inexhaustible resources, from 
 the pomp of war, and the glare of extravagance, shall shortly be succeeded by the 
 despondency and horror of national bankruptcy and universal calamity, the violation 
 of principles will be grievously felt, and their sterling value shortly acknowledged. 
 I have clung to them in the worst of times; and, under the heaviest misfortunes, 
 will never cease, but with my life, to offer them for your adoption. Trust me, my 
 countrymen, that to explain the political phenomena of our times, to which it is agreed 
 on all sides the history of mankind affords nothing analogous, the primordial principles 
 of human nature are the rudder, the compass and polar star, by which you must 
 steer in the storm, in the new and unexplored regions which human society has so 
 recently entered. By these you will see, lhat mankind are advancing into a state 
 far beyond anything they had ever attained ; where, as the mass have changed their 
 dependencies, relations, and habits of thinking, their institutions must undergo a 
 similar change. Every work in the creation has its fixed principles of existence 
 and action. When Newton found out the principle of gravitation, be put to rout 
 the thousand absurdities which preceded this simple discovery ; and the science of 
 the movements of the myriads of worlds became intelligible to the most humble 
 capacity. And, as self-interest, tempered by sympathy, is the acknowledged prin- 
 ciple which regulates and governs the existence and movements of human action 
 and human society, why should we not account (or the phenomena which have 
 appeared in one science, as well as those which appear in another, by a strict ad- 
 herence to principle ? 
 
 7'he Laws which regulate the Descent, Transfer, or Sale of Property, 
 regulate the Nature of Government. 
 
 Property is the machinery by which self-interest is worked. It is a collection 
 o( the necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, for human use ; and, as long as man- 
 kind are subject to their present wants, desires, and vanities, those who possess 
 property must possess the means of influencing the conduct, and commanding the 
 services, o( those who have none. Hence the laws which monopolize property, 
 monopolize power also : hence the direction which the laws give to the descent of 
 property, the freedom or restraint with which they adniit ol its transfer or sale, 
 influence the nature of r-overnment; and hence the absolute necessity- for examining 
 the nature of those predisposing laws respecting property, in order to account for 
 
26 
 
 the phenomeua which appear in civil society. If the existing institutions are con- 
 sonant to the self-interest of the bulk of mankind, in their present advanced state 
 of knowledge, independence and industry, they will stand : But, if they are repug- 
 nant to their stlf-interest, no force, no device, can uphold them. Convinced of this 
 truth, I will judge of their validity, or fall, by the standard of the self-interest of 
 mankind. 
 
 The Origin and Effects of the Laws for the Monopoly of Property. 
 
 In the early and barbarous ages of Europe, the only property which was in 
 existence, was the spontaneous productions of the earth ; and when lands were 
 monopolized, all power was monopolized also. Hence, by establishing the mono- 
 polizing laws of primogeniture, entails and settlements, in favour of a few proprietors, 
 all power became confined to these fe\v. The mass of the people were consigned to 
 dependence and slavery ; and an Aristocratic despotism was established over men, 
 whose minds, and whose wants, were nothing removed from the state of the herds 
 they attended. Bred up in the habit of thinking that the inhabitants belonged to 
 he soil, service appeared a natural return for the subsistence the proprietor gave 
 them. The vassal, wholly ignorant of his self-interest on the broad basis of Man s 
 imprescriptible right, saw it only in the degraded, subordinate state of a slave. 
 Finding that, in his isolated, helpless condition,, resistance must prove destructive, 
 and that, to promote his self-interest, he must use his best exertions to recommend 
 himself to the lord of the soil — the self-interest of the vassal was so blended with 
 the self-interest of the master, that fidelity, allegiance, loyalty, and clanship, became 
 the main bond between the governed and governing parlies; and the self-interest of 
 the whole society was so centered in clanship, that the meanest vassal felt as much 
 interested in every thing which aggrandized the clan, as the lord of the horde. In 
 this state, which is the true state of hereditary aristocracy, the institutions founded 
 on those laws had nothing to fear from the resistance of self-interest on the part of 
 the people. 
 
 The Phcenomenon u'hich has appeared in the Political State of Europe accounted 
 for, by considering the Effects of the Laws for the Monopoly of Property. 
 
 Here I could wish the public mind would pause, and look back on this bar- 
 barous state, from which those laws of monopoly, aristocracy, and despotism, origi- 
 nally sprung : For it is from the pernicious consequences which have followed 
 from having continued those laws of monopoly, in the commercial and civilized 
 state of the nations of Europe, that I mean to trace this phcenomenon which has 
 appeared. It is from the continuance of those laws of primogeniture, entails and 
 settlements, that I mean to account for the revolution which has taken place in parts 
 of Europe, and for that revolution which must go through every other commercial 
 and civilized part where those law's are in force : the truth of which will appear from 
 demonstrating how incompatible those laws are with the self-interest of the bulk of 
 mankind, and how severely they feel that they are so. 
 
 That these Laws of Monopoly are injurious to the Self-Interest of Mankind, by 
 militating against the Political Economy of Motions. 
 
 The direct and obvious tendency of these laws is to support a monopoly of land, 
 and to prevent it from breaking down into smaller portions by equitable and liatu- 
 ral laws of descent, whereby tenants on short leases have been substituted in place 
 of small proprietors. It cannot be controverted, that, even on cultivated land, the 
 ability of a proprietor w^ho has the whole produce to expend in cultivation, must be 
 greater than that of the tenant w'ho is obliged to pay such a considerable part of the 
 produce in ren^to a landlord ; and that the inclination, the affection and interest of 
 a small proprietoi’, who has the whole benefit of his improvements secured to him and 
 bis family for ever, must lead him to make better and more durable improvements, 
 
27 
 
 than a tenant on a short or uncertain tenure, which may or may not be renewed, 
 according to the caprice of a landlord, but, at all events, to be raised in proportion 
 to the extent of the improvements he shall have made. 
 
 But on cultivated lands the evil is infinitely worse: For, as the only inducement 
 Man has to employ his labour, or to expend his capital, is the profit they are likely 
 to yield, it can never be the interest of a tenant on a determinable tenure to im- 
 prove, at such an expence as uncultivated lands must require, for another to reap 
 the advantage. Hence the effect of those laws all over Europe, where they are in 
 force, has been, that the cultivation of the land is infinitely behind what it other- 
 wise would be, and that such immense tracts of land, even in the most wealthy 
 countries of Europe, are wholly uncultivated ; which has proved destructive to the 
 interest of the lower classes by diminishing the supply of the necessaries and conve- 
 niences of life, and has been severely felt in the most populous and commercial 
 nations. 
 
 But the pernicious effects of these laws of monopoly have not been confined to 
 injuring agriculture only. They have extended their baneful influence to every 
 branch of political economy. 
 
 I have observed, that the industry of nations depended on the state of the na- 
 tional capital which incites it. This valuable fund can be augmented only by the 
 thrift and good management of individuals, and diminished by their extravagance. 
 But it is the nature of men possessed of great hereditary property to be extravagant, 
 whilst it is the nature of men of moderate fortune to be the reverse : And so gene- 
 rally is this the case, that it is difficult to find an instance of a large hereditary pro- 
 perty that is, not only, not expended unproductively in vanity and folly, but that is 
 not encumbered with considerable debts, for sums borrowed from the funds of in- 
 dustry, and squandered in idleness; whilst, among men of moderate fortunes, you 
 will not find one in a thousand who has not added to the national fund by thrift 
 and good management. Besides, laws like these, founded in injustice, pass from 
 habit, on the minds of those who live under them, for justice. Hence merchants, 
 factors, and men who make large fortunes by their industry, are led to leave the 
 bulk of their acquirements to an eldest son, and to disinherit the rest of their children ; 
 whereby immense sums are drawn from the sacred fund of industry, to be expended 
 in unproductive pomp and vanity, instead of being divided amongst a number, 
 who would have continued to employ it in the way it was originally acquired. 
 
 These Laws are not only subversive of Political Economy, in all its branches ; 
 
 but they are subversive, also, of the Laivs of Justice, of Nature, and of Social 
 
 Happiness. 
 
 Is it not from the operation of these laws, that the younger children of the mo- 
 nopolists these laws create, are bred up in a state of luxury and extravagance, during 
 their father’s life-time, which they are unable to support honestly after, from being 
 disinherited at his death ? Is it not from the operation of these laws, that this ex- 
 tensive class, who should be tbe hopes of the genius and spirit of the nation, con- 
 tract habits and wants which fit them for dependence and prostitution ? Is it not 
 from the operation of these laws, that an eldest son is invested with that share of 
 property that enables him to monopolize political power, which he sells for public 
 money, wherewith he gratifies the wants and habits of his disinherited family, at the 
 sacrifice of the independence and patriotism of those who are bought, and at the 
 expence of the rights, the liberties and property of the people, who are plundered 
 to pay for the disgraceful and ruinous purchase ? Is it not from the powerful im- 
 pulse of paternal affection to counteract the effects of these laws, by which children 
 have been disinherited by the parent before he had felt the force of a parent’s affec- 
 tion, that there is scarcely an instance where the father and the heir-apparent are 
 not at variance, from the means which the former pursues to prevail on the latter to 
 provide for those very children, whom the settlement, which confers the whole es-, 
 late on one son, has so cruelly beggared ? 
 
28 
 
 The baneful elFect of these laws, is to create a few overgrown rich men, and to 
 keep the mass of the people from being as opulent, as comfortable, and as indepen- 
 dent, as they otherwise would be; by which social happiness has been materially in- 
 jured. Who will compare a state of society, where the many are immersed in ex- 
 treme poverty, and the few are gorged with inordinate wealth,, with a society where 
 these extremes are destroyed, and general mediocrity pervades the entire? In this 
 natural and just state, the improvement of the mind and the exertions of talents are 
 called forth, from their being the only means by which men can gratify their 
 rational wants and desires. The extraordinary energies of the soul are excited, by 
 being the only means of attaining consideration, or consequence in the eyes of the 
 world. Good temper, affability, and good manners, are cultivated, from their being 
 the only passports to the esteem or the affection of their associates. This estate fits 
 mankind for giving, and receiving, those interchanges of kindnesses by which 
 friendships are made and confirmed ; whilst ease, cordiality, and good sensCi per- 
 vade this happy state, where society is rational recreation from rational pursuits, in 
 which tire heart, unadulterated by vanity, preserves those fine-spun feelings which 
 constitute the highest state of human felicity. Contrast this delightful state with 
 the meanness and servility which abject poverty generates in the mass of mankind. 
 Contrast it with that state in which the energy of the soul is destroyed in min(js 
 born to a profusion of every thing it could wish or desire, independent of any exer- 
 tion it need make to attain them. See to what adulteration the mind born to greht 
 wealth is exposed, from the adulation and meanness by which the indigent solicit 
 its favour. See, when the mind passes that degree of wealth which iS capable of 
 satisfying every rational desire, how vitiated and destructive it becomes, in launching 
 into vanity and vice, and in purchasing up the will, the opinion and independehce 
 of the poor and needy. Who that will not prefer that state, which would result 
 from the laws of nature and justice, to that by which these infernal laws of monoply 
 have debased and degraded the world ? Who is so depraved as to prefer a tinsel, 
 gaudy, listless pageant, set here and there, upon a ground of human wretchedness 
 and misery; where the human species, even in the most populous countries where 
 these laws are in force, are harassed to skeletons to earn subsistence ; whilst the 
 food they eat, the draught they drink, the clothes they w^ar, the house they inhabit, 
 the air they breathe, and the light they see by, are taxed, that the hard-earned 
 wages of industry may pass into the rapacious hands these laws have invested with 
 power, without restraint or controul ? Who is so depraved as to prefer this state of 
 misery, formed by the extremes of wealth and poverty, drudgery and listlessnesS 
 to the cheerful, joyous state of general plenty and happy mediocrity ; ivhere, in a 
 teeming population, the eye is feasted with the delightful prospect of the highest 
 cultivation, abounding with habitations, emblems of cleanliness, of comfort and 
 plenty, inhabited by a people whose neat attire, whose affable manner, whose sleek 
 and joyous countenance, bespeak moderate labour, witli well-rewarded industry ; 
 whilst the ear is enraptured with the carol and the song, where the light foot beats 
 time to the still lighter heart, exhibiting a country alive to joy, to freedom and to 
 happiness ? 
 
 These are blessings which these laws of monopoly have dissipated, without con- 
 fening one single benefit in alleviation on mankind. If it is pretended that these laws 
 are useful in guarding against the extravagance of mankind, I answer, that the great 
 proprietors whom those laws have created, and whom they are still, in vain, retained 
 to support, are the most extravagant (;lass in society ; and that the few instances of 
 imprudence which are to be found amongst those qf moderate fortunes, have arisen 
 from their minds being debauched by4he exmple pt vanity and folly which jtheir 
 rich neighbours have set them. ^ 
 
 If it is pretended that these laws of monopoly oblige parents to ^provide for their 
 children, I answer, that they are laws of disinheritance ; and though they were not 
 so, I will appeal to you, who have felt what it is to have, children, whether the 
 strength of paternal affection is not a sufficient and the best guarantee for the per- 
 formance of this paramount duty ; and if any one should be found vile enough to 
 
29 
 
 xleny it, be would only bear testimony to the depravity of his own heart, but not 
 , against the validity of paternal affection. 
 
 ^ If it should be pretended, that the extravagance-of these few overgrown rich gives 
 encouragement to industry, than which a more false or mischievous notion cannot 
 be propagated or accredited, I answer, that the national industry, which is now 
 expended in making trinkets and baubles, which are neither conveniences, ele- 
 gancies, nor necessaries, for those over-wealthy, ivould be better excited and better 
 employed in producing the necessaries and comforts of life for the mass of the peo- 
 ple, who, by the abolition of these laws, and the diffusion of properly, would 
 be enabled to buy and consume them — I answer, that it would be more 
 for the comfort, the improvement and happiness of mankind, if the vast por- 
 tion of industry which is now wasted in fabricating objects of mere vanity and 
 fashion, which these law's create a race to consume, in a course of emulous hos- 
 tility, and the most frivolous contention that ever tortured the nnnd or vitiated the 
 heart — were employed in constructing better houses, and in furnishing better cloth- 
 ing and food, for the industrious, unvitiated classes, who compose the bulk of man- 
 kind. 
 
 If it is pretended that these overgrown fortunes give encouragement to the arts, I 
 answer, that the abolition of these laws of monopoly, by diffusing general wealth, 
 would diffuse general education and knowledge, which is the true source of every 
 art ; and that the general opulence of a nation is a better customer and a better eii- 
 courager of the arts, than a few, however wealthy ; and that the exhibitions and ly- 
 ceum of an opulent nation are more likely to afford liberal recompense to the artist 
 than the decoration of a few family mansions. 
 
 Besides thes^ destructive Effects of these Laws, they are subversive of the Civil and 
 Political Rights and liberties of Mankind. 
 
 I will not descend to prove that the Rights of Man are unalienable and impre- 
 scriptible, nor to expose the rant and declamation which would set up the absurd in- 
 stitutions of an infant, ignorant, barbarous age, for eternal laws to bind mankind, in 
 the most matured, the most aged and enlightened times of the world. But, holding 
 in contempt and detestation every institution, however rooted by time, or supported 
 by force or corruption, which is incompatible with the liberty, happiness and inte- 
 rest of Man, I will assume it as an indisputable fact, that Mankind are entitled to, 
 and must possess, every right their state of knowledge, and advancement in civil so- 
 ciety, enables them to claim or maintain ; and that their own ignorance and incapa- 
 city are the only barriers which can stand between them and their fullest enjoyment. 
 I feel happy in having brought this great question to this point, in which every civil 
 and political right of Man is concentrated : For it is in scrutinizing the merits of 
 those predisposing laws which regulate the passage and transfer of property, that a 
 few simple principles, which explain the means by which the Rights of Man can be 
 secured, must put to rout those volumes, with which the advocates for civil, political, 
 and religious despotism, bigotry and prejudice, have so long distracted the mind of 
 the European world. The history of every age, and of every nation, bears uneiTing 
 and invariable testimony, that it is a principle in the nature of Man to abuse the 
 power with which he has been invested, and that the only effectual controul is that 
 which rests in the hands of the people, by whom, and for whose use, the power was 
 delegated, and who are the most interested that it should be exercised according to 
 the extent for which it was given. 
 
 If, then, it cannot be controverted, that property gives the means of influencing 
 the conduct and commanding the services of others, who will assert that those laws, 
 which monopolize property, do not furnish the few, in whose favour they act with 
 the means bt monopolizing power also ? Who will assert, that those laws which 
 prevent property from spreading, and creating a number of small proprietors, do not 
 prevent the existence of the only controul by which those who become invested 
 with power can be checked or restrained P If the true question be, not about the 
 
^30 
 
 Rights of Man, but about the best means by nbich be shall attain them and keep 
 them, who can argue in favour of laws which create monopoly of power and usurpa- 
 tion of rights, and destroy the only efficient controul by which the rights of ihe peo- 
 ple can either be gained or preserved ? 'Diis is a ground I will never surrender. It 
 is that on which, not only representation, but every other civil or political right 
 Man can claim or enjoy, must depend. As long as you suffer these laws of mono- 
 poly to exist, how can you have an adequate, efficient, controuling, constituent body ? 
 The true predisposing slate for perfect representation, is to create the greatest possi- 
 ble number of independent electors, and to destroy the monopolized power by which 
 they may be influenced, bribed or debauched. As long as those laws exist which 
 monopolize the whole of a country in the hands of half a dozen proprietors, it will 
 be in vain to attempt to reform representation ; those laws have vitiated it at its 
 source, and impurity must accompany it throughout. The power which the great 
 proprietor exercises over his tenant as an elector, is fatal : As landlord, the hopes of 
 renewal and of indulgence, and the dread of resentment — as a rich man, the in- 
 fluence by bribery— and as a monopolist of political power, the patronage of 
 places, emoluments and jobs — are all more immediate considerations with the elec- 
 tor, than the indirect and more distant benefits accruing from the exercise of the con- 
 stituent’s rights. So wholly destructive are those laws of monopoly of any thing 
 like adequate, efficient representation, that, as long as they exist, no human device 
 can be invented for establishing restraints by which those invested with power can 
 be controuled. During the continuance of those laws, extending the rights of elec- 
 tion to the poorer citizens, would, under the appearance of adding to the strength of 
 the constituent body, be to dilute its force, by pouring in on it a vast quantity of ab- 
 solute weakness. To violate the right of universal suffrage, is to infringe the most 
 sacred right of Man. But as long as those laws of monopoly exist, the. general ex- 
 ercise of the right, under the appearance of Democracy, renders Aristocracy omni- 
 potent. The people, who act from their feelings, have felt the full force of these 
 truths. Hence the indifference they have ever shewn for all plans of reform which 
 have been proposed, from conviction, that, under the influence of those laws of mo- 
 nopoly, no extension of the right of election could confer on them any real ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 Hoto much it is the Interest of the Rich to abolish those Laivs of Monopoly. 
 
 If, in this summary of the destructive effects of those laws of monopoly, I have 
 demonstrated that they are subversive of tbe industry and wealth of nations, of the 
 laws of justice, of nature and of social happiness, and of the civil and political Rights 
 of Man — in a word, if I have demonstrated that those laws are repugnant to the 
 self-interests of Mankind, what being, endued with reasoning faculties, but must 
 perceive the rottenness of the ground every institution and privilege which are sup- 
 ported by those laws must stand on ? Who that must not be convinced of the 
 infatuated folly of those men, who, on the brink of bankruptcy, alter lavishing such 
 oceans of blood, and such millions of wealth, in a vain attempt to support those 
 laws, would not consent to their abolition, when they could have secured, to them- 
 selves and their families, such enviable conditions, with the thanks and esteem of 
 their fellow-citizens ? Who that does not perceive the want of intellect in those 
 men who possess property, to which the people lay no claim, in allying their cause, 
 and in placing their safety on the same footing with those men who live by corrup- 
 tion for betraying the rights and liberties of their country, and whose wages are 
 paid with public money wrung from the hard hand of the peasant, in reward for 
 their treasonable, parricidal service? W’^ho does not see, that, from the perilous 
 state to which the continuance of thosd laws had reduced property, imperious neces- 
 sity called upon those who possessed it, to free it from all its restraints in descent, 
 transfer, and sale ; whereby the numbers interested in its preservation would have 
 been augmented, whilst the numbers interested in its subversion would have been 
 diminished P But, alas ! so powerfully does the thirst for domineering even over 
 
31 
 
 the wretched, vitiate the mind which has once tasted its intoxicating spirit, to such 
 a degree does it paralyze the reason, that, even in the jaws of death, the hand which 
 has once grasped power, will hold it with a pertinacity not to be loosened. But if 
 men will not close their eyes, and abandon their reason, can they avoid perceiving 
 that monopoly and usurpation have been undermined by the revolution which has 
 happened in the state of property and knowledge, arising from the arts, from educa- 
 tion and commerce, which have made such rapid progress since the inventions of 
 the mariner’s compass and the press ? can they be surprised, that, as these inven- 
 tions were unknown and inoperative in the preceding ages of the world, nothing 
 analogous to their effects should have appeared in the annals of mankind ? If 
 they doubt that these powerful and novel causes have produced this stupendous 
 revolution, let them compare the present state of society, in which the great causes 
 are exhibiting such important effects, with the barbarous ages from which these 
 destructive laws of disinheritance, monopoly and slavery, originally sprung. 
 
 A Comparison between the state of Society when those Laws of Monopoly 
 originated, and the present. 
 
 See the rustic Baron, formerly inhabiting his Gothic Castle in the midst of his 
 vassals, whose fidelity and service he purchases by bestowing the whole produce of 
 his demesnes on their maintenance, and whose obedience he enforces by a constant 
 residence amongst them — see this superintendant of slaves, this grazier of vassals, 
 transformed at present into a fine gentlemen residing in the capital, where he ex- 
 pends the whole of his income in selfish gratification and vanities amongst men 
 from whom it procures him neither allegiance nor obedience. The vassals whose 
 attachment was established by blending their interests with their lords are now trans- 
 formed into tenants, with interests in direct opposition to that of their landlords, 
 of whom they know little more than what they feel from the extortion of their agents 
 or bailiffs — the one exacting the absolute disposal of the rights of the elector; the 
 other desirous to enjoy it himself — the one endeavouring to gain the highest rents on 
 the shortest tenure ; the other as much interested in gaining the very reverse. But 
 it is not in the total alteration which has taken place in this class only, that we are 
 to look for the want of support which these laws at present experience. Those 
 numerous, independent and enlightened classes, which have been introduced into 
 society by the introduction of commerce, the arts, and the press, have been an entire 
 addition; — classes who earn their livelihood, free, not only from all feudal depen- 
 dencies, but even from the influence which the expectation of renewals, or the hopes 
 of indulgence, create — artizans, neither knowing nor caring by whom the goods 
 tboy have wrought for the factor may be bought or consumed ; whereby, as the arts, 
 manufactures and commerce advance, the numbers whose independence enables 
 them, whose knowledge instructs them, whose self-interest impels them, to resist 
 those laws of monopoly of property and power, must be augmented. See how 
 commerce and the press have gained on despotism throughout the world, in an 
 exact proportion as these great and operative causes have made their way in the 
 several nations of the earth. See how exactly learning, industry, and commerce, 
 have kept pace with liberty, in every quarter of the globe. See how these great 
 benefactors of the human race, the compass and the press, have fitted mankind to 
 comprehend and to promote their self-interest, in every country where they are 
 known. Compare the ages which precede their invention, with the age in existence: 
 Compare the scanty population, composed of tyrants and vassals, plunged in the 
 depths of ignorance, superstition and darkness ; without one of the conveniences, 
 and with but few of the necessaries of life ; without the press to print, and the post 
 to circulate knowledge ; without books, without industry, without emulation, incite- 
 ment, or collision ; exhibiting a corruption of tbe savage state, without one of the 
 advantages of civilization : Look back to this state of barbarism, ignorance, rapine, 
 superstition and despotism, to whose legislative wisdom such solemn appeals are 
 hourly made : Look back on those ancestors, to whose consummate ignorance of the 
 
32 
 
 principles of civil and political liberty you are indebted for those laws of nionoplv— 
 those laws which, by WTesting the power of controiil from the hands of the people, 
 and vesting their rights and property in the hands of a few' self-constituted legis- 
 lators, have left lawless power at large to involve the nations of Europe in carnage, 
 in famine, in blood, and in bankruptcy : Can it be matter for astonishmenl that such 
 laws, from such an origin, should have caused such a complication of disorders in 
 a civilized state ? If you have a doubt remaining, tiace the gradual progress of the 
 European mind from darkness to liglit, from thraldom to freedom : See it placing 
 its self-interest in the strictest observance of passive obedience and noh-resislance 
 to a junto of priests and despots, from a faith and belief that the more entire the 
 sacrifice of every right and every blessing in this world, the more certain the attain- 
 ment of eternal happiness in the world to come. See it, from this lowest state of de- 
 gradation, arrive at a sort of collision of sentiment from schisms, placing its self- 
 interest in the success of one sect over another, belw'een whom the most frivolous 
 distinction created a difference: See this collision of sentiment advance to concerns 
 of this world, in the contentions of factions and parties, where self-interest was 
 placed in the triumph of one set of leaders over their rivals : See the public mind, 
 hoping, from time time, to promote its self-interest by a change of kings and minis- 
 ters, and uniformly deceived by some wretched palliative, the peace-offering of men 
 invested w’ith power for professions made to attain it; until, enlightened by educa- 
 tion, convinced by frequent and uniform experience that a change of men could 
 never cure diseases which require a change of system, disengaged from all those 
 false mediums which stood between it and its self-interest, and looking directly at 
 the nature of government, the public mind has at length arrived at the great 
 truth, that as it is the nature of Man to abuse authority, the maintenance of Man s 
 right should never depend on the will or even the virtue of those invested with 
 power, but on the state of the independence and knowledge of the people, by whom, 
 and for transacting wdiose affairs, they are chosen ; that without independence, the 
 people cannot exercise a free and unbiassed election, and that without knowledge 
 they cannot judge how far the conduct of their delegates has entitled them to be 
 re-elected or rejected. On these few truths must tbe rights of Mankind for ever 
 depend. Take them, my countrymen ! into your bosoms ; let them sink deep into 
 your hearts; 'each them to your children; and trust me, that, when they are 
 thoroughly rooted, no bavonet can force them, no corruption destroy them, no chains 
 can bind them, no dungeon inclose them. Fortified w'ith these truths, do not esti- 
 mate the future progress of Liberty by the course she has run in the centuries past : 
 But be assured, that the period has at length arrived, that after performing her slow 
 and tedious passage through the regions of darkness, she quickens her pace as 
 she approaches heat and light, and blazes on an enlightened and an astonished world. 
 
 That Liberty has gained ground in the present Contest, and that she must be 
 
 triumphant. 
 
 When I consider the extraordinary efforts which have been made these last five 
 years, to resist the abolition of these laws of monoply of property and power in 
 France, and to support the usurpation and corruption w'hich depend on their con- 
 tinuance in every other country in Europe— when I see every restraint which stood 
 betw'een governnient and despotism removed— when I see the nations of Europe 
 drained of their blood and of their wealth— when I see force, corruption and terror, 
 exerted at exery point, and in every direction, and that every influence has been 
 employed to circulate misrepresentation, and to prevent the circulation of truth — I 
 am not surprised to find that the appearances which have resulted from such extra- 
 ordinary efforts should have betrayed those who love liberty into a fear that its 
 progress had been arrested, or, that it should have elated the advocates for corruption 
 to hope that usurpation and prostitution, by which they live in such affluence, w'ere 
 more firmly established than ever. But, true to those principles which I have 
 already advanced, I hope to demonstrate that those appearances are but the effects 
 
.‘53 
 
 of delusion, whicli can be but monientaiy, whilst those of principle must be eternal ; 
 and that what has appeared to be the destruction of liberty, is in fact the last effort 
 of expiring corruption and despotism. 
 
 Tyranny, vassalage, and priestcraft, are the ingredients which originally composed 
 the governments of the nations of Europe; and the disinheriting, monopolizing 
 laws of primogeniture, entails and settlements, were the fundamental code by which 
 despotism and slavery were established throughout. Whence, then, this stupendous 
 revolution, whose novelty and magnitude have astonished the world ? France, a 
 prey to an intriguing, abandoned Court, a prey to an insolent, profligate and frivolous 
 Aristocracy, a prey to a monstrous overgrown Clergy, the extremes of beggary and 
 wealth — writhed under a complication of despotism : Whilst France, from having 
 become more commercial, and, from a more extensive use of the press, having 
 acquired more independence and knowledge than the other absolute despotisms of 
 Europe, was prepared to make a revolution ; and the extravagance and profligacy 
 of its despotism, unrestrained by the controul of even the semblance of representa- 
 tion, brought on that bankruptcy which was the signal for its commencement ; yes ! 
 France, goaded by the extravagance and insolence of this complication of tyranny 
 on one side, and freed and enlightened by connmerce and the press on the other, 
 abolished those laws of monopoly of property and power, by which the pillars that 
 supported usurpation and despotism have been destroyed, and a controuling repre- 
 sentative Democracy bas been raised on their sice. This is the Revolution which 
 those of depraved and vitiated souls, callous to the slavery of twenty-five millions 
 of suffering people, but alive to the downfall of a vicious court and profligate cour- 
 tiers, have reviled and vilified. This is the Revolution which those who prefer 
 lettres de cachet to trial by Jury, and the gripe of rapacious despotism to the 
 grants of delegated authority, have loaded with their invectives. This is the Revo- 
 lution, which those who admire the corve, the taille, the gahelle, the farm of tobacco, 
 and the myriad of tyrannies it has abolished, have loaded with abuse. This is the 
 Revolution at which' those have railed, who regret the system of farmers-general, 
 and the sanguinary code by which those leeches sucked the blood and wealth of 
 industrious millions, to supply the waste and extravagance of rapacious despots. 
 This is the Revolution against which infuriated Bigotry has vomited its rankest 
 and foulest scurrilities, for having disbanded half a million of drones, who, living 
 in idleness, exeried themselves to increase the days of idleness of others ; wallowing 
 part in filth and part in luxuries, and all an abomination to that creation, w'bose 
 Creator they affected to glorify by consuming its growth, without adding a grain 
 to its produce. 
 
 This is the Revolution which the mass of the People of Europe behold with 
 delight from a sympathy of feeling, that the abolition of those laws of monopoly 
 could alone destroy that coiTuption, extravagance and usurpation, by which their 
 several governments have reduced them to that state of distress from which the 
 utmost exertions of industry cannot relieve them, and from conviction that the abo- 
 lition of these laws only could create that democratic independence and consequence, 
 by which their rights, their industry and their liberty could be secured. This is the 
 Revolution which I entreat you will consider as nothing more, or nothing less, than 
 the abolition of those laws of primogeniture, entails and settlements. For that this, 
 and this only, was the Revolution of France, I will not only prove, but also, that 
 the civil discord, the massacres, the famines, the carnage and bankruptcies, with 
 which this Revolution has been attended, have been committed by that combination 
 of corruption aq^ despotism, which have been exerted, not only to destroy the 
 Revolution, but to exterminate the People who made it. 
 
 The Revolution of France was nothing more tha7i the Abolition of those Laws of 
 
 Monopoly ; and all the calamity and Bloodshed until which it hasheen attended^ 
 
 were caused by those who conspired against it. 
 
 For more than three years, from May 1789 to August 1792, never did the world 
 produce a Revolution which, for its magnitude, was of such unparalleled mildness ; 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Never before was the subject of bow man may be best protected and governed, so 
 freely, so ably discussed ; and never was there so powerful a conspiracy formed, as 
 that which was plotting, during this period, to contrive its destruction. It is time to 
 tinmask the real authors of those unparalleled crimes, which have brought such un- 
 exampled calamities upon the nations of Europe. Can it be denied, that the Minis- 
 ter of England, and his accomplices, have resorted to means long since exploded by 
 civilized nations ? Can it be denied, that he has expended millions of the wealth of 
 Great Britain, for the ini'ernal purpose of spreading massacre, and famine, and anar- 
 chy, and civil commotion, in France ? Was it not from the notoriety that these 
 were his acts, that the People of France w’ere forced to submit to those extraordi- 
 nary means for suppressing intrigues and treasons ? Was it not he who nurtured 
 and fostered these treasons, intrigues, and civil commotions, which enabled Robes- 
 . pierre to establish his tyrannical power ? If it cannot be denied that the Minister 
 of England fomented and paid for those treasons, intrigues, and civil commotions ; 
 if it cannot be denied, that, without his aid and assistance those intrigues, treasons, and 
 civil commotions could not have been practised ; and if it cannot be denied, that, with- 
 out these intrigues, treasons, and civil commotions, the People of France would not have 
 been obliged to submit to a murderous tyrant, nor could the tyrant have had means to 
 establish his power — who but the Minister of England, and his accomplices, are the 
 real authors of the massacres, the carnage and anarchy which have resulted ? Why 
 then, should he disown the miscreants of his begetting ? Have they not proved 
 themselves his faithful allies, by being the most dreadful scourge with which a peo- 
 ple ever were dead, to the People of France ? and have they not proved the most 
 extraordinary support of his power with which a Minister was ever furnished ? It is 
 not to that sort of warfare practised by civilized nations, that he owed any advantages 
 he gained, or any disadvantages his enemy suffered. No ! the defeats of Dunkirk 
 and Tournay, and the disgraces in, and flight out of Holland, shew how' little his ge- 
 nius is fitted to succeed in a liberal, generous warfare. His genius lies in fraud, de- 
 ceit and cunning — dark, infernal and crooked. These are the qualities which have 
 enabled him to create a horde of assassins in France, who drained that nation of 
 more blood, and more millions, in two years, than could have been expended in ten 
 campaigns of ordinary generous warfare. These are the qualities which enabled 
 him to create that gang of assassins by whose hands he butchered some of the greatest 
 genius that ever appeared. By these cursed assassins has he spread massacre, and 
 carnage, and famine, and plunder, and anarchy and civil war, over the fairest por- 
 tion of the creation. Why, then, disown these miscreants of his begetting ? Was it 
 not by means of these very assassins, that he not only deluged and desolated France, 
 but that he deceived, deluded and terrified the People of England ? Has he not 
 made the terror of their crimes the means by which he terrified the nation to invest 
 him with absolute power ? Has not this terror been the means by which he has sub- 
 jected the w^ealth of the British Empire, even to bankruptcy*, at his disposal ? Well 
 may the suffering People of France call him the enemy of the human race ; and 
 well may the People of the British Empire, whose blood he has shed, wdiose w'ealth 
 he has wasted, whose industry he has beggared, whose liberty he has destroyed, de- 
 signate him by a like appellation. After he had laid Liberty prostrate Ifom one 
 extremity of France to the other, and after he had left her, as he imagined, expiring 
 in agony under the myriads of wounds the assassins raised by his power had dealt 
 her, he represented the tragedy in the British Empire, which, under his own aus- 
 pices, had been really acted in France. Transforming the characters, and practis- 
 ing such other deceptions as best suited his diabolical purpose, he^nnounced it by 
 proclamation. Fie represented Robespierre at the head of his gang of assassins, 
 armed with reeking daggers, and besmeared with the blood of that Liberty'- they had 
 butchered, whose fair form he made them assume. FTiidcr this foul and monstrous 
 fraud, whilst horror had appalled every faculty of his spectators, he asked them, if . 
 that was the Liberty they wished to embrace ? Every one that w’as weak, timid, ig- 
 norant, or ciedulous, was deceived. They instantly shrunk from Liberty, whose 
 breath stunk in their nostrils like the fumes of the blood of the murdered ; and they 
 clung to corruption, whose stench seemed the odour of regeneration and health. 
 
War, expcnce, despotie power, tlie destruction of industry and national banlc- 
 ruptcy, were to be tlie means of salvation ; whilst those who dared to speak of peace, 
 retrenchment, economy, or reformation, were supposed to he in the fore-ground of 
 guillotines with daggers in their hands, and to have had the hearts of assassins. The 
 triumph of the Minister was complete over the inert, besotted mass of the people. 
 He brought Liberty to he detested, and arbitrary power and corruption, under the 
 appellation of confidence and strong government, to be adored. 
 
 Granting that the triumph of the British Minnistor over the interests and liberties 
 of the People of Great Britain and Ireland, and over the senses of the privileged, 
 the rich, the ignorant and the timid, has been compdete— is there anything in it 
 which has the appearance of stability or permanence ? Has it not been attained by 
 corruption, by force, and delusion ? Are not the means of force and corruption near- 
 ly exhausted ? And how stands delusion ? By deceiving the deluded into a belief, 
 that the abolition of those laws of monopoly of property and power, was the cause 
 of the anarchy, massacre and famine with which France was affected, and that their 
 abolition in Great Britain and Ireland would be attended with similar consequences 
 * — the Minister derived that powerful support, by which he has endeavoured to re- 
 establish those laws of monopoly in France, and by which he has resisted their abo- 
 lition in England. But are not facts coming to light every hour, which develope 
 the deceit he has practised ? From the destruction of those assassins his power had 
 raised, have not the wounds which Liberty received in France been visibly healing? 
 Flas not that Liberty which was said to have expired in France already re-appeared ? 
 and has she not proclaimed to Europe the suborners and authors of her assassina- 
 tion ? Is not the memory of those assassins universally odious in P'rance, and are 
 not the assistants and instruments of their slaughter and tyranny held in abhorrence ^ 
 Since the abolition of those laws of monopoly, have not the Liberties of France 
 gained strength and security every hour, notwithstanding the infernal means which 
 have been used to destroy them ? Is it not a fact, that since the extirpation of the 
 assassins, and that the treasons and massacres fomented and paid for by the British 
 Minister have been got under, the government of France has been one of the mildest 
 that ever appeared ? But if these facts will not convince the most besotted delusion, 
 that the calamities, not only of France, but of Great Britain and Ireland, have been 
 caused by this conspiracy, which, for these last five years, has lavished such oceans 
 of blood, and such millions of wealth, to prevent the abolition of those laws of mo- 
 nopoly — let them look to our present condition, for confirmation ? Is there an hour 
 that we do not receive some fresh wound in our liberty, or in our credit? Are not 
 our burdens multiplying^ as our weakness and inability to bear them increases ? 
 Have not all the symptoms of approaching dissolution made their appearance ? Has 
 not the perilous aspect of our ruinous state banished our specie, and has not paper 
 been used to replace it ? Have not taxation and borrowing been exhausted, and are 
 we not drained by a forced requisition, as unjust as capricious ? In the name of 
 Truth and of Justice, upon what pretence has this man and his accomplices set them- 
 selves up as the champions of liberty, of property, of religion and order, in this cru- 
 sade against the abolition of those laws for the monopoly of property and power ? 
 What ! is Virtue so impotent, that her cause should have lost ground every hour, 
 though aided by the influence and power which arise from the collection and ex- 
 penditure of twenty-two millions of annual revenue, with the additional influence 
 and power which the borrowing and expenditure of two hundred millions in five 
 years has furnished, with powerful fleets and numerous armies, with absolute power 
 over the persons atid properties of those who oppose him ? Or, is vice so prevalent 
 over virtue, that our cause should gain ground during five years that such unparal- 
 leled tyranny has been used to defeat us, disarmed, without money, without anv 
 means of influencing whatever, but what we derive from an ajipeal to the under- 
 standing and reason ? And even in this our only resource we labour under a thou- 
 sand oppressions. The advocates for our opponents are loaded with riches, and 
 what are falsely called honours; their wretched productions are cirmhited, and their 
 doctrines inculcated, by corruption and tenor; whilst the advocales on our side are 
 
}>ersecutc'(j, and their writings suppressed. Is it the nature of virtue to shrink from 
 the light, or to fly from discussion ? Is it the nature of vice to court inquiry, and to 
 appeal to investigation and truth ? On this alone would I rest the cause I contend for. 
 On tliis alone would I contend that ours is the cause of virtue, and that our op- 
 ponents’ is the cause of vice. It were blasphemy against the Omnipotent : 
 it were to invest vice with the all powerful arm of virtue, and to invest 
 virtue with the impotence of vice : it were to accuse the Almighty of hav- 
 ing established a government of hell upon earth ; it were to suppose Satan om- 
 nipotent, and the Godhead gone. Yet it is on this blasphemous hypothesis 
 that the abolition of those laws for the monopoly of property and power has been 
 resisted. It is on this hypothesis that those ruinous measures have been pursued 
 for five years, for subverting, under pretence of supporting, the constitution. It is 
 on this hypothesis, that the abolition of those laws of monopoly, and the continuance 
 of the constitution, have been held incompatible one with the other. As these are 
 the dogmas on which this fatal delusion has been established, by which w^e have been 
 involved in this war of extermination with France, and in this smothered war which 
 is ready to burst out in Great Britain and Ireland, they should be probed to the 
 bottom. 
 
 helher the Existence of our Constitution and Liberties are incompatible with the 
 Abolition of those Laws of Monopoly. 
 
 Before we had risked so desperate a stake as our all, in a war against Reforma- 
 tion, we should have diligently examined, and have been thoroughly convinced, 
 that those deadly diseases with which the Constitution was said to be seized were 
 not founded in truth. We should have endeavoured to reconcile the perfection of 
 the constitution in its actual state, which has been trumpeted through the nation, 
 with the well-known aversion of mankind to alteration in government, as long as it 
 is to be borne, and the violent inclination for change, which those extraordinary 
 means have been used to suppress. At least, it must have been the height of in- 
 fatuation and madness not to have ascertained that the constitution had not become 
 so rotten, that whilst we were supporting it at the expence of millions of lives, and 
 millions of money, it would not have fallen upon us, and buried the remnant under 
 its ruins. But as the corruption and cowardice which have hitherto incapacitated 
 and deterred us from looking the real condition of our political state in the face, will 
 shortly be overcome by that imperious necessity, which dastardlv and degenerate 
 conduct will have occasioned in England, and tyranny and outrage in Ireland, 
 no time should be lost in giving the subject the freest and most impartial dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 If the constitution, which it is said would be destroyed by the abolition of the 
 laws for the monopoly of property and power, be the proprietorship of the National 
 Representation principally in the lords, by which it has become a mercantile com- 
 modity — if it consists in the Ministers of the Crown being invested with the most 
 ample means of being its purchaser, whereby the grants of the public money are 
 wholly in their power, as to quantity, appropriation and expenditure — if this be a 
 correct description of the constitution, for the continuance of which we have been 
 made to play so desperate a game, and the excellence of which we are discussing, I 
 agree with the present Ministers, that there is no means so effectual as the aboli- 
 tion of those laws of monopoly, to effect its utter destruction. Yes ! I am ready to 
 grant that this is the definition of the constitution, for which we have bled, these 
 last five years, at every pore. But is this the constitution for which so much blood 
 was formerly shed in resisting the Stuarts ? Is this the constitution of one thousand 
 six hundred and eighty-eight ? 'I'his is indeed the definition of the constitution 
 which the Minister talks of suppoVting ; in which he is backed and countersigned 
 by the proprietory of our National Representation, and the numerous tribes who 
 live by the trade in a system of unmixed corruption. But I will appeal from such 
 unsafe commentators to the history of the constitution itself ; where, instead of this 
 con.secrated fixture of abuses which have been accumulating since the Revolution, 
 
it will be found, in its true definition, to be composed of a collection of rights, taken,, 
 in the course of centuries, from the repository of Aristocratical and Monarchical 
 Usurpation and Despotism, where they had been stored in times of ignorance and 
 barbarism, and from whence they have been drawn from time to time, as the grow- 
 ing knowledge and the growing necessities of the people have made them sensible 
 they were wanting for their further prosperity and iiappiness — not donations flowing 
 from Aristocracy and Monarchy, but obtained by the power enjoyed and exercised 
 by the National Representatives, of granting the People’s money, and of exacting 
 a rigid account of iis expenditure. And, so far from the present proprietorship of the 
 Lordsor of individuals, or the present venal dependency on the Crown ; solar from that 
 confidence now so extensively called for, and so extensively given, u.aking any part of 
 the Constitution, it will be found that a total disconnection betwe n the Crown and the 
 Commons, and between the Lords and the Commons, together with a never ceasing 
 distrust and jealousy of both Crown and Lords on the part of the Commons, was the 
 vital principle by which the Constitution ivaa originally generated, aj lerivards 
 nurtured, and finally established at the Revolution . Yes ! alter centuries of strug- 
 gle between the National Representation and the Crown, in which many kings were 
 deposed and one was beheaded, the Constitution was at length established on the 
 sole investiture of the public purse in the hands of the Democracy’s Delegates; and 
 so thoroughly was this vital principle established upon the restoration of Monarchy 
 in the person of Charles II. that James was deposed for attempting to infringe it, 
 and his successor chosen on the express condition, that the then established rights of 
 the National Representation should be the limitation by which the Crown should 
 be worn. If, then, it cannot be denied, that the Constitution consists in the Repre- 
 sentatives of the People actually exercising these restraints and limitations, with an 
 actual disconnection, distrust and jealously existing between them, the Crown, its Mi- 
 nisters, and the Lords — if it cannot be denied, that it was by the exercise of these powers 
 that whatever liberty the Constitution has evercontained was gained and can be secured 
 — I ask, where is the difference between the acts of the Stuarts, who attempted to lay 
 aside the Representative Democracy altogether by arbitrary power, and the act of 
 the Minister of the Crown, who corrupts the JVational Representation, buys it up, 
 avails himself of its sanction for laws subversive of the Liberties of the People, 
 and shelters his acts under its name P I ask, is the destruction of the Constitution 
 less real in the one case than in the other ? Is corruption less deadly than absolute 
 force ? Force acts openly, and provokes to resistance by the pain it inflicts. But 
 Corruption is mixed with our food; it is swallowed with our nutrition ; and it is 
 not sensibly felt until it has seized on the vitals. Force obliges us for a time to sub- 
 mit; but Corruption renders us unfit for resistance. 
 
 Such is the violence of the passions of Man, once invested with government, for 
 unlimited authority, — such his desire to free himself from necessary conlroul, that 
 from the day the executive power was lodged in the hands of James’s successor, on 
 the express condition that it should be, for ever after, limited by the then acknow- 
 ledged rights of the Representative Democracy — from that day the Ministers of the 
 Crown commenced a systematic plan for corrupting that body, whose power the fate 
 of the iStuarts convinced them it was no longer safe openly or directly to infringe. 
 They preserved the form and the names of the Constitution ; but they destroyed its 
 vital principle. They poisoned the trustee of the liberties of the Nation, and signed 
 a surrenderer of his functions to themselves, with the lifeless hand of the putrid body 
 they had murdered. The present Minister, once the foremost and the loudest in in- 
 veighing against this assassination of the Constitution, after shedding more blood, 
 lavishing more wealth, and extending corruption farther, than any of his predeces- 
 tors, in support of his power — finding that even these horrid and ruinous means 
 were insufficient to support his tottering sj'stem, he has had recourse to the same life- 
 less hand to sanction that arbitrary power which had been ])ut down at the Revolu- 
 tion, and which Corruption was called in to replace ; by which means, at this in- 
 stant, the Constitution is not only assailed by Corruption, but by arbitrary power 
 and military force. 
 
38 
 
 Thus, although I have proved that these pretended champions of the constitution 
 are its real deslroyers, although it is manifest to the meanest capacity that the aboli- 
 tion of these laws of monopoly is the only efficacious means of restoring and secur- 
 ing the independence of the national representation, and that vital principle of its 
 disconnection, 'distrust and jealousy of the executive power — it has been said it 
 Avould destroy the Lords, and with them the Monarchy also. This is a serious as- 
 sertion, and demands your most attentive examination, because it carries the ap- 
 pearance of truth. 
 
 That it is not the Abolition of those Laws of Monopoly ivhich has destroyed 
 
 Hereditary Power. 
 
 To explain this fully, I must refer to those principles upon which I have hitherto 
 reasoned, that self-interest is the governing principle in every institution that is 
 human, and that property is the engine by which self-interest is worked.” To judge 
 of the question, as it concerns the Lords, by this principle, we must compare their 
 present situation with the situation they formerly held ; and it will be found, that 
 if they cannot hold their place in the constitution as a separate branch in the Le- 
 gislature, it will be owing to that great Revolution in property and in mind which 
 has actually happened. Regarding the Lords, in their ancient state, as the sole pro- 
 prietors of the lands of the nation, those who imagine that the powers vested in them 
 as a branch of the Legislature were privileges in addition to those which their situa- 
 tion as the sole landed proprietors gave them, must be grossly deficient in political 
 science. In their all-powerful state as sole proprietors of the lands of the nation, at 
 a time when lands were almost the only species of property, to define, was to limit 
 their power. But to take the power over the national purse out of their jhands, and 
 to place it in those of the national representation, was a restriction which at once 
 disabled this powerful Aristocracy from destroying the liberties of the people. It 
 was this restriction which created the Constitution and Liberties of England and 
 Ireland ; and it is by the actual existence of this restriction only that they can be 
 preserved. 
 
 In a state where lands are almost the only species of property, where they are in 
 the possession of but a few, and where the monopoly is suppuried by law's so de- 
 structive of human prosperity and happiness as the laws of primogeniture, entails and 
 settlements, the forming these great land proprietors into a distinct branch of the 
 Legislature, and investing them with those powers only with w hich by the constitu- 
 tion the Lords are invested, was one of the happiest devices of human invention, 
 which, under such circumstances, none but an enemy to liberty would attempt to 
 destroy. But when, from the introduction of luxuries and vanities, those great 
 proprietors have been tempted to part with their lands — w’hen, by the * various 
 evasions of these law's of monopoly, they have been enabled to do so — when, instead 
 of being the sole proprietors, they do not possess the hundredth part of the lands of 
 the nation — and when, from the vast influx of capital, and what is called personal 
 property, triple the value of the fee-simple of all the lands taken together, those 
 once sole proprietors do not possess the thousandth part of the whole national pro- 
 perty — can the mind of Man conceive a greater absurdity, than that such a monstrous 
 revolution in the national property must not be I’ollowed by a vast and important 
 change in the state of the Lords as a branch of the Legislature ? Is it in the 
 nature of things that the Lords as sole proprietors in their former condition, and 
 the Lords not possessed of the thousandth part of the national property in their 
 present condition, can have the same power in the one case as in the other ? As 
 long as the Lords were the great and powerful barons, they could maintain their 
 situation with ease, by resting upon their own strength as proprietors. As long as • 
 the Crown was possessed of its extensive demesnes, and dared to exercise despotic 
 
 * The Laws passei in the Reign of Henry Vll. and the evasions of Fines and Kecoveries. 
 
no 
 
 power, so averse is Man to condescend to use any other means as long as he dares 
 to use force, that both the Ci'own and the Lords abstained froms corrupting the dele- 
 gates of the Democracy. But, now that, from the astonishing progress which the 
 nations of Europe have made. Democracy has become so almighty, the Crown and 
 the Lords have seized on the national representation, tlie one as proprietor, the 
 other as a seven years’ renter ; whilst the Minister, as agent for both, receives the 
 public money from the proprietory for the Crown in one hand, and pays it back to 
 the proprietory with the other. Thus the Minister of the Crown, and the Lords, 
 who make a property of the national representation, after actually destroying the- 
 constitution, are the loudest to trumpet its excellence, and to deluge the world with 
 blood to support its subversion; and, as it fares with the feet of the women of 
 China, they have so squeezed the representative basis in the vice of monopoly, that 
 as the other parts have grown, the constitution is unable to stand : And after ex- 
 hausting the sources of blood and of we.ahh, they may now learn, that, instead of 
 fighting against French principles and French revolution, they have been contending 
 against European principles and European revolution : they may learn, that, instead 
 of hemming them in within the territories of France with the bayonets of mercena- 
 ries, extirpating them by famine, or making them a prey to civil discord and mas- 
 sacre, they wdll find them planted at home ; they will find that the increase of 
 commerce, the progress of knowledge, the influx of wealth, and this great revolution 
 in property — in a word, they will find that the gigantic growth of Democracy has. 
 totally subverted those ancient relations between the parts of the constitution by 
 which it was formerly balanced, that this Colossian Democracy, before which here- 
 ditary Aristocracy has dwindled, have a real represent ationy and that the 
 
 means which they have pursued, and are still pursuing, to defeat it in. France, are 
 the most efficacious and rapid to promote its progress at home. 
 
 If this reasoning stand in need of further proof to convince you, that by this 
 great revolution which has actually happened in the national property and in the 
 national mind, the Lords have been disabled from holding that place, as a branch of 
 the Legislature, which the constitution assigns them, and that they exist solely by 
 their proprietorship of the Democracy’s representation, I might appeal to the 
 writings of the most able, entire and furious opponent * of those principles I have 
 supported, who gives a decided opinion that the Lords could not exist one year, 
 without their proprietorship in the Commons, and their sale to the Crown ; or, in other 
 words, that they would not exist a single year, without their usurped right of de- 
 stroying the vital and fundamental part of the constitution. And this authority is 
 farther confirmed by the present Minister’s being forced, in order to support his 
 tottering system, to make more Lords in the same proprietory line, within these 
 last twelve years, than had been created for the century which piecedes his ac- 
 cession. 
 
 Since, then, this great revolution in the national property has caused such a vast 
 revolution in the state of the Lords, that those laws for the monopoly of property 
 and power are insufficient to support them in that situation which ^he constitution 
 allots them, the only question which remains for discussion (if it is not treason 
 against the constitution to discuss such a question) is, whether those laws of mono- 
 poly shall be continued, to support the utter subversion of the vital principle of the 
 constitution, by supporting the proprietorship of the Imrds in the Commons ? But 
 if any one can be found barefaced and hardy enough to contend lor the continuance 
 of those laws of monopoly, for the purpose of supporting the subversion of the 
 People’s great constitutional, imprescriptible right of being represented — although I 
 might here close this part of my subject, from having brought home the subvei’sion 
 of the constitution to the Ministers of the Crowm, and the Lords — although I might 
 content myself with having demonstrated, that in this struggle between Aristocracy 
 
 * “ They know that the House of Lords is supported only by its connections with the Crown 
 and with the House of Commons ; and that, without this double connection, the Lords could not 
 exist a single year. ’’^Burke’s Letter to the Duke of Portland, p. 70. 
 
40 
 
 and Democracy, the former, after being forced from their own place in the consti- 
 tution by the great revolution in human affairs, have seized on the place which this 
 great revolution has allotted the latter — although I might content myself with hav- 
 ing demonstrated, that the people who are charged with innovation, are only trying 
 to regain their ancient constitutional, imprescriptible rights, whilst the Aristocracy 
 which advances the charge, after being reduced from their ancient condition by the 
 inflexible order of nature, are themselves the real innovators, and the real usurpers; 
 — yet so strong do I find myself on this great constitutional question, that I will 
 discuss it still farther, even with those who contend that these laws of monopoly 
 should be continued, to support the proprietorship of the Lords in the Commons. 
 
 Whether the great Revolution in Property has not so effectually destroyed the 
 
 Constitutional Power of the Lords, that neither these Laws of Moriopoly, nor 
 
 their Proprietorship, can longer uphold them F 
 
 Were I not furnished with arguments against this proprietorship the most con- 
 clusive, I might assert, that if it is necessary to continue these laws of monopoly, 
 for the sole purpose of supporting this proprietorship of the national representation, 
 the system of proprietorship must stand charged with all the evils with which I 
 have already shewn the continuance of these laws is attended — the deterioration of 
 agriculture— the diverting the sacred funds of industry from reproduction, to chan- 
 nels of waste, extravagance and folly, in which there is no reproduction whatever — 
 the blighting political economy, in all its branches and ramifications — the extend- 
 ing the extremes of poverty and wealth to the injury of morals and of social happi- 
 piness — the destruction of the laws of nature and justice, whereby the younger chil- 
 dren of the rich are brought up to a state of dependence which prepares them for 
 prostitution ; but, above all, the destruction of civil and political liberty, by generat- 
 ing the few with dispositions and means to influence, bribe and debauch the consti- 
 tuent body, and by reducing the constituent body to that state of dependence and 
 poverty w'hich renders it liable to be influenced, bribed and debauched. But this 
 proprietory system contains vices, inherent in its nature, so destructive and fatal, 
 that I will not dwell on any which are not purely its own. Indeed, I shall confine 
 myself to one, and that no less conclusive than that it not only contains the seeds 
 of its own dissolution within in its own bosom, but that the time of that dissolution, 
 accelerated by the ignorance and wickedness of the present Ministers, is already ac- 
 eomplished. 
 
 That the Proprietory System is a Suicide, 
 
 Beginning at the Revolution, when this system of proprietorship of the national re- 
 presentation, and the consequent corruption, had had their commencement, and taking 
 the century which has intervened as a fair experiment of their nature and working, 
 it will be found that they have advanced to dissolution and bankruptcy, at an acce- 
 lerated pace in geometrical measure, as appears from this plain statement of facts — 
 
 At the Revolution England owed nothing 
 During 
 
 . £00,000,000 
 
 £00,000,000 
 
 9 years, from 1688, to 1697, Debt contracted, 
 
 5 years, from 1697, to 1702, Debt paid off. 
 
 5,121,041 
 
 21,515,742 
 
 20 years, from 1702, to 1722, Debt contracted, 
 17 years, from 1722, to 1739, Debt paid off. 
 
 8,328,354 
 
 37,286,375 
 
 9 years, from 1739, to 1748, Debt contracted, 
 
 7 years, from 1748, to 1755, Debt paid off. 
 
 6,003,640 
 
 31,338,689 
 
 8 years, from 1755, to 1763, Debt contracted, 
 11 years, from 1763, to 1774, Debt paid off, 
 
 10,415,474 
 
 74,526,509 
 
 8 years, from 1775, to 1783, Debt contracted, 
 10 years, from 1783, to 1793, Debt paid off. 
 
 7,330,000 
 
 137,608,881 
 
 6 years, from 1793, to 1798, Debt contracted. 
 
 
 242,660,308 
 
 Total Debt contracted, from 1688 to 1798, 
 
 Total of what Debt has been paid from 1688 to 
 
 1798, £37,198,509 
 
 564,936,514 
 
 Balance of Debt contracted from 1688 to 1798, 
 
 
 £527,738,005 
 
41 
 
 It will be found, by referring to the history of the period in question, that every 
 succeeding Minister came into power, under a promise on his part, and a most 
 fervent hope and desire on the part of the nation, that economy and retrenchment 
 should arrest the fatal career — but that so congenial is extravagance, so inevitable is 
 bankruptcy and ruin to this system of proprietorship and corruption, that, under the 
 various changes of Ministers, every one of them has departed, leaving irrefutable 
 proof that this destructive principle was attached to the system, and that it was not 
 to be cured by the man ; until at length the period has arrived, when, although the 
 Minister were to stop his accursed career, the system has received momentum 
 enough to precipitate it into the gulph of perdition : For, granting that the Minister 
 could make peace this instant, and that he could close the account of the war with 
 having expended but one hundred and fifty millions sterling of the national capital, 
 and granting the employments from which it was taken to have yielded but ten per 
 cent, profit, he has reduced the national income fifteen millions a year. Let me 
 then ask, if, before the war, when the national income was fifteen millions more 
 than it is at present, he could extort but sixteen millions of annual revenue, and 
 that, after a ten years’ peace, and after he had found out those mediums of taxation 
 at which duties prove most productive — how is it possible he should be able to ex- 
 tort thirty millions of annual revenue out of the national income, after it had under- 
 gone sixteen millions reduction ? I ask, if liberty has bent under the influence 
 which the collection and expenditure of sixteen millions created before the com- 
 mencement of this war, how shall liberty be able to exist under the influence which 
 arises from the collection and expenditure of thirty millions, supposing for an in- 
 stant that such a monstrous burden could be endured ? And if this vast influence 
 must inevitably crush the liberty of Britain, how is it possible that a nation bereft 
 of its freedom could continue to bear such a burden ? 
 
 That the Measures ivhich the Minister has taken to 'prevent the Revoliitiony have 
 proved the 'most efficacious and rapid to hasten it. 
 
 Although these numerous facts cannot be refuted, yet there are others of such 
 weight in proving that the Minister and his accomplices have accelerated the -de- 
 struction of the system they boast of supporting, that I cannot omit them. The Mi- 
 nister has repeatedly boasted that he has destroyed the national capital of France. 
 That he should make it a matter of triumph, afWds one proof more of that igno- 
 rance by which he has ruined the empire, and of his incapacity for the station he 
 holds. If it cannot be denied that capital, like fluid, will find its own level amongst 
 the neighbouring countries — if it cannot be denied that the profits of capital are 
 highest in those countries where it is most scarce, and lowest where it is the most 
 plenty — I ask this Minister, where is his subject for triumph if he cannot prevent 
 the capital of England from flowing into France, to fill up the place of that capital 
 he plumes himself upon having exhausted ? If it cannot be denied, that the profits 
 of capital in France must have risen in an exact proportion as he has diminished the 
 capital itself, by what means can he prevent the capitalists of England from sending 
 their capital from Britain where its profits are lowest, to employ it in France where 
 profits are highest ? Yes ! he may boast of having destroyed the whole capital of 
 France; but if he cannot prevent the chasm from being instantly filled up by a cur- 
 rent of capital from every other quarter of the commercial world, and more from 
 England than from any other nation in Europe, where is his subject for triumph } 
 Is it not manifest that the relative situation of England and France, will be totally 
 different at the end of this war, from their relative situation at any former period 
 since their existence as nations ? When we consider that the commerce and indus- 
 try of France, from having laboured under a complication of oppressions and diffi- 
 culties, will have become freer than the commerce and industry of any otlier com- 
 mercial nation — when we consider that the commerce of France, from being held in 
 dishonour, has become highly respected — who is so blind as not to perceive that 
 I ranee, with all these disadvantages on her side, must attract the capital and the 
 
42 
 
 artizans of Great Britain ? If it is fact, that the present revolution in Europe has 
 been caused by those laws of monopoly having con lined property to fewer hands 
 than it otherwise would be, and that no nation can arrive at tranquillity until 
 property has become so divided, that those who possess it shall he sufficiently nume- 
 rous to insure its protection — if the property of France is much more divided than 
 that of Great Britain, and if the abolition of the laws of monopoly in the one coun- 
 try, whilst they are retained in the other, must make tliis division of property much 
 greater in Fiance — is it not manifest that France will he every day approaching 
 nearer to a state of repose and security, whilst England will be every day drawing 
 nearer and nearer to a Revolution ? In such a dilemma, will the lands of England 
 continue to sell at thirty years’ purchase, when the lands of Belgium and France are 
 selling at eight ? Will men detain their'capital in England at ten, or even at fifteen 
 per cent, profit, when they can get five-and-twenty or thirty per cent, profit in 
 France } Will men let their property or their earnings, he they of what sort they 
 may, remain in England, to have them eat up, not only by the most exorbitant taxes 
 with which property or industry ever were burdened, but by requisiiions exacted by 
 a retrospect as unequal as unjust ? Thus, it is manifest, the Minister and his accom- 
 plices have not only dissipated the capital of Great Britain and Ireland by the ex- 
 pences of this war, which may be called purely their own, hut that they must he 
 drained of the remnant which after the war he may have left them, to supply his 
 boasted exhaustion of France. I ask, what becomes of the British Empire when 
 her capital shall have been expended or transferred ? Can she retain her commerce 
 or her manufactures after her national capital has vanished ? Can she maintain her 
 navy after her capital and commerce are gone ? Or what is to become of this mon- 
 strous system, which depends on the present monstrous debt ? Let the Minister and 
 his accomplices come forward and stand on their defence. I;et those who have been 
 so general and so loud in their accusations against the people, “ of subverting the 
 constitution,” acquit themselves from the charge of being its most rapid, tyrannic, 
 and bloody destroyers. Let those men who have accused the people of plotting the 
 destruction of the nation’s prosperity, acquit themselves of the charge of having 
 brought the whole British Empire to bankruptcy and dissolution. When this man 
 and his accomplices insult the jieople by calling them Jacobins, and when they talk 
 of Jacobins making revolutions, can they deny that this great influx of wealth has 
 actually happened from the progress of commerce, and the improvement in the me- 
 chanic powers ? Can they deny that this great revolution in property from which I 
 have reasoned has taken place ? Can they deny that the European mind has under- 
 gone a change whereby the most inveterate prejudices and the most confirmed ha- 
 bits of thinking have been wholly eradicated } Can they deny that this vast revolu- 
 tion in property and in mind, must occasion a great revolution in government and 
 in political power ? Let us at length arouse from our delusion, and make use of our 
 reason. Let us examine what have the people to be alarmed at, what have they 
 to regi’et, in this great revolution. Is it because the increase of commerce, and the 
 improvements in the mechanic powers, have occasioned this vast influx of necessaries 
 and conveniences for human use, that the people should be alarmed, that the people 
 should have to regret? Is it that new and independent classes have been introduced into 
 society, or that the invention of the Press has diffused general knowledge, and taught a 
 general sense of the rights of mankind — that the ;?^o/?/£?;should have to regret ? If these 
 are thereal ingredients of this vast revolution which has made its appearance in the Eu- 
 ropean world, what becomes of the charges against these wonder-working Jacobins ? If 
 these are the great and powerful causes which have shaken old and inveterate preju- 
 dices of barbarous ages, why the jargon that Jacobins are the revolutionists? If 
 those powerful causes are as great and as operative in Great Britain and Ireland as 
 in France, why call them French principles ? If this great revolution in property 
 and in mind be the real cause of this revolution in Europe, why confine it to France ? 
 Has not this revolution m property, and have not these wonderful effects of the 
 Press, taken place in Great Britain and Ireland ? Why should they not operate in 
 the one as well as in the other?- Or, are the people to ’be deluded bynames? 
 
43 
 
 Are lliey to be taken in witii the cant and jargon of good old principles,’' at a 
 time when every good principle has fallen a prey to usurpation, corru])tion and des- 
 potic power, and that every slavish and tyrannic principle has been made to replace 
 them ? In the name of Heaven, where will the insolence of this man and his accom- 
 plices end ? Contrast the conduct and views of the People with the Minister’s acts. 
 The People claim the restitution of that real representation, which ever has, and ever 
 must form, the only basis upon which, not only the constitution and liberties of Bri- 
 tain and Ireland can rest, but that upon which only the libertiesof Mankind can be sup- 
 ported. Yet for this have the Minister and his accomplices reviled them as Jaco- 
 bins. It is not this vast revolution, and influx of wealth and knowledge, that should 
 alarm the people, or that they should regret. No ! It is their blood and their weallli 
 which have been lavished to oppose and counteract this revolution, that they should 
 regret. It is their blood and their wealth, which have been expended to support those 
 accursed laws of monopoly, the proprietory of their national representation, and the 
 consequent corruption which has paralyzed every member of their political frame, 
 that they have to regret. It is the erecting of barracks, the repeal of the Habeas 
 Corpus, the setting at nought the trial by Jury, the issue of blank lettresde cachet ; 
 the substitution of the Bastile, whose bolts no longer obey the mandates of law ; the 
 introduction of torture; the clogging the freedom of the Press, that boast of the con- 
 stitution, with enormous imposts, afterwards sickening it by corruption, and finally 
 destroying it by military force ; the crowding the galiies with thousands without any 
 trial whatever ; the consuming whole districts by fire at the discretion of an incited 
 military, the robbery and destruction of property ; the murders which have been per- 
 petrated, in contempt of all law, on those against whom there was a suspicion of 
 being suspected ; the blasting confidence between man and man, and corrupting the 
 public mind, by creating a system of spies and informers ; the destruction by law of 
 almost the entire right of discussion, and its total annihilation by a vigour be- 
 yond the law the converting the national representation into a chamber for regis- 
 tering his requisitions and edicts ; by^ expending, 
 
 III 1793, ----- £5,622,272 
 
 1794, ----- 10,485,548 
 
 1795, ----- 15,468,295 
 
 1796 - - - - - *17,885,218 
 
 without the grant, consent, or knowledge of Parliament, and by sending £1,200,000 
 out of the kingdom while Parliament sat, without deigning to inform them of it — 
 These daring violations of their dearest rights have indeed alarmed the people ; these 
 they have sorely regretted. Can any one acquainted with the constitution recognise 
 one of its features in these deeds of the Minister ? Is it possible that a constitution 
 which contained so many of the purest principles of Liberty, could require all those 
 means of the rankest tyranny and despotism to uphold it ? I put it to any reflecting 
 mind, whether it can discover, in this system of the Minister and his accomplices, 
 one single resuscitating principle by which it can be rescued from ruin ? Can it dis- 
 cover the smallest crevice through which external peace or internal security can en- 
 ter ? — whether, after five years of the most violent means, symptoms have not grown 
 more deadly every hour ? Senseless man ! and senseless herd who follow in your 
 train ! Do you npt perceive that all your efforts have been vain, to support this sys- 
 tem of proprietorship and corruption ? Do you not perceive that it carries in its own 
 bosom the seeds of its dissolution ? Do you not perceive that your victories are but 
 as the cordial draughts to the consumptive subject, which animate for the moment, 
 but are instantly succeeded by the collapse which denotes confirmed ulcers and con- 
 firmed decay ? Do you not perceive, that by the great and inexorable order of pa- 
 ture, society has arrived at that period in which Hereditary Aristocracy and Repre- 
 sentative Democracy cannot exist together, and that you cannot establish the former, 
 unless you destroy that great revolution which has taken place in property and in mind. 
 
 * It is strange to observe how utterly this Minister despises the House of Commons. In 1796 
 he expended, without the previous consent of Farliament, £2,932,532 more than he expended 
 With their con sent. 
 
44 
 
 that has erected and greatened the latter ? i"ou must destroy commerce, and its influx 
 o/ vvealih. You must destroy machinery, its abridgmentsof labour, and itsinfluxof the 
 necessaries and ronveniences of life. You must destroy, not only the press, not only 
 every book in existence, but vou must destroy the actual mind of the world. Tiien, and 
 not until then, hereditary usurpation and despotism may rule and lord it over ignorance, 
 superstition, misery and vassalage. But it' you will have the wealth, independence 
 and knowledge, which the inventions of the compass, the press, and the improve- 
 ments in the mechanical powers, have brought into the world, you may he assured, 
 that the gigantic Democracy which they have created must have areal, efficient, con- 
 trou ling rep resen tat ion . 
 
 If, in the infancy of the constitution, when the finances of the whole nation were 
 not equal to the taxes of a single parish at present, the national representation was 
 composed of honest, iaithfni guardians of the national purse — if the people sulfered, 
 suffering with them — if the people were plundered, having no share in the spoil — 
 how, when the nation has hundreds of millions to manage, shall the entire he left at 
 the mercy of the Minister of the Crown, invested with unbounded means of corrupt- 
 ing, and a proprietory with every disposition and interest to he corrupted ? Or, tak- 
 ing the last hundred years for a test of its working, is it within the scope of physical 
 possibility, that such a system, under such temptation to ruin and bank- 
 ruptcy, can avoid dissolution ? No doubt, if wisdom had directed the coun- 
 cils, the hereditary and proprietory system might have been longer continued. But 
 the Minister, instead of repairing or propping the ancient and tottering fabric, has, 
 by overloading the upper parts, and undermining its foundation, prepared it to fall 
 by the storm his wickedness and folly have gathered. It stands like some ancient 
 ruin, once the temple of the gods, but now a den where midnight robbers divide 
 their spoil. Its columns mutilated, its arches broken, it holds together by the an- 
 cient cement of its mortar, and the creeping w’eeds which conceal the beauties of 
 its simple features, until at length the vennin, nestling at its base, having undermin- 
 ed the whole, it waits but for the equinoctial blast sent to equalize the unequal ele- 
 ments, to strike the ancient fabric to the earth, never, never to be imitated by human 
 art. If this is the state to which this man and his accomplices have reduced us, 
 why not employ the few moments which are left us to meet the storm ? Why not 
 snatch our fate from the hands of these men, who have hurried us to the brink of 
 ruin ? Why not collect whatever talent, experience and virtue can be found in the 
 nation, and, by one bold, decided efibrt, rescue ourselves from the confusion, cala- 
 mity and horror of a revolutionary contest ? 
 
 It may perhaps be objected, that I have digressed from discussing the state of Ire- 
 land, to discuss the state of Great Britain. But when it became a question how far 
 the constitulion had been impaired, how much of it remained in existence, whether 
 it be possible to renovate it, or whether it is not on the verge of such utter destruc- 
 tion that it must be built up anew — I thought it fairer to examine it in Great Bri- 
 tain, wdiere some remnants existed, than in Ireland alone, where not a vestige re- 
 mained. Besides, the system of corruption and military force w^hich have been sub- 
 stituted in the place of that part of the constitution of which we once were possessed, 
 is so wholly in the power of the 'British Minister, that to ascertain the -stability or 
 permanence of the system which has been adopted in Ireland, it was absolutely ne- 
 cessary to ascertain the stability or permanence of the system which has been adopt- 
 ed in Great Britain; and having done so, I will conclude the account of our poli- 
 tical state. 
 
 Effects of the French Revolution on the Irish Mind. 
 
 CMucIi as the European mind has been advanced, widely as political knowledge 
 has been diffused, and considerably as inveterate prejudices have been destroyed, 
 by the collision of sentiment which the Revolution of France has occasioned; in 
 no country in Europe has it produced more important effects than in our own. 
 Before this great epoch, an opinion had been generally accredited among the Pro- 
 testants of Ireland, that Catholics were incapable of either claiming or possessing 
 
vivil or political freedom ; that passive obedience, non-resistance, and a belief that 
 the sacrifice of the Rights of Man in this world, as the only means of attaining 
 eternal happiness in the world to come, are principal tenets of Catholic faith ; and, 
 like the slave-drivers in the West Indies, the Irish Protestants, after lashing their 
 Catholic countrymen into a mental torpor, set up the debasement caused by their 
 own tyranny as an eternal barrier against Catholic freedonn) For the honour of 
 human nature, for the honour of the British character, it were to be wished that a 
 veil could be thrown over the rapine and tyranny which the History of Ireland dis- 
 plays from the first landing of the English adventurers in 1 169, until the American 
 War. But it affords too dearly bought an example of what a six hundred years of 
 oppression, debasement and tyranny, one united effort to destroy foreign usurpa- 
 tion would have prevented, for the Friends of Liberty to wish to have the recital 
 suppressed. For the present, I shall only observe, that the Revolution of 1688, 
 which in England was a triumph of liberty over bigotry and despotism, was in 
 Ireland a Revolution from a system of predatory warfare and tyranny against per- 
 sons, opinions and property, to a more orderly and legalized system of national 
 debasement and plunder. We lay prostrate, despicable, and overwhelmed with 
 wretchedness, until a spark of liberty struck from the American contest, grew into a 
 flame strong enough to melt the visible chains with which Great Britain had bound 
 us, but too weak to reach those secret bonds by which a few factions of the most 
 contemptible traitors delivered the great and essential rights of their country into 
 the hands of foreign agents, for which they were rewarded with the wreck and 
 remnant to be scrambled for by the most shameless, abject, hungry crew, that ever 
 sold themselves to another country, or that ever betrayed their own. An attempt, 
 indeed, was made to destroy them ; but it was the effort of contracted bigotry, and 
 served but to expose its impotence. ^At the instant it meditated the destruction of 
 one usurpation, it sought to set up another, under the wicked and foolish project of 
 establishing the liberties of one million upon the slavery of three millions. But 
 when France, containing 25,000,000 of Catholics, more the capital of the Catholic 
 religion than even Rome — when France, the country where the Catholic Clergy of 
 Ireland were principally educated, and where the plundered and persecuted Irish 
 Catholics had for centuries found an asylum — when this great Catholic nation 
 established her liberties on the ruin of religious and political thraldom ; the Pro- 
 testants of Ireland were convinced that no particular religion, in this enlightened 
 state of the European world, was incompatible with political freedpm ; whilst the 
 spirit and ability with which the Catholics of Ireland demanded their liberties, was 
 an unerring proof in the eyes of their Protestant countrymen that they were entitled 
 to gain them. Thus the erroneous opinion on which our divisions and weakness 
 were founded, was destroyed by the Revolution of France; and the bigotry and 
 tyranny by which our island has been debased and degraded for six hundred years 
 in the eyes of the world, has been eradicated from the minds of the peopIe.S The 
 banns have been indissolubly solemnized, and the infant liberties ot Ire- 
 land MUST BE THE FRUITS OF THEIR UNION. From this period, a period the 
 most auspicious for Ireland, religious concerns have been consigned to their proper 
 place, between the individual and his God, to whom alone they belong. From this 
 period, the only difference existing among us has been between the nation which 
 demands her rights and a few traitors who usurp and withhold them. The history 
 of the contest is too recent, and too deeply engraved on your feelings, to require to 
 be minutely detailed. You have marked the insolence with which the infant voice 
 of Catholic Liberty was spurned by usurpation and bigotry. You observed the 
 same voice afterward, in a higher key, and a more peremptory tone, strike upon the 
 fears or the convenience of the British Minister ; and it is of little consequence to 
 inquire, whether it reverberated on the venality of an Irish Parliament, or on its 
 impotence to resist the mandate of a British Minister, or on both — It is enough to 
 mark, that the same men who so insolently spurned the modest claims of the Ca- 
 tholics of Ireland to a part of their rights, and pledged their lives and fortunes to 
 resist them for ever, in the same breath, at the mandate of the British Minister, 
 
40 
 
 conceded, wilb a meanness in peifect conlormily witli their former insolence, these 
 ve7T rights they had sworn never to yield. You have seen the national union ad- 
 vancing with increasing vigour and spirit, from the attainment of a part of their 
 rights, to a hold and manly demand of them all. You saw the proprietor}' of your 
 national representation capitulate, and make a virtual acknowledgment of their 
 usurpation. You saw the tribe of borough-mongers, whose lives have been spent 
 in the basest venality, prostitution and treason, attend the House of Commons with 
 plans of reform. You saw the most bigoted usurpers anxious to atone for former 
 persecution, by the most ardent professions in favour of Catholic freedom. The 
 Protestant mind was elated with the prospect of immediate Reform, or rather re- 
 storation of the national representation. The Catholic mind was cheered with the 
 prospect of being instantly raised from the degradation of proscription to the rights 
 of the Citizen — In a word, the whole Irish mind was wound up to the highest state 
 of ardent expectation, that their rights and liberties would be peaceably conceded by 
 those who usurped them. Why have these fond hopes been raised ? Why have 
 they been insultingly blasted ? 
 
 The British Minister, perceiving that bis apostacy from every profession and 
 principle which recommended him to public confidence — perceiving that the blood 
 he had wickedly lavished, the millions he had mischievously squandered, and the 
 liberty he had daringly violated, was beginning to w’eaken his power — he foresaw 
 how necessary it was to detach all those who could be seduced from the opposite 
 party, that the impracticability of forming an efficient Ministry may enable him to 
 live out the corrupt and ruinous system he had so greatly promoted. In this pro- 
 vident scheme, Ireland w-as thrown into the scale as a mere make-weight, to balance 
 the portion of plunder by Avhicli the Portland faction w^as to be bought; and, that it 
 might be made worth an acceptance, the most universally execrated Irish factions 
 were dismissed, to make room for the most popular Parliamentary characters ; the 
 old measures were to be abandoned, and new ones adopted. But as soon as the 
 British Minister had reduced his new allies to such a state that he could safely in- 
 sult them — as soon as he rendered them contemptible in office, and even more con- 
 temptible, because more insignificant, should they resign il — by means of those 
 indefinite equivocal terms he can so adroitly employ, he reseized on Ireland, and 
 reinstated his minions. Thus, with unparalleled chicane and villany, that he may 
 prop his tottering power, he raised the most sanguine hopes of the nation, that those 
 essential rights of the constitution would be conceded, to which they hud every 
 claim which faith, justice, and long and patient sufferings, could warrant. Yet to 
 answer his own personal views, has this man outraged every feeling which could 
 agitate the mind or interest the heart of a gallant and generous people. Instead of 
 pounng balm on the w^ounds he inflicted, he has poured in British troops and 
 British millions, to support the execrable factions he so lately abandoned, that, in 
 the plenitude of their power, they may wreak their vengeance on the nation, for the 
 joy with which it had celebrated their former dismissal. At the very instant that a 
 Colossean power, combining a population of* fifty millions, with all the fire and 
 enterprize of Republican ardour, threatens the annihilation of the British Empire, 
 regardless of every consideration but his own aggrandizement, he has eradicated 
 with fire and sword that affection for British connection from the hearts of the Irish, 
 which policy would have nurtured in the minds of the Catholics, and which nothing 
 but the most wanton and barbarous tyranny could have torn from the breasts of the 
 dissenters. What stronger proof can be adduced that the constitution has been 
 destroyed, than that one man should thus sport wdth the dearest interests of one 
 country, and with a connection invaluable to the other ? Let us examine upon what 
 ground he stands to violate the dearest rights, and to outrage the feelings of the 
 Irish nation, to a degree which no despot in Europe, at the close of the eighteenth 
 century, durst venture with the most abject of his vassals. Let us analyze the in- 
 gredients with which this charlatan has quacked, poisoned, and tortured our poli- 
 
 * Holland, Italy, &c. 
 
47 
 
 tical frame. I ask, is it not a fact that Lord Shannon has made a private property 
 of the power of returning thirteen members to legislate in rjur national representa- 
 tion ? Has not Lord Ely possessed himself of the same power of returning nine ? 
 Lord Downshire, eight ? The Beresford faction, eight ? Lord Ahercorn, seven ? 
 Lord Kingston, seven ? Lord Londonderry, five ? Lord Caledon, four ? The La 
 Touches, seven ? Bruen, six? Foster, five P To abridge this odious detail, I ask, 
 is it not a fact that thirty men, principally Lords, have possessed themselves of the 
 absolute power of returning a decided majority of that assembly, which, by the con- 
 stitution, should be the real refresentation of the ivhole peojple of Ireland P I ask, 
 is it not a fact, that these thirty men have an account, debit and credit, with the agent 
 of the British Minister, where, in the rankest and foulest treason, they make an un- 
 limited transfer, by the agency and sufirage of their spurious bastard delegates, of the 
 blood and wealth of the Irish nation, not only to support a war, in which she has no 
 concern, nor can derive any possible benefit, but to pay for that treason which destroys 
 her liberty, her markets, her manufactures and commerce beside ? I ask, is it not a 
 fact that, to reward this diabolical treason, our beauteous island has been parcelled 
 out amongst these thirty men into districts, sized and apportioned to the number 
 and weight of the delegates with which each stands credited in the ledger of usurpa- 
 tion and treason ? Is it not a fact that in these districts, these farmers-general of 
 our rights have the appointment of officers of revenue, licensed extortioners on the 
 foreign trade of the nation, throughout our harbours and sea-ports ; excise officers 
 to sweep the inland ; sheriffs and grand jurors to rob on the highways, even con- 
 verting the vestments of a Christian ministry into a pall to cover prostitution, and 
 the ermine of justice into a cloak for corruption ? Is it not a fact, that for betraying 
 the rights and interests of their country, after providing for their families, their ad- 
 herents and creatures, they divide amongst themselves hundreds of thousands of the 
 money of the most wronged and impoverished nation on earth, in jobs, in pensions, 
 and in sinecure places ? Are these the miscreants who passed the convention bill, 
 and disarmed the Irish nation, to secure their usurpations, corruptions, and treason ? 
 Are these the men who, after indemnifying the most atrocious outrage of the most 
 sacred laws, enacted a code for substituting lettres de cachet, the bastille, and the 
 gallies, on the ruins of Habeas Corpus, and trial by Jury ? Are these the men who 
 have poisoned confidence between man and man, by instituting an infernal system 
 of perjurers, spies and informers ? Are these the men that, from a consciousness 
 that their usurpation, corruption and treason could not stand the test of inquiry, 
 destroyed discussion, and assassinated the press ? Are these the men who, after 
 exhausting their vindictive invention in framing sanguinary laws, skulked to the 
 Council to let slip an excited military to wreak their vengeance, with fire and sword, 
 on the Irish People, and, after, skulked to their House of Commons, to wind up 
 their automaton delegates, not only to sanction their murders, but to panegyrize 
 them as the Saviours of the constitution ; whilst, in the execution of the sacred 
 trust of legislation, their impostor delegates were so many living proofs that they 
 were its most tyrannic subverters ; and the very outrages they sanctioned and ap- 
 plauded were unerring testimony, that to secure their usurpation of the essential 
 rights of the constitution, they had consigned all the rest to the flames, the bayonet 
 and the dungeon. 
 
 In the awful presence of God, and of your Country, I ask you, Irish Citizens, 
 who have sworn to maintain the Constitution in whose defence you have armed. Are 
 THESE FACTS FOUNDED IN TRUTH ? Come forward ; shrink not from the ques- 
 tion which involves you in disgrace and infamy. Abandon the wretched pretext for 
 silence which has been set up, that, in arming and swearing to defend the constitu- 
 tion, you have forfeited the right of discussion. Sworn to protect it, you are sworn 
 to discuss it, that you may know against whom you are to defend it. In vain shall 
 you set up such a squeamish apology. The ever memorable volunteers, to whom 
 Ireland owes whatever part of tlie constitution she ever enjoyed, have given you a 
 precedent for blending the duties of the soldier with the rights of the citizen. Or, 
 if you prefer the example of those who have destroyed every vestige of the Consti- 
 
48 
 
 tiition, you will find it in the late House of Commons, who debated in martial ar- 
 ray. You may find it in the printed resolutions of those English Fencibles, who, 
 under the powerful inspiration of additional pay, almost on the day they were landed 
 in your capital, amidst twenty-two thousand starving inhabitants, gave a decided 
 opinion of the excellence of the Irish Constitution, of the blessings it imparts, and 
 ol the zeal with which they meant to support it. You may have a precedent from 
 these Ancient Britons, a haggard crew, issuing from their homes with heads as stu- 
 pid as their hills are steril, scarcely poured forth upon our fertile plains, when, smart- 
 ened into Janizaries, brightened by the conflagration of our houses, and rendered 
 keen by the scent and taste of Irish blood — they have given an opinion of the ex- 
 cellence of the Irish Constitution. 
 
 I do not address myself to those corporations where each finds countenance in the 
 venality of his associates, and insolently glories in his prostitution ; rascally Citizens 
 >vho turn batteries, which had been raised against despotism, on the Liberties of 
 their Country. Nor do I address myself to Jobbers and Contractors,licensed pecu- 
 lators, nor to those political traitors whose patrimony is usurpation, and whose trade 
 is parricide; nor to the corrupt men in the law, or in the revenue, who shoot the 
 Gospels from hand to hand, to weave the web of extortion and villany, and scatter 
 it piecemeal with the breath of perjury. But I address m^'self to those who do not 
 feel that we are a conquered people ;-to those who do not acknowledge that foreign 
 mercenaries are exclusively entitled to the sovereign right of Irish Citizens to dis- 
 cuss the Irish Constitution ; to those who are not callous to the stings and anguish of 
 a guilty conscience ; to those who are not insensible to the shame and infamy 
 which attend on public detection of perjury and parricide. Embodied and sworn to 
 defend the Constitution and Liberties of Ireland, you stand charged with supporting 
 Traitors, who have usurped the National Representation, and subverted the Con- 
 stitution. Arraigned and put on your trial, to be silent is to plead guilty to the 
 charge. In vain shall you attempt to evade condemnation by the jargon of attach- 
 ment to loyalty and constitution, with which you have loaded the Newpapers in 
 your stupid address ? In vain shall you attempt to fritter away the charge, by ac- 
 cusing the People of Ireland of having conspired to subvert the Constitution. You 
 must first answer, has it not been subverted already by the usurpation, corruption 
 and treason of those very men you support? Yet unfounded as is this accusation, 
 against the United People of Ireland, it would ill become me to shrink from 
 the charge, who have exerted myself by every means in my power to promote that 
 Union, upon which, in my mind, the salvation of my Country depends, and on 
 which I have staked my life, my name, and all that to me is dear upon earth. 
 
DEFENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNITED PEOPLE 
 
 OF IRELAND. 
 
 Yes ! tlie People of Ireland have united in a glorious Conspiracy to destroy 
 religious bigotry and national thraldom. They have bound themselves by the most 
 solemn engagement, that Religion shall no longer be made the instrument by which 
 the Irish nation shall be divided, enslaved and debased. They have sworn to an- 
 nihilate Corruption, Usurpation and Treason, and to regain their constitutional, im- 
 prescriptible right of being represented. Here, then, are the Catholics of Ireland, 
 the Dissenters of Ireland, and every Parliamentary Protestant without the pale of 
 Corruption and Bigotry, on the one side, and a few contemptible usurpers of our 
 national representation, principally Lords, their automaton delegates, and a few de- 
 luded, bigoted extirpators, backed and supported by the British Minister, on the 
 other side. In the worst of times, let us dare be honest. Let us boldly examine 
 which of these committed opponents have destroyed the Constitution and Liberties 
 of Ireland. If the King of Ireland has been dethroned from the hearts and affec- 
 tions of the People of Ireland, let us enquire who has d(pthroned him. If the 
 Lords have been rendered base, contemptible, and a nuisance, let us inquire hov) 
 they have been created. If the House of Commons has been filled with impostor 
 spurious delegates, let us drag those to punishment who have polluted it with their 
 supposititious abortions. 
 
 Whether the United People of Ireland y or the Minister and his Accomplices, have 
 destroyed Monarchy in Ireland. 
 
 It will not be denied that the great Revolution in property and in mind, which 
 I have already explained, has rendered it a most difficult task to support hereditary 
 power. 
 
 As long as mankind were immersed in ignorance, superstition and clanship, they 
 were necessitated to submit to hereditary Magistracy, with all its vices*, its evils, its 
 corruptions and tyranny, to avoid that confusion and bloodshed with which, in such 
 a state, every election must have been attended. But, now that the mind, enlight- 
 ened, and freed from prejudice and feudal dependence, can select the men of the 
 best talents, and the most virtue, to fill the highest offices, without confusion or con- 
 test, nought but the most frugal, faithful and able discharge of its functions, could 
 make hereditary Magistracy to be longer endured. 
 
 From the lust of power, and impatience of controul, natural to hereditary Magis- 
 tracy, it is not difficult for a IMinister, surcharged with deceit, with cunning, and 
 with the love ot domination, highly gifted with eloquence, and supported by fac- 
 tions who live by usurpation and corruption, to persuade a King to grasp at abso- 
 lute power, and to break down those sacred bounds by which the Constitution has 
 
 * “ Ambition with idleness, meanness with pride, a desire to enrich themselves without labour, 
 an aversion to truth, flattery, treason, perfidy, the abandonment of all their engagements, a con- 
 tempt for the duties of the Citizen, a dread of the Magistrate’s virtue, Hope from his vices, and 
 more than all the perpetual ridicule of Virtue.” — MoNTEsauiEu’s Spirit of Laws. “ These are 
 the vices which,” this Sage says, “ have, in all places, and at all times, characterized Courts.” 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 imited the authority with which it invests him. It is easy for such a Minister, with 
 such accomplices, to persuade a King, that the temporary expedients which may 
 answer the ephemeral interests of those insects who pass in continual succession 
 about a throne, are equally advantageous to hereditary Magistracy, which aims at being 
 immortal. How shall a King, v/hose education and office debars him from having 
 a friend, find a man honest enough to tell him, that those measures which are abso- 
 lutely necessary to maintain ignorant, profligate Ministers in office, are as destruc- 
 tive of his hereditary Kingship ? Where shall he find a friend who will remind him, 
 that the Stuarts have been led to the block, and driven to exile, by making anti- 
 quated precedents and despotic counsels the rule of their conduct, and by disregard- 
 ing that existing, living mind, whose state of knowledge and independence should be 
 the guide of the Magistrate’s duty ? True, the Minister, and his accomplices, are 
 loudest in trumpeting their loyalty to Monarchy. But what sort of monarchy is it P 
 A Ministerial monster which devours millions of human victims : A mon- 
 ster which squanders hundreds of millions of national wealth : A monster which 
 bears down the interest, the reason, the liberties and the happiness of mankind, by 
 corruption and military force. Is it not a fact, that, instead of that Monarchy which 
 the Constitution invests with the execution of the laws, and with the power of merely 
 accepting or rejecting them at their formation, the Minister and his accom- 
 plices have converted the Monarchy into a Ministerial Despotism, with powers so 
 enormous, that, at its mandate, the most sangjiinary, tyrannical laws are sure to be 
 passed, the violation of all laws is sure to find an indemnification, and laws the most 
 wholesome, without its concurrence, are as surely rejected ? After the whole power 
 of the Monarchy of Ireland, in the Minister’s hands, has been employed for the pur- 
 poses of the basest intrigues, in dividing and buying the factions in England to sup- 
 port his tottering power — after he has alienated the affection and confidence of the 
 Irish people for Monarchy, by thus wantonly sporting with their feelings ; at one 
 moment raising their hopes, and blasting them after to answer his pei sonal views — 
 which are the betrayers of Monarchy, the United People of Ireland who have pas- 
 sively suffered these insults and injuries, or the Minister who has dared to inflict 
 them ? Had it been within the scope of physical possibility to uphold hereditary 
 Kingship, I ask, which was most likely to support it — the Minister, who has placed 
 it above all controul, by an overwhelming corruption which has ended in bank- 
 ruptcy, by the most sanguinary tyrannical laws, and by military power; or, the 
 United People of Ireland, who demand that its power shall be limited by the firm 
 establishment of a frugal, a faithful and perfect Representation of the avhole 
 Irish People. 
 
 Whether the United People of Ireland, or the Minister and his accomplices, have 
 destroyed the Peerage as a Branch of the Legislature P 
 
 If this great revolution in property and mind, to which I have often alluded, has 
 rendered it difficult to maintain hereditary kingship, it has not rendered it less diffi- 
 cult to uphold hereditary lordship. Yet it will be found that the Minister has done 
 as much to destroy the latter as I have proved he has done to destroy the former. 
 He has created Englishmen peers of Ireland, without property, connexion, residence, 
 or any one constitutional qualification. He has driven the Irish Peers of the best 
 property out of the country, to avoid insignificance and mortification, from his having 
 attached all consequence arising from patronage or interest, to the borough -monger- 
 ing lords of his making. Has he not reduced the attendant lords nearly to peers of 
 his own creation, whose sole or principal property consists in their proprietorship of 
 their impostor delegates, which they sell for clerkships in the revenue, clerkships in 
 the post-office, clerkships in the law offices, and a thousand sinecure places, as em- 
 blematic of their beggary and meanness as of their venality and prostitution ? Has 
 he not set up the Irish Peerage to auction where disgrace and infamy could be the 
 sole bidders for honours which only could suit them, and w’as it not paid for in the 
 base coin of counterfeit representation ? Has he not converted the Irish peerage 
 
ol 
 
 into jugglers, who pull the wires of the puppets they have stuffed, decked, and 
 bedizened with the goods they have robbed from the Nation ? I ask, then, which 
 has destroyed the Constitutional Peerage, as far as its destruction was in the power 
 of either — the Minister, who has created I^ords who can exist no longer than they 
 are suffered to usurp the inalienable, constitutional right of the people to represen- 
 tation — or the People, who, by reclaiming this inalienable, constitutional right, 
 reduce these Lords to that nullity from which the Minister raised them ? 
 
 Whether the Separation of Ireland from Britain has been occasioned by the Mi- 
 nister and his accomplices, or by the United People of Ireland P 
 
 The connection between nation and nation is cemented and strengthened hy its 
 being placed on the basis of justice and reciprocal benefit. It is a bond founded on 
 interest ; and when that is violated, all bond of connection is broken. If I have 
 clearly demonstrated that the Minister and his accomplices have transferred every 
 means which the People of Ireland possessed of acquiring national wealth to enrich 
 the People of Britain — if I have shewn that, to pay the infamous traitors who have 
 made the surrender, he has abandoned the pittance their industry gathers, under its 
 mutilated means, to peculation, corruption and plunder — and if, to support this 
 unparalleled outrage of national justice, he has employed Britons in massacring, in 
 burning, in torturing the Irish — which have torn the bonds of alliance asunder, the 
 fiends who have violated every law of our nature, or the United People of Ireland, 
 who have been betrayed, plundered, and butchered ? 
 
 As long as the Protestants would be tyrants over their Catholic Countrymen, who 
 were triple their number, they were at the mercy of England’s protection. As long 
 as this detestable tyranny was in existence, no demand of Great Britain, however un- 
 just could be disputed. But, now that the Protestants have abandoned this ruinous 
 parricide ; now that they are sensible of the folly and wickedness of sacrificing their 
 national rights for the gratification of the most horrible passion ; now that they 
 have united with their Catholic Countrymen in demanding those rights they once 
 so basely relinquished — with a population of more than four millions, and eight hunr 
 dred thousand able to bear arms ; in one of the strongest countries of Europe by 
 nature, and still stronger by art, where every field is a fortification, and every aci’e 
 may be disputed ; they disclaim all protection which is to be purchased at the ex- 
 pense of their national rights and their national honour. They feel that Ireland is 
 as independent of Britain as Britain is independent of her. They are sensible that 
 every connection between free and independent nations should be of its own nature 
 a voluntary act; and they know that connexions which are not voluntary, are chains 
 which the tyrant throws over the slave he has conquered, chains which Ireland, in- 
 dignant, throws off; and, to the last man. Irishmen will die sooner than wear them. 
 Instead of a connexion where every thing is surrendered on their part, and every 
 thing is withheld on the part of Great Britain, the people of Ireland demand that 
 strict justice and reciprocal benefit shall be the bond of alliance. Contrast this 
 manly assertion of their national rights with the jargon of traitors, who cry up the 
 weakness of Ireland, and decry her strength ; asserting, with the •glorious example of 
 American freedom fall in their teeth, that if we are not a province to England we 
 must be a province to France. Contrast this with the language of miscreants 
 who have dared to assert, that the most traitorous sacrifice of the produce 
 of our agriculture to non-resident landlords without a return, of our markets, 
 our manufactures, our home trade, our foreign trade — even our very name 
 as as a nation, was not too much to insure them the support of Great Britain, 
 to perpetuate their usurpation and plunder. Had the Minister one ray of a 
 Statesman’s conception, instead of attempting to maintain such an unjust 
 and unequal connexion by supporting such an infamous faction, from the instant 
 that he had seen the Protestants of Ireland abandon their tyrannic bigotry, and 
 unite with their Catholic countrymen in the glorious cause of regaining their luir 
 tional rights, he would have seen the necessity of yielding a prompt and gracious 
 concession of what he could no longer withhold. 
 
52 ' 
 
 The only Charge ivhich remains to he answered of those which have been made 
 
 against the United P eople of Ireland, is, their having resolved to create a Republic. 
 
 When an argument turns on the meaning of terms, they should- he strictly de- 
 fined; for names and indefinite terms are the great engines by which theknaves im- 
 pose on the fools of the world. Had the Chief Executive Magistrate in our Con- 
 stitution been called a Stadtholder, with ten times more power than the Constitution 
 allots him, our Government would be called a Republic. I might quote the Au- 
 thor of the Spirit of Laws to prove that our constitution is a republic. But, respect- 
 able as is his authority, I prefer appealing to definition and facts. Then, taking that 
 to be a republic where the public affairs are controuled by the bulk of the people ; 
 what was there in Greece or in Rome more truly republican than that every house- 
 holder, as was formerly, or that every man possessed of so small a property as forty 
 shillings freehold a year, as is the supposed right at present, should exercise, by his 
 delegate, invested with the sole power over the national purse, an entire controul 
 over every act of the executive power ? What was there more truly republican in 
 Greece or in Rome than that the people should be bound only by laws of their dele- 
 gate’s making ? What was there more truly republican in Greece or in Rome than 
 that the whole constituted authorities, legislative, executive and judicial, should be 
 equally hound by the laws as the poorest man in the nation ? What was there more 
 truly republican in any republic that ever existed, than that a hair of the most insig- 
 nificant citizen’s head shall not be injured, unless he had been found guilty of hav- 
 ing transgressed the law by the unanimous judgment of twelve of his neighbours ta- 
 ken from the mass of the people ? Who will contend that Rome, half freemen, half 
 slaves, or that Greece, half citizens, half helots, were equally republican as our con- 
 stitution, which ordains that the slave shall be free the instant he sets his foot on 
 our soil P Is our constitution less a republic because our democracy acts by repre- 
 sentation ? Is democracy less powerful or less secured from being imposed on, if 
 with the organization of Alfred, and the frequent elections of primitive parliaments, 
 it was to exercise the right of selecting whatever talents and virtue were to be found 
 in the nation, than if it were to act as a mob ? If the Peers were restrained within 
 those bounds which the constitution allots them, would they be less restricted than 
 the Patricians or Senate of Rome ? If the Executive Magistrate were limited to those 
 powers which the constitution has sanctioned, would our liberties have more to dread 
 from what we call a King, than the liberties of Rome had to fear from what the Ro- 
 mans called a Consul } It is not to Monarchy we are indebted for the freedom our 
 constitution contains ; the nations of Europe had Monarchs but the people 
 were slaves. It is not to the Nobles we are indebted for the freedom our con- 
 stitution contains : the nations of Europe had Nobles, yet the people were slaves. 
 It is to what every people that ever existed owed their freedom that we must be in- 
 debted for our’s. It is to ourselves that we must be indebted for whatever free- 
 dom we have, or shall ever possess. No wonder the Minister and his accomplices, 
 who have destroyed the republic, should charge the United People of Ireland of con- 
 spiring ITS RESTORATION. Waving, for a moment the imprescriptible right of the 
 nation to set aside institutions, however ancient, which in the revolution of human 
 afl'airs have been rendered injurious, and of creating institutions which the revolu- 
 tion in human affairs has rendered imperiously necessary, but making the consti- 
 tution the standard to judge by — I ask, is that the constitutional Monarchy "ftfiiich 
 is subject to no controul but that of a proprietory representation, which it can purchase 
 with an overwhelming corruption ? Is that a constitutional Peerage wTich exists but 
 by its proprietorship and sale of the national representation ? Is that a constitutional 
 representation which is sold by the Lords and bought by the Crown? If so, our constitu- 
 tion is but a name; and we may labe^ the Lion, the Tigers and Jackalls, with King, 
 Lords and Commons, and, prostrating ourselves at their dens, besmeared with the 
 blood and blanched with the bones of our fellows, hold out our necks to be slaugh- 
 tered. They must be more than Boeotians, who change the names when they de- 
 stroy the essence of liberty. Shall those who destroy the constitution as King, 
 
03 
 
 Lords and Commons, find sanction for crime in their titles P Names go for no- 
 thing when the constitution is the stake to be fought for. It is this which not only 
 justifies resistance, but makes it an absolute duty. On this head, the late Camden 
 has spoken out boldly : King, Lords and Commons, are grand and sounding 
 names : but King, Lords and Commons, may become tyrants as well as others. 
 Tyranny in one or more is the same — It is as lawful to resist the tyranny of many 
 as of owe. This has been a doctrine known and acted on for ages.* When the 
 
 * I quote the following from the works of Dr. John Ponet, Bishop of Rochester, and afterwards 
 of Winchester, to show that, on the authority of a Bishop, this is not a Doctrine new to the 
 Constitution. 
 
 “ Kinges, Princes and Governours have their autoritie of the people, as all lawes, usages and 
 policies doo declare and testifie. 
 
 “ For in some places and countries they have more and greater autoritie, in some places lesse. 
 And in some the people have not given this autoritie to any other, but reteine and exercise it 
 themselves. And is any man so unreasonable to denie, that the hole male doo as muche as they 
 have permitted one member to doo ? or those that have appointed an office upon trust, have not 
 autoritie upon juste occasion (as the abuse of it) to take awaie that they gave ? All lawes doo 
 agree that men male revoke their proxies and lettres of Attournaie, whan it pleaseth them, much 
 more xvhan they see their pt'i'octours and Attournaies abuse it. 
 
 “ But now to prove the latter part of this question affirmatively, that it is lawful to kill a 
 tiranne : ther is no man can denie, but that the Ethnikes (albeit they had not the right and perfite 
 true knowlage of God) were endued with the knowlage of the lawe of nature. 
 
 “ For it is no private lawe to a fewe or certain people, but common to all : not written in bokes, 
 hut graffed in the heartes of men: not made by man, but ordained of God: which we have not 
 learned receaved or redde, but have taken, sucked, and drawned out of nature: whereunto we are 
 not taught, but made : not instructed, but seasoned : and (as St. Paule saieth) mannes conscience 
 bearing witnesse of it. 
 
 “ This lawe testifieth to every mannes conscience, that it is naturall to cutte awaie an incurable 
 membre, which (being suffred) wolde destroi the hole body. 
 
 Kinges, Princes and other Governours, albeit they are the headdes of a politike body, j^et they 
 are not the hole body. And though they be the chief membres, yet they are but membres : 
 nother are the people ordained for them, hut they are ordained for the people. 
 
 “ Upon this law of nature, and to conserve the hole body the Ethnikes thought it reasonable, 
 and made it lawfull, by their positive lawe, for every man to kill a tiranne. And to encourage 
 men to entreprise to kill a tiranne, they estemed the dede to be worthy so great rewarde, that they 
 thought him worthy perdone that killed a tiranne, though he had killed his owne naturall father 
 before. And besides this, whan they sawe, that tirannes used to have their bodies defended with 
 great garisones and gardes of forain people, or kept themselves in strongholdes and secret cham- 
 bres, so as none without great hasarde and peril might come neare them : they propouned great 
 rewardes to him that should destroie a tiranne. Nother thought they rewardes or giftes to be 
 a sufficient recompence for so vertuous an acte, but they used also to make the image of him that 
 killed a tiranne in brass : and to set it up in the most solemne place of the citie, for a perpetual 
 memorie of the acte, the commendation of the doer, and the encouragement of others to doo the 
 like. They dedicated to his praise and honour songes and verses, and wolde have them taken of 
 men as Goddes worthy immortalitie. 
 
 “ Whereof came the name of Nobilitie, or how were those that be called heroical or noble per- 
 sonages divided from others, and had in suche honour and reverence, seeing all men came of 
 one nian and one woman 1 Was it for their lustie hawking and hunting } for their nimble diceing 
 and conning carding ? for their fine singing and daunceing ? for their open bragging and swearing 
 for tlieir false fliering and flattering? for their subtil piking and stealing? for their cruel polling 
 and pilling ? for their merciless man murthering? for their unnatural destroieng of their natural 
 countrymen, and traiterous betraieng of their countrey? No, no, ther was no suche thing. The 
 respect only of their vertue and love of their countrey brought them therto. Because they re- 
 vengdl and delivered the oppressed People out of the handes of their governours, who abused 
 their autoritie, and wickedly, cruelly and tirannously ruled over them ; the People of a grate and 
 thankfull minde gave them that estimacion and honour. Of this kind of Nobilitie was Hercules, 
 Theseus, and such like.’' 
 
 In answer to the question, “ Why Christen men never made expresse positive lawe of the kinde 
 of punishment of tirannes ?” he says : 
 
 “ But I beseche thee, what nedeth to make one general law to punishe hi one name a great 
 many offenses, when the lawe is allready made for the punishment of everi one of them particu- 
 larly. If a prince robbe and spoile his subjectes, it is thefte, and as a thefe he ought to be punished. 
 If he kill and murther them contrary or without the lawes of his countreye, it is murther, and as 
 a murtherour he ought to be punished. If he go about to betray his countrey, and to bring the 
 people under a foreign power : he is a traitour, and as a traitour he ought to suffre.” 
 
famous Selden was asked by what statute resistance to tyranny could be justified^ 
 his reply was, ‘ It was to be justified by the custom of England, which is part of 
 the law of the land.’ And 1 will affirm, my Lords, not only as a Statesman, Poli- 
 tician and Philosopher, but as a Common Lawyer, that whenever oppression begins, 
 resistance becomes lawful and right.” Has not oppression begun ? Has not resis- 
 tance become lawful and right ? Has not the most sacred, imprescriptible and con- 
 stitutional right of Representation been usurped, bought and sold ? Is this no op- 
 pression ? Have not your markets, your home trade, your foreign trade, your agri- 
 cultural produce, been sacrificed by corruption and treason ? and is this no oppres- 
 sion ? Are not the People of Ireland robbed of every meyns their Country furnishes 
 of acquiring national wealth ; and are they not rapaciously plundered of the little 
 their industry gathers, to pay for the treason that robs them ? Are these no 
 OPPRESSION ? Have not laws^ been created, by which the first principles of Chris- 
 tianity, and the purest morality, are punished with death ? Is tliis no oppression ? 
 Are years in the dungeonf without charge or trial — are the lingering and painful 
 deaths of the bastille or the gallows, upon the oath of one man, who must acknow- 
 ledge his perjury before he can be an evidence, no oppression ? Is lawless, indiscri- 
 minate massacre — is burning of houses and property — is the torture to extort con- 
 fession — Are these no oppression ? If to deny that resistance becomes 
 lawful and right >Hien oppression begins— if to deny that to call in foreign aih 
 becomes lawful and right when oppression begins, is to sap the foundation on 
 which the throne has been placed, and to annul every act since the deposition of 
 Stuart — is oppression a word without meaning ? or, where shall we look for its true 
 definition ? I will take it from the works of John Locke, who wrote by express de- 
 sire of James’ successor. His writings received the approbation of the Legislature, 
 and of the sound part of the nation who made the Revolution : and they have been 
 ever since acknowledged, on all sides, to contain the true principles of our constitu- 
 tional code. His words are,t “ Though, in a constituted commonwealth, standing 
 upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the pre- 
 servation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the Le- 
 gislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate ; yet the Legislative being 
 only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends — there remains still in the people 
 a SUPREME POWER to rcmove or alter the legislative, when they find the legisla- 
 tive act contrary to the trust reposed in them ; for all power given with trust for the 
 attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neg- 
 lected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power de- 
 volve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall 
 think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually re- 
 tains a supreme poiver of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any 
 body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so 
 wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the 
 subject.” And that no doubt should remain of what these designs against the li- 
 berties and properties of the subject, by which the trust is forfeited, means, he de- 
 fines them : § “ He acts contrary to his trust when he either employs the force, 
 treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain 
 thenn to his purposes. What is this but to cut up the goxwrnment by the roots, and 
 poison the very fountain of public security p for the People, having reserved to 
 themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties 1(and, 
 he should have added, their liberties), could do it for no other end,*but that they 
 
 « * Called the Insurrection Acts, 
 
 t Neilson, Haslet, Russel, and many others, all men of the most exemplary characters, are 
 now in the seventeenth month of close imprisonment without any charge, during which time, 
 their health is gone, their fortunes ruined ; though when imprisoned they were most of them men 
 in considerable business, making rapid fortunes : but their real crime is, they were Proprietors of 
 that Patriotic Print, the Northern Star, of beloved memory. The property in this Paper alone 
 was worth £5000 at the time it was destroyed by the present Despotism. 
 
 t Locke on Civil Government, chap. xiii. sec. 149. § Chap. xix. sec. 222. 
 
might always be freely chosen, and, so chosen, freely act and advise,as the necessity 
 of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature 
 debate, be judged to require. This those who give their votes before they hear the 
 debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To 
 prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of 
 his own will for the true representatives of the People and the lawmakers 
 of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration 
 of a defign to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To 
 which if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, 
 and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand 
 in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties 
 of their country, it will be past doubt ivhat is doing. What power they ought to 
 have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust which went along with 
 it in its first institution, is easy to determine ; and one cannot but see, that he who 
 has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted. * The 
 People have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have wo judge 
 on earth, than an appeal to Heaven." And, as if he had foreseen that tyranny and 
 judicial villany would attempt to convert truth and justice into libel, sedition, re- 
 bellion and treason, he says, f If they who say that this hypothesis lays a foun- 
 dation for rebellion, mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils, to tell 
 the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon 
 their liberties or properties — they may as well say, upon the same ground, that 
 honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder 
 or bloodshed. I desire it may be considered, what kind of a peace there will be in 
 the world, which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. 
 Polyphemus’ den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace, and such a government, 
 wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly to suffer them- 
 selves to be devoured.” 
 
 If this champion of these revolutionary principles upon which alone the present 
 government has any claim to its powers, has expressly declared, that corrupting 
 the representation is that crime which defines where oppression begins, where the 
 trust is forfeited, and where an appeal to Heaven is justified — shall the usurpation 
 of that representation, and thousands of the most atrocious outrages and tyrannies 
 by which it is supported, act as minus quantities, by which those who exercise 
 the executive and legislative shall stand acquitted of the punishment due to cor- 
 rupting the national representatives only ? If a law of their own making shall 
 indemnify tyranny, what tyrant can ever be punished ? But what power on earth 
 shall dare to make laws to condemn a whole people ? If I am asked to define 
 what I mean by the People, I answer, that decided majority which leaves no 
 doubt of its title. And if I am asked what I mean by the tyrant, I answer, look 
 to his deeds. But in Ireland they cannot be mistaken. If a decided majority 
 of the people have not united against usurpation, corruption and tyranny, the 
 whole force of Irish Government, and the whole force of Great Britain, would 
 have been more than sufficient long since to subdue them ; and if any less than 
 the People have united, necessity could not have been set up to justify the system 
 of tyranny, massacre and torture which has been adopted. Away with the 
 chargo of a whole people rebelling ! The minor part are the rebels : a decided 
 majority can never rebel : usurpers and tyrants only can commit rebellion. 
 If not, what are the liberties of Europe but rebellion ? What are the liberties 
 of Switzerland but rebellion against the tyranny of Austria formerly, and s»gainst 
 their own petty tyrants at present What are the liberties of Holland but rebellion, 
 aided by foreign assistance, against the bigotry and tyranny of Spain formerly, 
 and against a stadt-holder now ? What are the liberties of England but rebellion, 
 aided by foreign assistance, against the bigotry and tyranny of Stuart ? What 
 are the liberties of America but rebellion, aided by France, against the tyranny 
 
 * Chap. xiv. sec. 1G8, 
 
 t Cliap. xix. sec. 228. 
 
56 
 
 of Britain ? And what are the liberties of France but rebellion against the 
 despotism of the Capets, and against the tyranny of every other despot in 
 Europe ? Although the annals of mankind afford no instance of tyrants re- 
 storing the liberties they had usurped as long as they had power to hold them, or of 
 a people regaining their freedom but by this sort of rebellion, I know such historical 
 facts are ill relished by what are called Moderate Men. 
 
 As this is a title which the selfish and dastards assume, to excuse their abandon- 
 ment of the liberties of their country at this extraordinary crisis, we should examine 
 their claim to so honourable an appellation. 
 
 That moderation in indulging the appetite is the guard against debauchery and 
 gluttony, which debase and brutalize man — that moderation in the enjoyment of 
 the sex is the guard against debility of body and mind — that moderation in our 
 expences lays the only foundation for generosity, independence and charity — in a 
 word, that moderation is the basis of virtue and magnanimity, I most freely 
 subscribe to. But wbat has this moderation to do with the moderation with which 
 we adopt the principles of political science ? If it cannot be denied that politics * 
 are governed % principles as fixed as any other science whatever — if the history of 
 human society furnishes uniform testimony that monopoly of property creates 
 monopoly of power, that monopoly of power occasions the abuse of it — if these 
 principles are as fixed and invariable in politics, as that lead descends by the 
 principle of gravitation, or that by the principles of mathematics the angles of a 
 triangle are equal to two right angles, — how does the term moderation apply to 
 the adoption of principles in one science, any more than in the other ? If it is the 
 height of absurdity to speak of a moderate mathematician, or to boast of the 
 moderation with which one comprehends and applies the principles of mathematics, 
 is it less absurd to make a merit of the moderation with which one adopts the 
 principles of political science ? Examine these moderate politicians ; you will find 
 that they are men who draw a circle round every monopoly, abuse, and privilege, in 
 which they themselves are concerned f hut that, with wonderful liberality, they will 
 readily abandon every other to reformation. They are men that, while power is in 
 other hands than their own, can see no salvation but in an alteration of system ; 
 but the instant they are in office themselves, they display their moderation in 
 leaving the system untouched. They are men who have made themselves slaves to 
 the meanest and most contemptible wants, desires and habits ; miserable, if their 
 bed is too hard or too soft, their pillow too high or too low, their dinner too much 
 done or too little, regardless of how many millions corruption and tyranny have left 
 without beds to lie on, or food to allay the gnawings of ravenous famine. They 
 are men in whom the feelings of sympathy, that happy corrective of selfishness, is 
 wholly extinct ; that sympathy which, forgetting the individual being, throws 
 fortune and life into the common stock of suffering humanity, and gloriously 
 ventures his all in the cause of his fellows. To this your moderate man is wholly a 
 stranger. He wraps himself up in the mantle of egotism, and taking his post on 
 that neutral state where Solon so justly has placed the most criminal point, he 
 plumes himself on seeing so many lower in the depths of corruption, but forgets 
 the millions above him on the summit of virtue : and whilst he boasts that he has 
 not as many vices as others, he stands convicted of the greatest of any, the not 
 having one single virtue. 
 
 * When I speak of politics, I mean that first of all sciences which consists in framing laws ac- 
 cording to the fixed principles of human nature ; all else is faction ; and in a contest between 
 party and party, the more moderate they dre, the less mischievous. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 If I have succeeded in demonstrating that self-interest is the governing principle 
 in politics, as well as of all human action ; that we are the creatures of our wants and 
 desires ; that those who possess the means of satisfying those wants and desires, must 
 possess the means of influencing the actions, and commanding the services of man- 
 kind ; that those who possess property are possessed of those means, and that those 
 laws* which raonoplize property, invest a few with the power of dictating to the 
 many, which is invariably abused, and a necessity on the part of the many of 
 yielding to such a dictation ; I trust I have impressed on the minds of my country- 
 men, that all Reform which would leave the monopoly of property untouched, 
 must prove insuflicient, and that the only reformation by which their liberties can 
 be secured is that which destroys the dependence, and establishes the independence, 
 of the Whole Constituent Body. I trust 1 have convinced them, that the 
 independence of the Constituent Body is the guardian of liberty, and not the 
 discretion or virtue of those they elect ; and that the abolition of all laws for the 
 monopoly of property is the sole means by which it can be established. Liberty 
 cannot stand but on the broad, firm and perfect basis of Universal Representation. 
 Be the superstructure what it may, if you will have Liberty, you must first 
 establish this foundation for it to rest on ; and that you may have this perfect repre- 
 sentative basis, you must look to the constituent People of whom it is formed ; you 
 must abolish all monopolies, which otherwise would destroy your independence. 
 Thus you will reform yourselves ; this is the true Reformation. Ilaving once 
 re-established your liberties on the basis of perfect representation, which is the basis 
 of your constitution, you will bring to the test what parts of the constitution can 
 stand, and what parts the great revolution in property and in mind has excluded. 
 
 If hereditary powers are compatible with a perfect representation in the present 
 state of the European world, they will stand ; if not, if they cannot exist but at the 
 expense of the Constitution and Liberty of the People, they must go to destruction. 
 Be that as it may, do your part ; and trust me, my fellow-citizens, that when you 
 have established a perfect representation, it will purify every other part of your con- 
 stitution. Whatever is corrupt, it will destroy ; and whatever defects it cannot cor- 
 rect, will be but as spots on the disk of the sun, which will not obscure its lustre, 
 nor prevent it from diffusing heat and light equally to all descriptions who live 
 under its sphere. If the hereditary powers have been hurled from their own places 
 in the constitution by the vast revolution in property and in mind which the inven- 
 tions of the Compass and the Press have occasioned, what right have they to seize 
 upon your part, or to imagine that you will tamely resign it ? If the history of the 
 
 ^ * Was it not that the Minister and his accomplices have exerted themselves with such violence 
 to destroy the present connection between the two Countries as to leave no doubt of their success, 
 I should have shewn, that in addition to the reasons I have already advanced to prove the neces- 
 sity of abolishing the laws of primogeniture, entails and settlements, there were reasons which 
 rendered it peculiarly expedient in Ireland, first, that it was the best means of bringing the ab- 
 sentees home, and next, that, as the abolition of these laws was the only means of securing the 
 independence and fidelity of Representatives, it was peculiarly incumbent on Ireland to adopt it, 
 from her Legislature having to guard not only against the corruption incident to all Legislatures, 
 but to guard against the corruption which so powerful a nation as Great Britain ever has, and ever 
 will employ to bribe the Irish Legislature to sell the Bights of Irelaud. 
 
 F 
 
58 
 
 constitution bears testimony in every page, that the liberty it contains was created 
 by the representative part — nay, if the last hundred years afford undeniable proof 
 that the system of corruption and of proprietorship of the National Representation 
 is a suicide, and that the last five years stamp the guilt on the Minister and his ac- 
 complices of having forestalled the blow — you must be convinced, that to abandon 
 your part of the constitution, would be to abandon the whole constitution to utter 
 destruction. Be but true to yourselves, and you need not look out of the constitu- 
 tion for the most perfect liberty Man can possess. Examine the constitutions which 
 have been adopted in America, in France, and in Italy, and you will see that they 
 have been taken from your s ; you will find that they have selected those parts 
 which are compatible with this great revolution of Europe, and that they have re- 
 jected those parts which the great revolution has rendered incapable of being sup- 
 ported. Are not Representative Democracy, with its organizations and frequent 
 elections, and the Trial by Jur}% the life and soul of their constitutions ^ And are 
 they not so, also, of your’s ? The glorious pre-eminence of having preserved the 
 ])rinciples of Liberty, when they were extinct in all other nations, belongs to your 
 constitution, and should not be abandoned. Let us not depreciate the whole con- 
 stitution, because time, and the wickedness and folly of men, have destroyed some 
 of its parts ; but let us ever remember that it has been the depository of the sacred 
 embers of Libeily, that sacred fire which was taken to the woods of America, 
 and transported from thence into France, to illuminate the rest of the world. 
 
 The Minister and his accomplices wilj tell you that I am exciting you to revolu- 
 tion. I answer, the revolution has been made already by the inflexible progress 
 and order of human nature. They will tell you that they are endeavouring to save 
 you from the horrors of revolution. I answer, there is nothing horrible in the revo- 
 lution ; it is the means which have been employed to obstruct and retard it which 
 have caused all the horrors. Compare the revolution with the means which have 
 been adopted to stop it, and you will see where the horrors have come from. Be- 
 hold how the invention of the Mariner’s Compass has encouraged the industry of 
 nations, by enabling the most distant to exchange their surplus produce, one with 
 the other. See how the same quantity of labour produces so much more of the 
 necessaries and conveniences of life now, than before those machines and engines 
 for the abridgement of labour were known, or the present vast division of labour 
 had been established. See what numerous ingenious classes have been introduced 
 into society, and how the condition of the ancient classes has been improved. Be- 
 hold the invention of the Press, by which so much knowledge has been diffused and 
 perpetuated ; that happy invention by which the soul of Genius is infused into 
 millions with such rapturous delight. These are the materials which compose this 
 vast revolution ; but where are its horrors ? For these you must look to the means 
 which the Minister and his accomplices have employed to arrest it. Is there one of 
 the blessings this great revolution has confeiTed on mankind that they have not 
 blasted ? Look to the war they have engaged in, with all its destruction and horrors. 
 Look to the European blood they have shed, and to the European wealth they have 
 lavished. Look to the massacres, the forgery, the civil discord and famine, they 
 have paid such sums for exciting : Look to the corruption, the bankruptcy, and re- 
 quisitions, of which they have been the agents and authors : Look to the horrid 
 catalogue of murders, of burnings, of dungeons, of tortures, together with the thou- 
 sand persecutions and tyrannies they have employed, against persons, opinions, and 
 property : And, to crown all, behold them reducing the industrious to beggary and 
 famine, by squandering the sacred fund which once furnished their wages ; and en- 
 listing the part they had ruined, they have employed them to subdue the entire. 
 Contrast this revolution with those means which have been employed to oppose it : 
 you will see the incalculable blessings v' which have arisen from commerce, from in- 
 dustry, and from increased knowledge, on one side ; and the innumerable curses 
 which arise from corruption, usurpation and tyranny, on the other : you will see 
 all those advantages which lead to the perfection, the independence and freedom of 
 mankind, on one side ; you will see the most diabolical means exerted at every 
 
59 
 
 point, and in every direction, to corrupt, to enslave and debase mankind, on llie 
 other. When the Minister and his accomplices talk of the horrors of revolution, let 
 them come forward and clear themselves ol all those horrors in France which I have 
 traced to their doors : Let them clear themselves of those horrors our Country has 
 witnessed from one end to the other: Let them tell you what horrors can be greater 
 than those they have acted. 
 
 Beloved Countrymen ! be not disheartened. — Look back on the course these 
 tyrants have run. You have beheld the organized armies of despotism advance 
 against France ; and you have seen them annihilated by the disorganized armies of 
 Liberty, whilst massacre, and discord, and famine, and treason, tore at her vitals. 
 Victorious or vanquished. Liberty glides with the tide which has set in in her favour : 
 victorious or vanquished. Despotism cannot make head against the torrent which has 
 set in against her. 
 
 That with an empty exchequer, exhausted resources, and a tornado ready to 
 burst on their heads, the gentry of Ireland should have set the example of lawless 
 atrocities — that with palaces compared to the huts they destroyed, they should apply 
 the torch to the hovel — that with wives, daughters and infants, they should tear 
 away thousands of fathers without trial or charge, and abandon their helpless inno- 
 cents to beggary, brutality and famine — that with feelings to suffer, with lives to 
 lose, and property to forfeit, they should halloo an excited military to torture and 
 murder their fellow-citizens — spring frorn motives, I thank God, I have neither head 
 nor heart to conceive. But let me conjure you, my brave Countrymen, who have 
 stood between despotism and the liberties of your country, that you will stand be- 
 tween the transports of national fury and national honour. I conjure you to hear 
 in mind that our Women, deprived of political rights, can have ho political crimes 
 to account for ; that the noblest privilege of Man is to he their protector, and the 
 last act of human depravity is to oppress them. On this head a gallant nation 
 needs no admonitions : you will put down your oppressors without disgracing your- 
 selves ; and you will set up the liberties of your country in a manner that shall cover 
 you with glory. Measure not your vengeance by the criihes of the guilty, but mea- 
 sure it by what is becoming of those who inflict it. Rob not Justice of her triumph ; 
 but, seated in all the majesty of Order, and in all the loveliness of Mercy, let her 
 punish where she must — let her save where she can ! 
 
 - ARTHUR O’CONNOR. 
 
 February 1, 1798. 
 
• Tun 
 
 / 
 
 
 M'GOWAN AND CO., PRINTER.*!, 
 
 GREAT WINUMJI.L STREET, HATMAKKKl, I.ONUON. 
 
 
“ He who the sword of Heaven will bear 
 Should be as holy as severe ; 
 
 Pattern in himself to know 
 Grace to stand, — Virtue to go : 
 
 More nor less to others paying 
 
 Than by self-offences weighing.” — Shakespeark. 
 
 TO THE RIGHT HON. BARON ROLFE. 
 
 Just Judge, 
 
 Princes may confer titles that perish with the man, and which, v.-hile living, 
 mark him only for ridicule, but deeds give distinction that confers an immortality. 
 In furnishing the country tvith a verbatim report of every word spoken at the recent 
 rial of myself and fifty-eight other persons, I am neither actuated by vanity upon my 
 own part, nor do I use your name with an intention of giving to the proceedings 
 an undue importance ; I am actuated by a much higher motive. . We were charged 
 with the commission of acts perpetrated by others ; and while, by the doctrine of 
 presumption, we should not only have been justified, hut were bound to shift 
 the charge from our own shoulders upon those of the real offenders ; yet, for my 
 own part, I feel satisfied that, in your capacity of Judge, you were bound to try the 
 parties before you and them only. 
 
 I speak, therefore, rather of the manner in which your duty as Judge was dis- 
 charged, than of the fashion in which the defendants were charged. Anxious to 
 push the principles contained in the People’s Charter by all the zeal and energy I 
 possess, and considering myself constitutionally entitled to do so, provided I should 
 not violate the law% I have nevertheless been constrained upon many occasions to fall 
 short of my duty to my party from a conviction that the law" w'ould be strained against 
 me. You, how"ever, have prescribed the exact limits by wdiich agitation should be 
 hound, and beyond these limits I will never stray ; and I feel satisfied that I may 
 iiiL-lude the leaders of the chartist party in this bond and covenant. Left wdiolly 
 at the mercy of ignorant policemen, partisan magistrates and prejudiced juries, 
 liable to be operated upon by the colouring of ingenious lawyers and political 
 judges, it w-as no inconsiderable advantage to society at large that the law" upon this 
 })()iut should be clearly defined. In Ireland, the land of my birth, the perversion 
 of law", and the w ithholding of justice, lead to acts of savage revenge, wijich else 
 would never be committed ; and, had the young mind of England been curbed 
 by the tight rein of oppression, good men must have shuddered for the conse- 
 quences. 
 
 In Ireland, those deeds of violence are consequences of oppression and misrule ; 
 they are not characteristic of Irishmen, and you just Judge” must ever rejoice in 
 
having saved your country from a like infliction, to which mine, from those causes, 
 has been most unnaturally subjected. From an early period of the history of 
 this country down to the present time, the law has been administered according to 
 precedents established in those dark days, when judges were the mere minions and 
 servile slaves of the crown. We have had some bright and honourable exceptions, but 
 so few, that although their influence lives, and has survived through ages, yet have the 
 j'ays shed by their names been obscured and almost lost by the dark clouds thrown 
 around them by many of their time-serving successors. The law thus laid down, and 
 long acted upon, is at variance with the living genius of the present times, and man, in 
 his improved state, calls loudly for a new contract between the laws and the people. 
 After eight long days of tedious, but not useless or uninteresting inquiry, you have 
 gone far, if not in establishing a new precedent, at least in explaining the laws as they 
 stand, sp as to be understood by men of the meanest capacity ; and herein lies the 
 gi-eat value of the recent investigation. I feel that it would not only be a presump- 
 tion on my part, but that it would be out of place, to enter here into any discussion 
 as to the manner in which the several defendants were thrown together, charged 
 with separate offences, but held responsible for the acts of each other ; another op- 
 portunity will present itself for such consideration, and therefore, I shall confine 
 myself to mere comment upon the manner in Avhich your arduous duty as Judge 
 was discharged. Perhaps there is no situation in Avhich man can be placed, so 
 important as that of judge, and therefore does it behove, as well those who look 
 to the laws for protection, as those Avho may be brought under them for correction, 
 to canvass with great jealousy the acts of those who are instructed with their ad- 
 ministration. In my opinion. Judex nascitur, non Jit” I apply it to the 
 judge with the same limitation that Horace applied it to the poet. He did not 
 mean that a man Avithout a knowledge of letters, without education, or some 
 knoAvledge of man, could be a poet, but he meant that the genius of poetry Avas born 
 with him ; so, just Judge, I do not mean that education and a thorough knowledge 
 
 the laws of his country, are qualifications which, in a judge, could be dispensea 
 Avith, but I do mean to say, that the most indispensable qualification to fit him foi 
 that high office, must be inherent in him. The “ unbought grace of life,” temper, 
 the “ suaviter in modo” and “ for titer in re,' are graces and advantages not to be 
 acquired, and are, nevertheless, the greatest requisites, as well as the greatest orna- 
 ments, by Avhich the judgment-seat can be adorned. 
 
 Throughout the proceedings Ave had opportunities of discovering your amiability 
 of temper, your patience, your activity of mind, and your perfect mastery of your 
 profession as a laAvyer; but it was not until you were called upon to discharge your 
 duties, in the united characters of man, of laAvyer, and of judge, that we could dis- 
 cover the astounding combination of knovAdedge, prudence, and honour, that ap- 
 peared centered in one man. I confess that I did feel curious to learn what hew 
 ground you could stand upon, after the poAverful mind of the Attorney-General 
 the sagacity and research of Mr. Dundas, Mr. Baines, Serjeant Murphy, Mr. 
 McOubrey, and Mr. Atherton, and the varied and spirited appeals of the unde- 
 fended parties, appeared to have exhausted the subject; but I was yet more astonished 
 that, after all, they appeared only as labourers, Avho had merely laid the foundation, 
 and yo Avere the architect to raise the superstructure. Yes, just J udge, you did take me 
 by surprise ; you did di.scover a combination of all those attributes so e.ssenl al to the 
 
m 
 
 complete, the perfect, and the satisfactory administration of the law, that, had I stood 
 upon trial for my life, and had I received judgment of death at your hands, however I 
 might have undeserved the law’s oppression, I should not have muttered a sentence 
 against its administration. A just tribute paid to a judge by one who has been fairly 
 tried and justly convicted before him of the one act of many charged, of which alone 
 he was guilty, may be an offering tasteless^ to those who would prefer the character 
 of yielding a pliant subserviency to the supposed necessity of the times ; but if I 
 have made a correct estimate of your mind, your feelings, and your nature, you 
 will receive it in that spirit in which it is meant, as the humble offering of a persecuted 
 individual to one who has, without strained mercy upon the one hand, or without 
 straining the law against him upon the other hand, taught him where the law pro- 
 tects and when the law should punish. I did do that with which I was charged in 
 the fifth count of the indictment, upon which I was tried, but no more than that 
 I do most solemnly protest. And, just Judge, my principal motive in undertaking 
 to lay the proceedings before the public is in order that nothing should be concealed, 
 and, above all, that not a sentence, nor even a word, of your luminous, your noble, 
 your law-protective, your liberty-protecting, your constitutional and truly English 
 speech should be lost to the world. 
 
 You may, perhaps, be able to bear the further tribute of assurance, that every 
 defendant felt his liberty secure in your hands, and that, whatever they should 
 suffer would be but tbe penalty of any offence they had committed and of that alone ; 
 and they left Lancaster with an impression, that, having been fairly tried, as far 
 as the administration of the law was concerned, they were bound in honour to 
 use no other means than the law, as laid down by you, sanctions for the advancement 
 of their principles. 
 
 With most profound respect for your unequalled talent, and admiration for your 
 love of justice, I have the honour to subscribe myself, 
 
 JUST JUDGE, 
 
 Your most obedient and very respectful Servant, 
 
 FEARGUS O’CONNOR. 
 
. ■■ ■, -iu ' «*• 
 
 vi<'>rraT)<io>iTi/'.f ' 
 
 . ■■.i) b-* v i ; 
 
 ; I'f? t nioJ ' 
 
 :/ioni "^Ji) 'id ol I J'-'iv; > ■^ ' 
 
 ■ Oi') b» 'lif'!- •• }i\ fj !■' 
 
 to .^u trij b.ii; • 
 
 b;,l;br. . ooj3)/o . ^''t; •■•ih to'’^ ?-. vu : r ^ 
 
 f> ':+({. vino }.;ij , • -m ; 
 
 ifoi3ii''.);i( tji. tb. I! b iJon-f/'O ■ t ■ 
 
 v.iHHvonK .0 ''.''il '■•■' n' 
 
 \t\v 'S'\<VKvV> >'b t i-'i ; .n 
 
 ’f'tii’fi;! flvviil fi ‘j f ' n .(/V'wt.iT 
 
 ri'ntfvoj^r ' tib vi't ’ M 1- 
 
 I o'.nip out''- nn.- -rl H 
 
 bfovl n^;o:nlii-.; ).wii i -[■ ■ - 
 ■'irii ’!') 'fK>f},.-'ror>: ; n. -. . - . 
 
 jf'--- ■'ni)- n: '^;.i i' - 
 
 ij’n'' Vfto'f:,-; 1. ' ■’ ■ , 
 
 ■: /'-i [iVvrM >■. -<i tv.OO -■« 
 
 I-mIJ’ lliill I ■ 
 
 ’ ,J, t . , : 
 
 . .. ■ ... 
 
 , ; , ■ ; . I ' li ' i 
 
 r ' VI 
 
 . - ooi ■ "'Vl: i ' . • 
 
 )o .[fiupno-' ' 
 
 oil. 
 
 i : 
 
 Jnv'. ■■■'■. - 
 
 ^;-v • .. ' 
 
 ;.i(i .10 '0 ■• 
 
 V'i . ' 'i ' ■ ■ 
 
 i. •■ 
 
 in V; .; ' 'r ' 
 
 j '-V . /: ■ ' 
 
 •\hhl^' 'id ■ . .: .<.V. i '» > J 
 
 ‘ M „ V yt:. O'O xw tI 
 
 ' . .i ■ fn; f'nvv 
 
 V •• •■ or.' ’ .'OW'/) 
 
 ^ ■ <,-A‘ f,.. tout 
 
 •U)l 
 
 •. .O ' - ■Mi] 
 
 , . ■ ; . ■ . ■ !,1 
 
 . ' iVr 
 
 o > nV 
 
 ' ni 
 r >b 
 
 • ■ ‘V 
 
 . . U'‘-l 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It was originally my intention to have prefaced the proceedings at Lancaster, 
 with an account of the revolution created by the Corn Law League in August last ; 
 however, upon mature reflection, I have decided upon what I consider to be the more 
 just and prudent course; namely, — first, to publish the whole of the evidence, 
 together with the speeches of counsel and the defendants, and the summing up of 
 the Just Judge;” and then, from the lips of the witnesses for the prosecution, added 
 to such facts as are within my knowledge, to prove irrefutably, not only that the 
 League did cause the outbreak, but further, that they promoted it with an intention 
 of driving the people to acts of violence and outrage, in the hope of compelling the 
 government by force to repeal the “ Corn Laws.” I'helast number of the Quarterly 
 Review, has furnished ample testimony of the fact; however, there is a much larger 
 mass of unpublished evidence, which, when submitted to the public, wdll remove any 
 doubt that may yet remain as to who the real offenders w'ere, what their intention 
 was, and how their plans were to be carried out. It is now some months since I 
 announced in the columns of the Evening Star,” the fact that (although Lord 
 Palmerston was not personally implicated in the diabtflical concoctions of the 
 Corn Law League) many active agents of the whig party decided upon throwing 
 Lord John Russell — wdio was a fixed duty man, overboard, and substituting Lord 
 Palmerston as the leader of the total repeal party. To enter piecemeal into so large 
 and important a subject, would be ridiculous, and I shall therefore abstain for the 
 present from further comment ; merely stating that I undertake to prove, notwith- 
 standing the virtuous indignation expressed by some of the leaders of the Anti- 
 Corn-law Association, that assassination was propounded as a means of effecting their 
 darling object, and that openly and in the presence of their chairman, and without 
 a single expression of disapprobation ; but, on the contrary, that the proposition w^as 
 received wdth the most unecpivocal marks of approbation. T shall abandon this 
 portion of my subject for the present, and shall now p’oceed briefly to consider the 
 elements of which the Anti-corn Law League is composed ; the reliance that the 
 working classes can place on them as a body, and the manner in wdiich they have 
 hitherto conducted their proceedings. The association is composed principally of 
 master manufacturers, w^hose interest it is to buy labour at the cheapest market, 
 and sell the produce of thelabour at the dearest market ; and, however the arithmeti- 
 cal politicians may endeavour to establish an unerring scale wdth reference to the 
 price of produce, and the price of labour, yet must every man wdio has read nature’s 
 book, and who has gathered therefrom the fact, that selfishness is the predominant 
 feature of our nature, have learned that the excessive mechanical power now at work 
 in this country, would furnish the owmers of that power with the most ample means 
 of gratifying that natural propensity, and of breaking down those usual rules, by 
 which, under ordinary circumstances, reciprocal protection may be rendered 
 to labour and capital ; or, in other words, how a mutual and creditable 
 dependency may be made to exist. If there was no more mechanical power 
 at work than would employ the hands that could be conveniently spared 
 from other avocations, such referential scale might be established ; but, in 
 our present condition, while the employment of man is considered as an act 
 of favour by the employer, the man is at once deprived of that protection, by which 
 
VI 
 
 a fair bargain could be struck. Let us just suppose an extreme case. Suppose a 
 manufacturing district, with a population of say .30,000 hands, and suppose, for 
 argument sake, that some are now idle, and that the effect of a total repeal of the 
 Corn Laws would be to give employment to all ; and suppose some new improve- 
 ment in machinery to take place by which 5000, or one-sixth of the 30,000, could be 
 dispensed with, in such case the unemployed 5000 hands would constitute a reserve 
 for the masters to fall back upon, and their destitution would, firstly, place the 25,000 
 at work wholly at the mercy of their employers ; and, secondly, the poverty and 
 wretchedness of the unemplo 3 ’^ed would operate strongly upon those at work, and 
 w'ould make them submit to, if not satisfied with, their comparativ^e condition. Thus 
 I show that, with an overplus of mechanical power, the labourer is deprived of even 
 a chance of protecting himself against the employer. But then the politicians tell 
 us that a free trade in corn would at once set all hands going. Nonsense, rank and 
 insolent nonsense ! We have now mechanical power in existence equivalent to 
 600,000,000 pair of hands ; while it is an admitted fact that one in three, or one- 
 third of a population, will manufacture by hand all tli^ the remaining two-thirds can 
 require ; so that we have the power of producing all that eighteen hundred millions 
 could require, and of only some articles too, while the population of the habitable 
 globe falls short of a thousand millions, and while most of the civilized nations, 
 as they are called, are daily increasing their means of artificial production. The 
 League then is composed of the owners of machinery, and machinery is the great, 
 tlie monster enemy of an unrepresented people. 
 
 We then come to a consideration of how fai’ the people can rely upon the league as 
 a bod)'. It must be clear to every sane man that the Reform Bill was forced from the 
 Tory party by the new-born influence of the master manufacturers; that with their own 
 party in power they have for ten years gone on establishing the details by which their 
 principle of reform was to be made most beneficial to their order. The Poor-law 
 amendment act, the Corporation reform bill, the Rural police bill, and, above all, the 
 appointment of Whig magistrates, constituted those details, and with the necessary ma- 
 chinety they have gone systematically to work to produce the great anticipated benefit 
 from a reform in the House of Commons — a repeal of the Corn-Laws. To insure reform, 
 they must have had a majority of their party in the House ; and to insure a repeal of the 
 Corn-Laws they must also have a majority; and a necessary consequence of a parliamen- 
 tary majority is the formation of an administration from that party. I would ask then, 
 after a ten years’ experience of those men, while they were merely completing the ma- 
 chinery by which their ascendancy was to be insured and their favourite object was to 
 be achieved, are they just the political party to whose keeping the working classes 
 would again entrust their affairs ? In whatever fascinating light the interested 
 masters, or their hired itinerating hawkers, may place the question of cheap bread ” 
 before a famishing people, I ask, would they not, if once in power, strain every nerve 
 and use every means to give to themselves all the advantages arising from what is 
 termed free trade ? Lastly, as to the manner in which they have conducted their 
 proceedings. With democracy and freedom upon their lips, do we not And them 
 foremost, as masters, as magistrates, and as jurors, in persecuting all who dare to 
 express opinions at variance with those by which they hope to accomplish their 
 object ? Do we not find them expending little short of £100,000 in twelve months 
 for the purpose of buying opinion, and yet afraid to meet their very slaves in public 
 discussion ? Have they dared to publish any account of the expenditure of the 
 blood money F" Have they not, as masters and as magistrates, followed up, per- 
 secuted, tortured, and, in raanyinstances banished from their homes, every individual 
 who has taken an active part in exposing their dishonesty and their ignorance ? 
 Have they not established the system of excommunication, by conspiring together, to 
 banish from their employment eveiy man who has taken an active part against 
 them ? Have they not compelled men, women, and children to subscribe to that 
 fund by wdiich they hope to trammel labour, and for ever to place it under the 
 coiitroul of capital ? Do they not work your wives and daughters to death, while 
 they compel you to walk the streets in idleness ? Have not your wives petitioned 
 
Vll 
 
 them over and over again that their husbands may be allowed to share their toil, 
 and have they not indignantly refused ? Is it not a notorious fact that the stern 
 virtue of your wives and daughters is the only guarantee you ha.ve for their pro- 
 tection ? And yet with such fearful odds against the working classes, can the mind 
 suggest a gTeater anomaly than that glorious opposition offered by the unprotected 
 slaves to their all powerful oppressors ? 
 
 This opposition, this successful opposition, is most creditable to the worldiig 
 classes, and has saved this country from a bloody revolution. Since machinery and 
 capital became represented in the House of Commons, the hostility between master 
 and man has become greater and greater every year, and this has arisen from the 
 discovery made by the working classes that, however loud the free-traders were in 
 their professions, yet was cruelty and a resolution to subjugate labour to capital, 
 made manifest in their every act, and this circumstance, above all others, has led to 
 that want of confidence in the House of Commons, and which has been daily increasing 
 from the moment that machinery shared representation with the land. From that 
 moment did the terms Whig and Tory lose their distinctive political character, and 
 from that hour the country has been divided into the two great parties, by Avhose 
 interested squabbles the nation is kept in a continuous state of feverish excitement. 
 The terms Whig and Tory cannot be noiv properly used to distinguish political 
 parties. Policy and principle have given way to pride and selfishness, a Whig no 
 longer means a politician who would resist inroads upon the Constitution as 
 guaranteed by Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, and established by the 
 revolution of 1688, a Whig now means one who can procure a seat in parliament 
 upon the pledge that he is a cosmopolite, and not a mere Fjnglishman ; but, however 
 comprehensive in his philanthropy on the hustings, when invested with the power 
 of representation, those nnivei sal feelings are softened down to the simple thought 
 of self and factory, and how that living tomb can be worked with cheap labour 
 And, if not successfully resisted, no circumstance could more tend to the completion 
 of Whig dishonour and disgrace, than the application of a League fund for the pur- 
 pose of returning neAV-shaded Whigs upon a pledge of supporting free-trade. 
 Every man of common sense must have anticipated some juggle from 
 a change of name from Whig to Reformer, a Reformer meaning nothing 
 and being as comprehensive as the pledges of those new fledged politicians, whereas 
 a Whig, in its political acceptation, conveys the pledge of resisting tyranny and 
 every encroachment attempted to be made upon tbe liberties of the people by the 
 Tory party. It was by a surrender of those principles and the adoption of free 
 trade Malthusianism, that the Whigs lost public confidence, lost their majority, lost 
 office, and lost all hope of restoration to poAver. This trafficking faction Avas 
 dazzled by the moral power exhibited by the free traders for the accomplishment 
 of reform, and, instead of discovering that a city or a castle in flames are not true 
 lights by Avhich public opinion can be tested, they ignorantly supposed that the 
 same means that conferred power Avould preserve poAver. They Avere mistaken, 
 however ; Toryism has sprung from the ashes of Bristol and Nottingham, and 
 Chartism has grown amid the ruins of Whiggery. 
 
 Now the people know all these things as well as I do, and mark the result, — • 
 Avhereas, some five or six years ago, even the people themselves expected that public 
 speakers would bear harder in their addresses upon the Tory party than upon the 
 Whigs, now both are allowed to be mixed up in one common mess ; so long then 
 as Parliament shall remain constituted as it now is, we have to deal but with its 
 general character. Henceforth, as far as the working classes are concerned, 
 the following is the only consideration to which their minds should be directed. 
 Their labour is their only property, and if we were not to anticipate its fair and 
 just representation in a House of Commons, freely chosen by the Avhole people, and 
 if we were subjected to the dread alternative of submitting to the dominion of one 
 party or of the other, then the naked question Avould present itself as to which of the 
 two has the most direct interest in subjugating labour to their will and controul. 
 Whether the landlord, who may employ forty or fifty labourers, and who, in his 
 
Vlll 
 
 treatment of them will be subjected to some slight controul of public opinion, and 
 whose conduct, if he treats them badly, may be arraigned in the House of Commons 
 as an exception to the general rule; or the master who employs from one thousand 
 to four thousand, and who, acting wdth his fellows upon one general rule of 
 oppression is subject to no controul and liable to no contrast, all being alike engaged 
 in the one common traffic of buying cheap and selling dear. Then let us look to the 
 inducements; the man who takes two shillings a week off the wages of each labourer 
 of fifty, would thereby save two hundred and sixt}?^ pounds a year, whereas the 
 man who employs one thousand hands, and who would reduce their wages by two 
 shillings each, would thereby pocket five thousand two hundred pounds per annum. 
 A strong inducement that, methinks, to push a trade in labour without reference to 
 demand and supply. 
 
 This is the grievance against which I have ever complained, and it is because I 
 see no other means of contending against it than the establishment of the small 
 farm system, that I have so strenuously and so continuously advocated that 
 system. I do not think that I could select a more fitting opportunity than the 
 present for briefly submitting my reasons for preferring the small farm system to the 
 present factory system, as a means of insuiing a fair day’s w^ages for a fair day’s 
 work, and which, after all, is the aim and end of the People’s Charier. I never 
 anticipated that the system could be made so general that the whole working 
 population shall become farming labourers upon their own account, but I do hope 
 to see it brought into operation sufiiciently extensive for the practical carrying out of 
 one of the doctrines so pompously relied upon by political economists, namely, that 
 when one channel is closed against labour another channel is opened. Now', I con- 
 tend for it that no other market for labour than the agricultural market can be 
 opened, and successfully kept open, as a means of providing for that portion of our 
 population rendered surplus in the artificial market, cither b}" slackness of trade, or 
 by new inventions and improvements of mechanical power. Upon a farm a man 
 can expend his owui labour for his own advantage ; he w'orks like a free husbandman 
 instead of as a serf ; he works at wholesome labour ; he v/orks for himself, surrounded 
 by his family, and becomes daily more attached to his cottage and his spot of ground 
 which bec»me his bond of loyalty'. From the sw'eat of his brow he can bring up 
 and educate his family without the dread of becoming a parish pauper, if he is w’eary 
 he may' rest without the dread of the overseer’s knout falling upon his shoulders : if 
 he is sick he can be comforted in his owm bed, in his own House, by his ov/n wife 
 and his owm children, and he can draw from that store w'hich in health he laid up 
 without being thrown upon his parish or his sick club for relief. He dreads not the 
 sound of the factory bell, he is not haunted during the day' with thegallingaud heart- 
 sickening reflection that he is compelled to wander in idleness from beer house to beer 
 house until the time shall arrive when hewill be called upon to attend at the living tomb 
 of his infant daughter, and thence to convey her wasted and exhausted little frame 
 to some^loathsome underground cellar, wherein she breathes heiTast ; her place being 
 supplied by another infant slave, none to mourn her loss but the slave w’ho begat 
 her, or the slave that bore her : she was but a simple cog taken from one of the 
 little w'heels of free trade ; she never had been any thing in society, and, had she lived, 
 she never w'ould be. For fighting her battles the glorious, the philanthropic, the 
 tender hearted Oastler has lost his liberty, but has not, I trust, lost it in vain 
 for fighting her battles Frost well nigh lost his life; and, for continuing the good 
 fight, I feel assured that I shall come to an untimely end. I have seen so much of 
 this system ; I have seen so much of the brutality of the purse-proud liberal masters, 
 so much of the suflering of their slaves, both old and young, that I w'ould cheer- 
 fully' venture my life to-morrow to put an end to the damnable sy'stem, a system 
 W'hich if not stopped, will snap every 'tie by w'hich society' should be bound. 
 
 This system cannot be checked, cannot be controlled, by act of Parliament ; its 
 abettors are too wealthy, and, therefore, too pow’erful for the government. Their 
 means of assault are centralized, and easily congregated for moral exhibitions of 
 
IX 
 
 the march of intellect : the system then can only be kept within proper bounds 
 by establishing a free labour market, where the real value of man’s labour can 
 be ascertained, and below which those employed in the artificial market would not 
 work ; such a system would prevent the markets being glutted with the produce 
 of cheap labour, and would, at once, in some definable way, regulate the supply to 
 the demand. The great barrier in the way of so desirable an object, is the repre- 
 sentative quality vested in land, and the consequent management of it, with 
 reference to politics and no reference to production. Farms are let in large and 
 unprofitable allotments, with the view of creating such a dependency between 
 landlord and tenant as will insure the vote of the latter. Once destroy this, 
 and then the landlords will find it to be their interest to bring the land into the 
 retail market, and then, but not till then, can artificial labour be made serviceable 
 to the state or to those empolyed at it; and then, but not till then, will England be 
 independent of all the world for food and raiment, and ‘"all the good things of this life, 
 I shall hereafter enter more fully upon this subject; and shall, for the present, take 
 my leave of the League by repeating my challenge to that body to meet their 
 whole corps, or their picked spouters, in every large town in England, Scotland,, 
 and Wales (with free admission), I paying one-half of the expense and they the 
 other half. And as they have taken Drury liane for the off nights during Lent, 
 I challenge them with one week’s notice and free discussion, and free admission, 
 I paying one-half of the expense and the League the other half. 
 
 In this introduction I have felt it my duty thus generally to glance at those 
 causes which led to the outbreaks in August last, more particularly as I was pre- 
 vented by the frequent interruptions of the Attorney-General from saddling them 
 upon the back of the League ; which, had I been permitted, and which I think I 
 had a right to do, the country would have learned who the real offenders were ; 
 whereas, as far as the parties on trial were concerned, the whole thing ended in a 
 bottle of smoke ; the stigma resting upon the Government, firstly, for having under- 
 taken the prosecution at all ; and, secondly, having undertaken it, wanting courage 
 to charge the real offenders. 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider the effect likely to be produced upon the public 
 mind by the result of the trial at Lancaster. I have shewn you how the substitu- 
 tion of the term Reformer for that of Whig materially conduced to the injury of 
 that party — so with our party. Major Cartwright, Hunt, Cobbett, Wooller, Gale 
 Jones, and others, had successfully dragged Radicalism through that ordeal through 
 which a democratic party must ever pass. Whatever suffering was to be endured 
 in its passage through those several stages, they, as the leaders, were subjected to ; 
 tyranny at length became exhausted, principle triumphed, and Radicalism, stripped 
 of the hobgoblinism with which ignorance shrouded it, triumphed. The move- 
 ment party was known, had become strong and united under the political term 
 Radical, when, lo ! — and to shew you there is much in a name, our political 
 opponents rebaptized us, giving to us the name of Chartists. Now, although there 
 was no earthly difference between the principles of a Radical and of a Chartist, yet 
 did the press of both parties, and the very arch devil whose name stands first in Ihe 
 list of those members of Parliament who adopted the principles of the people’s 
 charter, contrive to alarm the prejudices of the weak, the timid, and the unsus- 
 pecting, until at length they accomplished their desired object — a split between 
 parties seeking one and the same end. Then was the new titled mob once more com- 
 pelled to drag the principles of radicalism through the fiery ordeal of social and govern- 
 ment persecution under its new and horrorizing name of Chartism ; and had Sturge 
 succeeded in rebaptizing us, all the value of transportation, of imprisonment and 
 persecution endured by the Chartist body for six years, would have been lost, and 
 complete sufirage, the founders, finding a timely excuse when its real advocates 
 were found to be sincere, should furnish its victims to social vengeance and govern- 
 ment persecution. Herein then lies the value of the recent triumph. — Democratic 
 
principles are, in the outset, met with taunt, w'ith scorn, and with insult — such is 
 the social persecution ; then they become persecuted by the law, and backed by the 
 powere of society, the straining of the law is approved as a justifiable means of 
 arresting their progress. At length, in the zeal of those who are appointed to 
 administer the law, the thing is over-stretched, society becomes alarmed for its 
 own liberties, the question becomes discussed, through discussion truth becomes 
 elicited, and truth being the beacon by which Chartism is guided in its course. 
 Chartism triumphs and lives, while its persecutors are humbled and humiliated, 
 and their names but remembered with loathing and execration. Calm discussion 
 Vidll now succeed persecution, and as discussion is the very main-spring of legisla- 
 tion, from it will ultimately result a confession of the righteousness of our principles, 
 and then will follow the calm consideration as to the safest means of giving them 
 effect. 
 
 Those w'ho recollect the trial of Chartists in 1839 and ’40, and especially those 
 whose ruined constitutions are living evidence of the injustice of the sentences passed 
 in those days, must marvel at the successful stand made by public opinion. In 
 less than three years from this date it will scarcely be believed that a judge, sworn 
 to administer justice, consigned honest English working-men to hard labour and 
 silence for two, three, and four years, when, in some instances, not a single violation 
 of the law' W'as committed. I was present at the trial of Hoey, Ashton, and 
 Crabtree, at York, when not a single act of conspiracy, riot, sedition or tumult w'as 
 proved against them, when no evidence arose out of a public meeting which they 
 were charged with having attended in the open air in mid-day, when the prosecu- 
 ting attorney gave them a good character, and yet did Mr. Justice Erskine consign 
 them to a felon’s prison, hard labour and silence for two long years. The recent 
 trials, not only at Lancaster, but at Derby and elsewhere, give hope that the savage 
 ferocity of party spirit will not longer be tolerated, and that the law^s henceforth 
 must be justly administered instead of being whimsically strained for the suppres- 
 sion of those principles wdiich tyranny, in its most savage form, can never obliterate 
 from the minds of working men, nor drive them from their advocacy, until theyshall, 
 and that ere long, become recognised and embodied in an Act entitled the People’s 
 Charter. 
 
NORTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 FE ARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQUIRE, 
 
 AND 58 OTHER CHARTISTS, 
 
 ON A CHARGE OF SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY 
 
 Nisi Prills Court, Lancaster, Wednesday, March \st, 1843 . 
 
 This trial, which was looked forward to with the most intense and thrilling interest 
 by men of every shade of politics throughout the country, not only as an event which 
 would fully develope the origin and progress of the late outbreak in the manufacturing 
 districts and mark out with legal precision who were its real promoters, but also as 
 affording an opportunity of authoritatively defining what are the legitimate limits of 
 pers 2 iasion ; or, in other words, whether any number of men may combine together 
 to endeavour to persuade others” to alter their political opinions, commenced this 
 morning. Long before the usual hour of opening the proceedings, the court was 
 densely thronged with spectators, among whom the defendants were promiscuously 
 interspersed. On either side of the bench an array of beauty and fashion pre- 
 sented itself such as we have seldom seen gracing a court of judicature. Many of 
 the fair sex continued their attendance, without intermission, from day to day, and 
 from the beginning of this important trial to its close, evincing the most lively in- 
 terest in the proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at nine o’clock precisely, and the prothonotary, 
 having called over the list of special jurors, some were excused on valid grounds from 
 serving, and others were fined £25 each for non-attendance. As there were only 
 nine persons remaining, a tales was prayed for, and three others were added from 
 the common jury. The following are their names : — 
 
 JAMES ANDERTON, of Duxbury, Esq., Foreman. 
 
 James Rothwell Barnes, of Great Lever, Esq. 
 
 Edward Brooke, of Rusholme, merchant. 
 
 Isaiah Ashley, of Kirkdale, merchant. 
 
 Thomas Edgeley, of Rusholme, merchant. 
 
 Forsyth William Smith, of Toxteth Park, merchant. 
 
 • Charles Armstrong, of Everton, merchant. 
 
 James Blyth, Plymouth Grove, Chorlton-upon-Medlock. 
 
 Thomas Hague, of Wavertree, merchant. 
 
 Richard Harrison, of Burnley. 
 
 Charles Storrs, Kennedy. 
 
 William Scott. 
 
2 
 
 We beliere the following to be a tolerably correct account of the names of the 
 fifty-nine defendants, which were not officially read from the indictment, or in any 
 other way announced. We class them alphabetically, surnames first, for conve- 
 nience of reference : — 
 
 Aikin, William 
 
 Lees, Robert 
 
 Arthur James, alias M‘ Arthur 
 
 Lewis, John 
 
 Allinson, John 
 
 M‘Douall, Peter Murray 
 
 Arran, John 
 
 M'Cartney, Bernard 
 
 Bairstow, John 
 
 Massey, John 
 
 Mahon, Thomas 
 
 Brooke, Robert 
 
 Beesley, William 
 
 Mooney, James 
 
 Brophy, Patrick Murphy 
 
 Morris, David 
 
 Booth, William 
 
 Norman, John 
 
 Campbell, John 
 
 O’Connor, Feargus 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 Otley, Richard 
 
 Cooper, Thomas 
 
 Parkes, Samuel 
 
 Clarke, Joseph 
 
 Pilling, Richard 
 
 Chippendale, James 
 
 Pitt, Thomas 
 
 Challenger, Alexander 
 
 Ross, David 
 
 Railton, Thomas 
 
 Candelet, George 
 
 Crossley, John 
 
 Ramsden, Robert 
 
 Doyle, Christopher 
 
 Scholefield, James 
 
 Durham, John 
 
 Scholefield, William 
 
 Fletcher, John 
 
 Smith, Thomas Browne 
 
 Fraser, Thomas 
 
 Skevington, James 
 
 Fenton, James 
 
 Stephenson, William 
 
 Grashy, James 
 
 Storah, Thomas 
 
 Harney, George Julian 
 
 Taylor, Frederick Augustus 
 
 Hill, William 
 
 Taylor, James 
 
 Hoyle, John 
 
 Thornton, John 
 
 Johnson, George 
 
 Woolfenden, Albert 
 
 Leach, James 
 
 Wilde, John 
 
 Leach, John 
 
 Lomax, John 
 
 Woodruffe, William 
 
 The counsel for the crown w’ere her Majesty’s Attorney-General (Sir Frederick 
 Pollock), the Hon. Mr. J. Stuart Wortley, Q. C. ; Sir Gregory Lewin, Q C. ; 
 Mr. Hildyard, and Mr. Pollock. , For the defendants, Mr. Dundas, Q.C., said, 
 he appeared (Mr. Atherton with him) for Robert Brooke. Mr. Baines, Q.C., said, 
 he appeared (Mr. Cobbettwiih him) for James Scholefiekl and William Scholefield, 
 Mr. Atherton appeared alone for James Fenton and William Stevenson. Mr. Ser- 
 jeant Murphy said, he appeared for Thomas Railton, John Durham, and Peter IMur- 
 rav M'Douall. Mr. M'Oubrey appeared lor John Thornton, James Mooney, and 
 William Aitkin. The other defendants had no counsel, and chose to defend them- 
 selves. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that with 
 respect to William Scholefield (the son), hislearn- 
 ed friend might dismiss all further concern. He 
 thought a nolle prosequi had been issued ; but 
 he would take a verdict of acquittal, either now 
 or at the end of the case. 
 
 Mr. SERJEANT MURPHY said, he appeared 
 for George Johnson ; but that defendant said he 
 should prefer conducting his own case, and he 
 therefore defended himself. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK stated, that this was an in- 
 dictment against the defendants for conspiracy 
 and for divers unlawful assembles, for forcing 
 people to leave their work, and for issuing 
 seditious libels and other publications, with 
 
 the intention to bring about a change in the 
 laws. There were various other counts in the 
 indictment [we believe sixteen in all] stating 
 these charges in different ways. To this in- 
 dictment the defendants had severally pleaded 
 not guilty. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to 
 address the jury as follows: — May it please 
 your Lordship and Gentlemen of the Jury, I 
 can assure you most unfeigneclly, that I never 
 rose to discharge a more painful duty, than it is 
 now my lot to discharge this day, nor one in 
 which I consider the responsibility cast on those 
 who have advised the Crown to be greater than 
 it is on the present occasion while for a moment 
 
3 
 
 I allude to circumstances, which more or less 
 must be in the knowledge of every one of you, as 
 probably they are of almost every person in 
 Court, while I advert to them but for a moment, 
 in order to caution you against any impression 
 which you may have received with respect to 
 any individual before you came into that box it 
 is scarcely possible not to entertain a strong im- 
 'pression of the danger and the mischief that 
 might arise from offences such as are imputed in 
 the indictment, if indeed they have been com- 
 mitted by any of the defendants. Gentlemen, I 
 would call your attention exclusively on this oc- 
 casion to the evidence that will be laid before 
 you, and I state in the outset, without the 
 Slightest difficulty, that if you are not satisfied of 
 the guilty participation of every defendant, let 
 all those who have, by their own evidence, or by 
 the weakness of the case for the prosecution 
 raised a favourable doubt in your minds, have 
 the benefit of that doubt, and by your verdict be 
 acquitted. Gentlemen, the offence imputed to 
 the defendants is that of endeavouring, by large 
 assemblies of persons, accompanied by force, 
 violence, menaces, and intimidation, to produce 
 such a degree of alarm and terror tlyoughout 
 the country, as to produce a change in some of 
 the fundaraential points of the constitution of 
 this country. I shall not stop here to inquire, nor 
 shall I detain you a moment to discuss, the 
 merits or demerits of the change, nor the beauty 
 of the constitution under which we live, nor the 
 happiness which it may or may not shed around 
 those who have the blessing to live under it. 
 I am here not to discuss any political subject 
 whatever. I am not here to praise the constitu- 
 tion ; I am here for the purpose merely of vin- 
 dicating the law. I doubt not his Lordship will 
 tell you that the course of proceedings which I 
 have adverted to is illegal, and that it is not 
 by sueh proceedings that any change of whatever 
 sort is to be brought about in the constitution 
 of this country ; and if you are satisfied by the 
 evidence that the respective defendants have 
 taken a part in a proceeding which had this for 
 its object, and that these means which I have 
 adverted to were the means to be resorted to by 
 them, then it w'ill be your painful duty to find 
 them guilty. Gentlemen, as little have I to do 
 with the political origin of the meetings to which 
 I must first call your attention. I propose to 
 enter into no secret history of the motives of 
 any individual anterior to the time when first the 
 law was violated. I propose not to enter into 
 
 any inquiry as to 'what were the circumstances 
 that led to the commission of these offences, 
 beyond what is absolutely necessary to render 
 the facts intelligible to you. And, gentlemen, 
 having thus stated to you the duty that I con- 
 ceive I have to perform, and entreat you to dis- 
 miss from your recollection any circumstance 
 tending to cast any prejudice, or which may 
 weigh against any of the prisoners individually, I 
 shall proceed, as shortly as I can, to narrate the 
 facts which I propose to lay before you as mat- 
 ters of evidence. Gentlemen, somewhere about 
 the 26th July, there was a meeting held atAshton- 
 dader-Line, the situation of which you are pro- 
 bably aware of, with reference to Manchester. 
 It is about six miles to the east of Manchester. 
 At that meeting the defendant, William Wood- 
 ruffe, was chairman, and another of the de- 
 fendants, of the name of Pilling, was present, and 
 was called upon to speak, and you will find 
 that ‘the language used on that occasion was 
 such as could leave no doubt whatever as to 
 what the objects and intentions of the parties 
 assembled were. I propose to read a very few 
 sentences of what fell from the chairman and 
 from Pilling, when he addressed the meeting, 
 which I read, because thei’e is no doubt that 
 evidence will be given to confirm the statement 
 I make. Woodruffe opened the meeting by a 
 statement in which be exhorted the people to 
 give over work until they could get a fair day’s 
 wages for a fair day's work. He then called 
 upon Pilling to address the meeting. The 
 language which Pilling used was very strong, 
 and particularly directed against the owners of 
 mills. A person named Aikin, one of the de- 
 fendants, said he would advise the cotton lords to 
 keep within the precincts of their own palaces, 
 as the dark nights were coming on, and some 
 bold hand more daring than the rest would 
 reckon with them, for the reckoning day was 
 near, and a bloody reckoning it was likely to be. 
 Gentlemen, shortly before this it appears there 
 had been some reductions made by the masters 
 in the wages of those they employed ; I think 
 there had been as many as two or three reduc- 
 tions, and the last preceding reductions had 
 been carried into effect in the month April 
 in the last year. Some of the observations of 
 this meeting were made with reference to the 
 expected reduction of wages. Gentlemen, the 
 meeting of the 26th July was adjourned to 
 Staleybridge, it purported to be on the following 
 day, but certainly no meeting took place then, tr 
 
4 
 
 else it was so little attended that it excited no 
 public attention whatever. But on the 1st of 
 August, Muirhouse, the bellman of Hyde, gave 
 notice of another meeting, and at that meeting 
 one of the defendants, George Candelet, acted 
 as chairman. At that meeting notice was given 
 of a further meeting to take place on Sunday, 
 the 7th of August, at Mottram Moor, or 
 Wedensough Green, about four miles from Ash- 
 ton, where the Chartists had been in the habit 
 of holding their camp meetings. You will find 
 that on Sunday the 7th of August, two meet- 
 ings were held, one in the forenoon and the other 
 in the afternoon, to which for a moment I will call 
 your attention. In the meantime, the manufac- 
 turers, who had given notice of an intended re- 
 duction of wages, I believe all except one had 
 withdrawn their notice of reduction ; but on 
 Friday, the 5th of August, one house having 
 continued its notice, — a sort of meeting of the 
 masters and men at that factory occurred, at 
 which something was said that gave offence to 
 the men. I can hardly suppose that it was in- 
 tended to give that offence. It, however, did 
 create much offence, and the men immediately 
 abandoned their work, and that, I believe, was 
 the first occasion of what is called the turn-out 
 (on Friday 5th of August). On Saturday, 
 August 6, there was a procession of not less 
 than 15,000 or 16,000 persons, who went 
 through Newton, headed by John Durham — 
 
 Mr. GREGORY 1500 or 1600. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Another de- 
 fendant and John Crossley. On Sunday, 
 August 7th, there took place the two meetings 
 already adverted to, one in the forenoon and 
 another in the afternoon. Muirhouse» the 
 chairman, addressed the meeting, and then. 
 Gentlemen, perhaps for the first time, the object 
 of the meeting was distinctly avowed. Muirhouse 
 told the meeting that it was neither a wage ques- 
 tion nor a religious question. It was a national 
 question, and their object was to make what 
 was commonly called the People’s Charter the 
 law of the land. On that occasion Candelet, 
 one of the defendants, spoke, and Wilde who is 
 now, I believe, suffering under sentence at 
 Chester, was another who addressed that meeting. 
 At 2 o’clock in the afternoon there was a larger 
 meeting at which the defendants Johh Leach, 
 Thomas Storah, Thomas Mahon, and William 
 Stephenson spoke. At that meeting it was 
 stated that on the following day there should 
 be a general turn-out, and, that no one should 
 
 return to work till the Charter became the 
 law of the land. On that occasion, Muirhouse 
 used language, of which, I believe, this is a cor- 
 rect statement “ The people had been told of 
 the evils we labour under, and I am requested—” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My Lord, I do not think 
 that Muirhouse’s name is in the indictment. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is. Gen- 
 tlemen, this language was used by the Chairman 
 of a meeting at which some of the defendants 
 were present. I am not aware that Muirhouse 
 is a defendant. I stated that he used this lan- 
 guage, and I am perfectly correct in stating to 
 you that what the Chairman was permitted un- 
 interruptedly to state is at least evidence of the 
 intention of those who were present; and at 
 that meeting I believe several of the defendants 
 were actually present. 
 
 “The people had been told of the evils we 
 labour under; and I am requested to tell you 
 that to-morrow a meeting will take place at 
 Stalybridge, at five o’clock in the morning, when 
 we will proceed from factory to factory ; and all 
 the hands that will not willingly come out, we 
 will turn them out ; and when we are out, we 
 will remain out till the charter, the only guaran- 
 tee you have for your wages, becomes the law of 
 the land. I hope to meet you all to-morrow at 
 Stalybridge, when we will join hand in hand in 
 this great national turn-out.” 
 
 Gentlemen, there was a meeting on the fol- 
 lowing morning, at Haigh, near Stalybridge; 
 there were from 2,000 to 3,000 persons present ; 
 and there was a placard at that meeting : — “ The 
 men of Stalybridge will follow wherever danger 
 points the w’ay.” Another placard was — “ They 
 that perish by the sword are better then they 
 that perish by hunger.” Gentlemen, that meet- 
 ing proceeded first to Messrs. Harrison’s ; they 
 there turned all the hands out, and stopped the 
 mills ; they then proceeded to Messrs. Lee’s, 
 where they did not find the same willingness to 
 receive their proposal to stop labour. They 
 burst open the doors, and by force they did tha^^ 
 which at Harrison’s they were able to do mo'^-giy 
 by their presence and appearance. Gentlemen, 
 it was arranged that they should mee^, t|^e fol- 
 lowing morning, and something wav about 
 going to Manchester ; and at ? ygj.y g^j-iy 
 on Tuesday the 9th of Augus^ ^^ t^jere were meet- 
 ings at Hyde, at Stalybr^^gg _^the defendant 
 Pilling was there,)— Ashton ; and from 
 the places where th^gy assembled, they deter- 
 mined to march r,pon Ivlanchester. And accord- 
 ingly, some thotisfi Tids of persons, you will find, 
 
5 
 
 Tpith a certain description of arms, with bludgeons 
 and banners,— having some appearance of mili- 
 tary rank, and array, and order, — marched upon 
 the town of Manchester ; and, finding the mili- 
 tary very near the entrance of the town, they 
 halted, and there was a sort of parley between 
 them, the magistrate and the military. To the 
 remonstrances of the magistrate they answered, 
 that their object was peace, law, and order ; and 
 they promised faithfully to keep the peace, and to 
 commit no disorder of any kind. The magistrate 
 withdrew the military, and putting himself — not 
 exactly at their head as a leader, but for the pur- 
 pose of pointing out to them I suppose, where they 
 might go with propriety, and to watch them, 
 that they did no mischief, — the magistrate 
 placed himself along with them, and they marched 
 into the town together ; the military having 
 been withdrawn to prevent any hostile conflict. 
 They had scarcely got into the town, when those 
 who were rather in the rear separated themselves 
 from the rest ; and forming into various bands 
 went from street to street, and from house to 
 house, and took possession of the town. For 
 three days the shops were shut up ; all labour 
 was stopped ; portions of the mob went from 
 place to place ; not merely at the mills, but at 
 every place where the labour of man was used, 
 they went and enjoined the cessation of labour. 
 In some instances, they demanded bread ; in 
 others, they accepted money ; but, for three 
 days, Manchester was in a state of the most 
 lawless riot and confusion. The following week 
 was remarkable at Manchester, for the introduc- 
 tion of some other proceedings, still more threat- 
 ening in their aspect than perhaps the assem- 
 blages of these persons already described. It 
 appears, that at that time there had been sitting 
 at Manchester a collection of delegates or per- 
 sons in the Trades’ union ; and I beg to call 
 your attention to a resolution of the trades, 
 which was put forth on Friday the 12th August. 
 Gentlemen, the resolution was this : — 
 
 “ That we, the delegates representing the 
 various trades of Manchester and its vicinities, 
 with delegates from various parts of Lancashire 
 and Yorkshire, do most emphatically declare, 
 that it is our solemn and conscientious conviction 
 that all the evils that afflict society, and which 
 have prostrated the energies of the great body 
 of the producing classes, arise solely from class 
 legislation ; and that the only remedy for the 
 present alarming distress and wide-spread desti- 
 tution is the immediate and unmutilated adoption 
 and carrying into law, the document known as 
 the people’s charter. — ‘ That this meeting recom- 
 
 mend the people of all trades and callings forth- 
 with to cease work, until the above document 
 becomes the law of the land.’ ” 
 
 I may here incidently remark, that, if a num- 
 ber of persons had formed the design of going 
 about the country, from place to place, for the 
 purpose of creating a cessation of labour, and 
 compelling the public authorities of the country 
 to adopt a particular change in the constitution, 
 all those, who, in any way, afforded encourage' 
 ment of any sort to the persons who were so 
 acting, became, what in law is called, accessories, 
 before or after the fact, w'ould make very little 
 difference ; for, in a case of misdemeanour, which 
 this is, all accessories are principals ; all who 
 aid, encourage, assist, or foment this description 
 of offence, are themselves guilty of that which 
 they encourage in others ; and it will be for you 
 to say, whether this resolution, and other reso- 
 lutions of a similar kind, being brought home 
 to certain parties before you as defendants, — 
 whether you can entertain any doubt as to the 
 object with which resolutions of this character 
 were put forth. It will be for you to say, 
 whether those who adopted this method of en- 
 couraging, promoting, assisting, and giving 
 effect to the designs of others, must not be 
 considered by you, as in point of fact, adopting 
 this rcourse with a view to assist and to promote 
 the designs of others. If so, I believe his lord- 
 ship will tell you, that they altogether and 
 entirely participate in the full guilt which they 
 thus encourage. By this time, the state of Man- 
 chester had attracted the attention of the au- 
 thorities there, and also the authorities in 
 Loudon ; and on the 14th there was a procla- 
 mfition issued by the magistrates of their owni 
 authority ; and on the 15th there was a procla- 
 mation issued in the name of the queen by the 
 executive government. And after those procla- 
 mations, calling upon every one to ob»erve the 
 peace, to abstain from giving encouragement to 
 the violence of others, it became still more and 
 more the duty of all persons who were determined 
 to obey the law, or who were not determined to 
 disobey it, to abstain from any proceeding that 
 could give encouragement, directly or indirectly, 
 to those who were still going about the country, 
 from place to place, by intimidation, to turn out 
 those who were anxious to continue at work for 
 their masters. On the Monday there was a meet- 
 ing of trades at, I think, the Sherwood Inn, Tib- 
 street ; and they adjourned to the Carpenters’ 
 Hall. There the defendant Dixon 
 
6 
 
 Mr. PART : — Dixon was not at that meeting 
 ATTORNEl-GENERAL : — I thought he 
 was.— There a placard was produced, which, I 
 think, it is not worth while to read now; but I 
 hasten on to other matters. But you will find, 
 that at that meeting various motions and reso- 
 lutions were carried; and, at length, it was 
 determined to issue a placard, to which I think 
 it right to call your attention. 
 
 “ LIBERTY. 
 
 Liberty to the trades of Manchester and the 
 surrounding districts. — Fellow-workmen, we 
 hasten to lay before you the paramount import- 
 ance of this day's proceedings. The delegates 
 from the surrounding districts have been more 
 numerous at this day's meeting then they were 
 at yesterday's, and the spirit and determination 
 manifested for the people’s rights have increased 
 every hour. In consequence of the unjust and 
 unconstitutional interference of the magistrates 
 our proceedings were abruptly brought to a close 
 by their dispersing the meeting ; but not until, 
 in their very teeth, we passed the following reso- 
 lution : — ‘ Resolved — That the delegates in public 
 meeting assembled, do recommend to the various 
 constituences which we represent, to adopt all 
 legal means to carry into efiect the people’s 
 charter ; and further, we recommend that dele- 
 gates be sent through the whole of the country to 
 endeavour to obtain the co-operation of the mid- 
 dle and working classes in carrying out the reso- 
 lution of ceasing labour until the charter became 
 the law of the land.’ — Englishmen, legally deter- 
 mine to mantain the peace and well-being of 
 society ; and show, by your strict adherence to 
 our resolution, that we are your true representa- 
 tives. Do your duty. We will do ours. We 
 meet again to-morrow ; and the result of our 
 deliberations will be fuUy laid before you.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have read to you every 
 word of this. There occur in it expressions 
 with respect to “ legal means,” and “keeping 
 the peace.” Gentlemen, I am afraid that those 
 who directed the framing that paragraph would 
 probably differ from the views which his lord- 
 ship will probably lay down to you, as to what 
 are the legal means by which such objects may- 
 be carried into effect ; but it will be for you to 
 judge whether, because the language of “ peace, 
 law, and order” is upon the lips of those who 
 use such expressions, accompanied by very dif- 
 ferent conduct — it will be for you to judge how 
 far these expressions, which are used in a placard 
 put forth to the public, really convey the inten- 
 tion of those who use them ; or whether they 
 are used with the intention to depart from those 
 
 professions, whenever a convenient opportunity 
 may occur. Gentlemen, on Tuesday the 16th 
 August, there was another meeting, no t now of 
 the trades, but there was a meeting of dele- 
 gates, forming a sort of convention to represent 
 the people of England, from different parts of 
 the country' ; and I believe that not less than 
 from 40 to 60 or 70 delegates arrived at Man- 
 chester. At one of the meetings, undoubtedly, 
 about 40 actually attended. Gentlemen, at that 
 meeting an address was considered j^nd approved 
 of, as an address to be printed and published to 
 the people of England. It was an address 
 from five persons, styling themselves “ the 
 Executive Committee of the National Associa- 
 tion for carrying the Charter,” and I now beg 
 to call your attention to the contents of that 
 paper. The proof-sheet of this paper, corrected 
 in the hand-writing of one of the defendants — 
 I think Peter Murray M‘Douall — will be pro- 
 duced in evidence before you ; and with respect 
 to his participation in it, it would be idle to 
 suggest any doubt, becaase the proof-sheet was 
 actually corrected by himself, in his own hand- 
 writing. I beg to call your attention to the 
 title of this placard. It is an “ Address of the 
 Executive Committee of the National Chartist 
 Association to the people.” 
 
 ‘'Brother Chartists , — The great political 
 tni^hs which have been agitated during the last 
 haif-century have at length aroused the degraded 
 and insulted white slaves of England to a sense 
 of their duty to themselves, their children, and 
 their country. Tens of thousands have flung 
 down their implements of labour. Your task- 
 masters tremble at your energy, and expecting 
 masses eagerly watch this the great crisis of our 
 cause. Labour must no longer be the common 
 prey of masters and rulers. Intelligence has 
 beamed upon the mind of the bondsman ; and 
 he has been convinced, that all wealth, comfort, 
 and produce, every thing valuable, useful, and 
 elegant, have sprung from the palms of his hands ; 
 he feels that his cottage is empty, his back thinly 
 clad, his children breadless, himself hopeless, 
 his mind harrassed, and his body punished, that 
 undue riches, luxury, and gorgeous plenty, might 
 be heaped in the palaces of the task-masters, and 
 flooded into the granaries of the oppressor. Na- 
 ture, God, and reason, have condemned this 
 inequality ; and in the thunder of a people’s voice 
 it must perish for ever. He knows that labour, 
 the real property of society, the sole origin of 
 accumulated property, the first cause of all na- 
 tional wealth, and the only supporter, defender, 
 and contributor to the greatness of our country. 
 
r 
 
 is not possessed of the same legal protection 
 which is given to those lifeless effects, the houses, 
 ships, and machinery which labour have alone 
 created.” 
 
 I do not know whether I need read the whole 
 of it. 
 
 Therefore it is that we have solemnly sworn, 
 and one and all declared, that the golden oppor- 
 tunity now within our grasp shall not pass away 
 fruitless ; that the chance of centuries, afforded 
 to us by a wise and all-seeing God, shall not be 
 lost; but that we do now universally resolve 
 never to resume labour, until labour's grievances 
 are destroyed, and protection secured to our- 
 selves, our suffering wives, and helpless children, 
 by the enactment of the people’s charter. Eng- 
 lishmen! the blood of your brethren reddens the 
 streets of Preston and Blackburn.” 
 
 Gentlemen, I regret deeply to say, that at 
 Preston and Blackburn there had been a conflict 
 with the military, which unfortunately did ter- 
 minate in bloodshed. Now you perceive the 
 language there is used with reference to that 
 event. 
 
 “ Englishmen! the blood of your bi'ethren 
 reddens the streets of Preston and Blackburn, 
 and the murderers thirst for more. Be firm, be 
 courageous, be men. Peace, law, and order, 
 have prevailed on our side — let them be revered 
 until your brethren in Scotland, Wales, and 
 Ireland are informed of your resolution ; and 
 when a universal holiday prevails, which will be 
 the case in eight days, then of what use will 
 bayonets be against public opinion ? What tyrant j 
 can then live above the terrible tide of thought ; 
 and energy, which is now flowing fast, under the ' 
 guidance of man's intellect, which is now destined ! 
 by a Creator to elevate his people above the reach ' 
 of w'ant, the rancour of despotism, and the penal- j 
 ties of bondage ? The trades, a noble, patriotic 
 band, have taken the lead in declaring for the 
 charter, and drawing their gold from the keeping 
 of tyrants. Follow their example. Lend no 
 whip to rulers wherewith to scourge you. 
 
 “ Intelligence has reached us of the wide- 
 spreading of the strike; and now, within fifty 
 miles of Manchester, every engine is at rest, and 
 all is still, save the miller's useful wheels and 
 friendly sickle in the fields.” 
 
 Gentlemen, that was perfectly true. Within 
 50 miles of Manchester, all was still; but in 
 what way that atillneas was produced, whether 
 by the spontaneous wish of all the persons who 
 were compelled to observe that stillness, you 
 shall judge to-day by the evidence ; and then 
 you must further judge whether those who 
 penned this document could by possibility be 
 
 ignorant, that though undoubtedly a large por- 
 tion of that rest from labour was accepted c&e«r- 
 fully by many, a very considerable proportion 
 it — I believe I should not be wrong if I said 
 greater part of it — was imposed upon a relnctan 
 population by the activity, force, and threats »€ 
 those who went from place to place to produre 
 a compulsive abandonment of labour^ 
 
 “ Countrymen and brothers, centuries may ro!i 
 on, as they have fleeted past, before such amvir- 
 sal action may again be displayed : we have mnde 
 the cast for liberty; and we must stand, like mew, 
 the hazard of the die. Let none despond. Let 
 all be cool and watchful, and, like the brides- 
 maids in the parable, keep your lamps buraiag : 
 and let your continued resolution be like a beaccio 
 to guide those who are now hastening, far and 
 wide, to follow your memorable example. Bre- 
 thren, we rely upon your firmness, cowardice, 
 treachery, or womanly fear, would cast our cause 
 back for half a century. Let no man, wora;;??, 
 or child, break down the solemn pledge ; mw?, if 
 they do, may the curse of the poor and starviajg 
 pursue them — they deserve slavery who vrooid 
 madly court it. Our machinery is all 
 and your cause will, in three days, be impelled 
 onward by all the intellect we can summozs to Its 
 aid : therefore, whilst you are peaceful, be firm ; 
 whilst you are orderly, make all be so likewise ; 
 and whilst you look to the law, remember that 
 you had no voice in making it, and are therefore 
 the slaves to the wiU, the law, and the price of 
 your masters. All officers of the association ar& 
 called upon to aid and assist in the peacefo] ex- 
 tension of the movement, and to forwapiJ; kH 
 moneys for the use of the delegates who msT 
 expressed over the country. Strengthera 
 hands at this crisis. Support your leaders. 
 Rally round our sacred cause, and leave 
 decision — ” 
 
 Now where, gentlemen, do you think the sle. 
 cision is left after these appeals to “ peace, 
 and order,” and to “ peaceful struggj.e.”' 
 
 “ LeaA^e the decision to the God of justice and 
 of battle.’* Gentlemen, this placard was exlei?- 
 sively dispersed over Manchester, and it becajue si 
 sort of rallying point to the various meetings 
 that took place afterwards; and the questiiia 
 that you have to decide is, whether all tiios.e 
 who are concerned in the framing and putthr^ 
 forth of that placard — whether in the eutke 
 scope and object of that publication you do nnfe 
 find a direct encouragement to those persani; 
 who were going about the country from faetevi: 
 to factory, and from mill to mill, — I might scr 
 almost from house to house, — to suspend labc^tr 
 
8 
 
 •f every kind, and to do it by force and menace 
 in order to carry out that change in the consti- 
 tution vphich would be effected by making the 
 people’s charter the law of the land. Gentle- 
 men, you will have evidence given of what 
 occurred at the meeting of delegates ; and as 
 against one of the defendants, I mean Mr. F. 
 O’Connor, you will have the clearest evidence 
 of his participation in it, by a direct allusion to 
 it in his own newspaper, the Northern Star, to 
 which his name is affi}:ed as a proprietor, and 
 for the contents of which he is responsible. 
 Gentlemen, I propose first to read to you, from the 
 Northern Star, a few expressions which clearly 
 connect Mr. Feargus O’Connor with the publi- 
 cation of that document. The expressions I 
 allude to are contained in the Northern Star of 
 the 20th of August. Gentlemen, I think it per- 
 fectly right here to say, that, I believe that be- 
 fore this time, many paragraphs have been pub- 
 lished in the Northern Star, dissuading the 
 people from taking the course that they seemed 
 to be bent upon ; and whatever benefit in any 
 way Mr. Feargus O’Connor can derive from a 
 candid admission on my part, I admit at once, 
 that, prior to this time, apparently the Northern 
 Star was directed against the strike. The 
 benefit of that admission I should certainly not 
 seek to withhold from Mr. Feargus O’Connor 
 on the present occasion. But you cannot doubt 
 from the paper which I hold in my hand, from 
 some reason — whether because theimpulse seemed 
 to be so strong — whether the current seemed to be 
 so irresistible that it was no longer of any use 
 to stem it-^whether he was carried along by 
 that current, or whether, seeing that there was 
 such a prospect of chartism becoming the law 
 of the land that Mr. Feargus O’Connor thought 
 the time was come when a use might be made 
 of the turn-out, I know not : I deal with the 
 facts merely as they are before me. But I find 
 in the paper of the 20th -of August, a statement 
 of what occurred at the meeting of delegates in 
 the conference in Manchester, and I use this 
 statement as against Mr. O’Connor. The paper 
 proves the facts stated in it — that there was a 
 meeting of delegates : I shall confirm this by 
 notes found in the handwriting of one of the 
 members of the conference, who took notes of 
 what passed. Gentlemen, I shall, last pf all, 
 confirm it by the testimony of a person present, 
 and who now (with whatever spirit it is for you 
 to judge) is willing to give evidence of what 
 took place at that assembly, and I believe more 
 
 than one. But, as remarks may be made on 
 testimony of that description, and as you have 
 a right to have such testimony confirmed by 
 every document which I can have recourse to 
 for the purpose, I shall prove against several 
 persons, out of their own lips, that they were 
 there, and for what purpose they were there. 
 
 On the 20th of August the following para- 
 graph appeared in the Northern Star in refer- 
 ence to the Meeting of delegates in conference 
 in Manchester : — 
 
 “ This body was didven by the ‘ troublous 
 times ’ from the consideration of the particular 
 matters and things for which it was summoned. 
 The all-absorbing interest of the ‘ strike ’ move- 
 ment was forced on the attention of its members 
 as a first object of consideration. It being known 
 that the sitting of this body was to commence on 
 Monday, it was generally understood and believed 
 that they would take up the subject ; and the de- 
 cision to which they might come as to the course 
 of action to be commended was looked for by 
 hundreds of thousands with an intenseness of 
 anxiety perfectly indescribable. 
 
 “ The conference commenced its session at 
 two P.M., and continued, by adjournments, till 
 about seven on Wednesday evening. [And then 
 he gives the statement.] Their deliberations 
 were, as might be expected, most anxious; the 
 discussions most animated and earnest, and while 
 some difference prevailed on the course to be 
 recommended to the people, one soul and pur- 
 pose seemed to animate the entire assembly as to 
 the necessity of enforcing, by every means in 
 their individual and collective power, the observ- 
 ance of peace, law, and order by and among the 
 people. Each member, in the first instance, 
 stated to the conference, so far as he had the 
 means of knowing it, the state of his own dis- 
 trict, and the opinion of his constituents in 
 reference to ‘ the strike.’ 
 
 “ A general, anxious, and protracted discussion 
 then ensued upon the question of adopting the 
 following resolution of the delegates : — 
 
 “ ‘ That whilst the Chartist body did not ori- 
 ginate the present cessation from labour, the 
 conference of delegates from various parts of 
 England express their deep sympathy with their 
 constituents, the working men now on strike ; 
 and that we strongly approve the extension and 
 continuance of their present struggle until the 
 People’s Charter becomes a legislative enactment, 
 and decide forthwith to issue an address to that 
 effect; and pledge ourselves, on our return to our 
 respective localities, to give a proper direction to 
 the people’s efforts.’ Every speaker was re- 
 stricted to five minutes, and no man allowed to 
 speak twice on the same question. An amend- 
 
9 
 
 ment was proposed, differing from the resolution 
 in phraseology, but having the same purport. 
 Another amendment was proposed to the effect that 
 — ‘ The information laid before this conference 
 by the several delegates of whom it is composed 
 does not warrant this conference in now recom- 
 mending to the people any national strike or 
 holiday, or in any way mixing up the Chartist 
 name and movement with the present strike for 
 wages, subsisting in some districts, and origi- 
 nated, as this conference believes, by the Anti- 
 Corn Law League ; not seeing any means whereby 
 the said strike can now be made a successful effort 
 for the carrying of the Peoples's Charter ; while 
 at the same time this conference deeply sympa- 
 thise with their oppressed brethren on strike, 
 and admire the spirit of energy and patriotism 
 with which the trades of Manchester and at other 
 places have declared for the People’s Charter.” 
 
 The narrative goes on after suggesting this 
 amendment : — 
 
 “ After almost every member had spoken upon 
 the question, it was put, and the original reso- 
 lution carried by a large majority.” 
 
 Now observe what that original resolution 
 was — That the Meeting pledge themselves to 
 assist the people in their present struggle, and 
 put the Charter on the issue of the strike then 
 going on. 
 
 “ It is but fair to state that a considerable 
 majority of delegates were from the districts 
 actually out and taking part in the struggle. 
 After the adoption of the above resolution, the 
 following address was agreed to nem. con. The 
 mover and supporters of the amendment deeming 
 it both unnecessary and unwise to maintain an 
 opposition, which, from being persisted in when 
 seen to be powerless, might justly have been 
 considered factious. Now, here again, gentle- 
 men, you will have to consider whether it was 
 possible— especially for those who came from 
 the district where the ‘ strike’ was going on, — 
 you will have to consider, whether it was possi- 
 ble for those who penned this motion and this 
 address, and held out this language to the whole 
 country for fifty miles round Manchester, whe- 
 ther they could be possibly ignorant of the 
 means by which the strike was carrying on — 
 whether they could, by any possibility, not know 
 that the rnob went, in some instances, armed ; 
 in all instances having bludgeons, and weapons 
 calculated to produce menaces and fear. They 
 went from factory to factory, and from mill to 
 mill, compelling the people to turn out ; and I 
 suppose that was what they considered compel- 
 
 ling them to obey ‘peace, law, and order. Now, 
 gentlemen, this is the address of the national 
 conference to the chartist public. I shall prove, 
 by other witnesses, the facts that are stated in 
 this paper ; because yon must be on your guard 
 on this point, that this paper is evidence against 
 Mr. O’Connor alone ; but, as against him, it is 
 as good evidence as could possibly be given; 
 because it is deliberately published by him, as a 
 part of a paper of which, I believe, he is the 
 ! sole proprietor. You will find, that this is the 
 ! address ; I shall read to you only a few sentences 
 of it ; the rest you will have read to you by 
 ! and bye : — 
 
 I “You have not struck, you have been stricken ; 
 but let the stroke recoil upon the tyrants who 
 have so cruelly arrayed themselves against the 
 interests of labour. 
 
 “ Brothers, these are not times to hesitate ! 
 The com has a golden hue while your visages are 
 pale, but hope for change and better times. We 
 are fortunate in having an accredited executive, 
 bearing the confidence of all, at our head.” 
 
 Gentlemen, — that is the executive body of five 
 persons connected with the Chartists, whose 
 address I now read to you, ending with an ap- 
 peal to the “ God of justice and of battle.” 
 
 “ They, too, have called upon you. You will 
 read their address : it breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit. We could not, in times like the present, 
 withhold fi’om them, your servants, our cordial 
 support, as in union alone is security to be found, 
 and from unanimity alone can success be ex 
 pected. 
 
 “ Brothers, the trades have issued a noble ad- 
 dress. It breathes a spirit worthy of old laws 
 and old English liberties. This, brothers, is the 
 time for courage, prudence, caution, watchful- 
 ness and resolution. 
 
 “ In conclusion, brothers, we would, above 
 all things, council you against the destruction 
 of life or property. 
 
 “ Remain firm to your principles, w'hich are to 
 be found in . ^he document entitled the People’s 
 Charter.’ 
 
 On a subsequent day, on the 3rd September, 
 Mr. F. O’Connor published another number of 
 the Northern Star,m a leading column of wduch 
 he gives an account of the meeting of delegates. 
 It is in the form of a letter, but I believe that 
 is the usual manner in which Mr. O’Connor puts 
 a leading article into his paper. This is a letter 
 from Mr. Feargus O’Connor, addressed to the 
 imperial Chartists. He says, amongst other 
 things, — 
 
 “ The delegates arrived at eight. Of course I 
 
10 
 
 ^ don’t know any of ttksm, as it appears that Sir 
 C- Shaw has a desire to learn their names. I was 
 one. We sat from eight to twelve in calm dis- 
 cussion, but no course was decided upon. When 
 jNIr. Hargraves arrived it was unanimously re- 
 , solved, very much against my will, that neither I 
 nor any other delegate should absent himself for 
 the purpose of attending the Carpenters’ Hall 
 meeting, and a message was sent to Rev. Mr. 
 Scholefield, to request him to make that com- 
 munication to the meeting at Carpenters’ Hall, 
 which he did. On V/ednesday we met again, 
 forty, and very excellent men. I believe there 
 were exactly forty, IMr. O’Connor and Griffin 
 made forty-two. We sat all day. There were 
 two resolutions, and one address passed, and that 
 was all the business done. I seconded the ad- 
 -dress, which was carried by a great majority. I 
 proposed one of the resolutions, which was car- 
 ried unanimously. I drew up the address, the 
 only address that was passed by the delegates, 
 and, curious to say, the Xorthern Star was the 
 only paper in England that published any one of 
 the acts of the conference, and it published every 
 one of them. I never saw so good a feeling per- 
 vade any meeting of the people’s leaders, never 
 in my life. All was union and harmony. At the 
 close of the proceedings, and after the chairtean 
 had vacated the chair, some one asked — Tom 
 Styles, of Snook’s-town, I think — v/hether or no 
 the placard that professed to come from the exe- 
 cutive [The one that appeals to the “ God of 
 battle.”] should appear in the Star? I said, 
 
 ‘ Yes, as an advertisement, and I will pay for 
 it.’ At ten o’clock I walked down to Mr. Hey- 
 wood’s. He was out. I remained till he re- 
 turned, and the first word he said was, ‘Well, 
 sir, the poor devil that printed the placard pur- 
 porting to emanate from the executive has been 
 seized, and his press and type are all taken,’ and 
 I believe, gentlemen, in consequence of that cir- 
 cumstance, the address did not appear in the 
 Xorthern Star?' 
 
 Now, gentleman, I have not mentioned every 
 one of the defendants by name ; but I shall, for 
 a very short time, call your attention to one of 
 the defendants, before I enter on the evidence — 
 Tvir. Scholefield : I mean the elder ; for, with 
 respect to the younger, having reason to believe, 
 from respectable representations, that a mistake 
 had been made with regard to his appearance — 
 that he was believed to be present when he was 
 absent, it was considered desirable that infor- 
 mation should be given to him, that the charge 
 ■would not be made against him; and therefore 
 I shall not say one word about it. But Mr. 
 Scholefield himself gave the use of his chapel 
 
 for this meeting ; he was present ; and you will 
 hear from the witnesses the language used at 
 that meeting, by the several defendants who ad- 
 dressed the meeting. You will find language used, 
 the meaning and object of which it wall be for 
 you to judge of, and to determine what character 
 ought fairly to belong to it. Several of the 
 speakers alluded distinctly to the use of direct 
 physical force. I know that the object of many 
 of the chartists was to carry out their views, 
 without having recourse to physical force ; but 
 as to some of the defendants you will find that 
 one man in particular stated, that he came from 
 a district where force had been resorted to. 
 “ I have been,” said he, “ at Birmingham, Bil- 
 ston, and the Potteries ; and I have witnessed 
 the feeling of resolufion among the peoplci I 
 will support the resolution without making a 
 long speech on it, because I believe the people 
 in Staffordshire and many other parts are deter- 
 mined to fight, and are prepared for the worst. 
 The Shakespearians of Leicester will not be 
 behind in the cause. Nothing will gain our ob- 
 ject but showing that we are prepared to fight.” 
 Gentlemen, language of this kind used in the 
 presence of other persons who make no objec- 
 tion to it — who hear a speaker of this kind, who 
 take his vote, on an address — who reckon him 
 as o-ne of themselves, and then put forth some 
 address with phrases of “law, peace, and order 
 why, gentlemen, I might make here an appeal 
 to your good sense, if you can find any meaning 
 in these phrases that justly should bring impu-. 
 nity and acquittal to any of the parties present. 
 But it is my duty — and I can assure you, gen- 
 tlemen, a most painful duty it is — to bring 
 under your cognizance all those circumstances, 
 and to ask you -sv'hat is the construction you put 
 upon them as men of sense and experience. As 
 to the language used and the conduct adopted, 
 I ask you whether those persons who put forth 
 this address, and passed these resolutions, and 
 published them, — whether they can possibly be 
 considered in any other light than as associates 
 with the more unfortunate and less enlight- 
 ened parties who -were going from town to 
 town, and from mill to mill, encouraged by 
 those addresses, I might almost say provoked 
 by them into the excesses which otherwise 
 they might have escaped ? Gentlemen, I 
 mentioned that Mr. Scholefield, the proprietor of 
 a chapel, had given it up for the use of the 
 meeting. He "was present when they deliberated; 
 he was there perfectly cognizant of what was 
 
11 
 
 going on ; and it will be for you to consider 
 ■whether by any overwhelming fear he was 
 obliged to be there — whether he was not a part 
 or parcel of the conference, and whether he 
 he did not assent to its proceedings. Let me 
 call your attention to some words uttered at 
 Carpenters' Hall, as he was going to his ov;n 
 chapel. While the delegates were sitting in his 
 house, Mr. Scholefield made a communieation to 
 some persons in Carpenters’ Hall. I understand 
 it was at a tea party in honour of some memorial 
 to Hunt. “ I am glad,” said Mr. Scholefield, 
 “ to see you so comfortable, under the circum- 
 stances in which your are placed. I have a duty 
 to perform with a friend (Mr. O’Connor). I 
 have left him with other friends of the people 
 advising plans to carry on the movement — that 
 is, the people’s cause. I have to state, consider- 
 ing the exact state of the town, that it would 
 be better if Mr. O’Connor did not appear at this 
 meeting. The cause may he retarded for a short 
 time ; but it will again raise up its head, if our 
 leaders are not taken. The object of our enemies 
 is to seize our leaders ; but the committee 
 thought it best to deprive them of that oppor- 
 tunity.” Mr. Scholefield, it appears, 'W'as ac- 
 tively employed in going from one meeting to 
 another, as well as giving the use of his house 
 to the delegates ; and it will be for you to say 
 in what light he appears. I own it would be to 
 me a matter of some gratification to find, that, 
 with reference to him, sonie mistake had been 
 committed as in the case of his son. I should 
 rejoice as much as any one in the innocence of 
 any one defendant before you to day. But I 
 have a duty to perform to you, and to the pul)lic • 
 at large ; and, painful as that duty may be in 
 many respects, it is impossible for me to shrink 
 from its performance. Now, gentlemen, I have 
 but one general statement to make beyond that 
 to which I have called your attention, and it is 
 one that I make with very mingled fcelinga 
 indeed ; it is with respect to the intelligence and 
 forbearance of those who mingled in this move- 
 ment ; but it is one that at the same time sug- 
 gests an idea of the great extent and extreme 
 peril in which the country might have been 
 placed, if such things could take place as 1 am 
 now authorized to stale. Gentlemen, all labour 
 of every kind bad been stopped — not merely, 
 gentlemen, at the large manufactories where they 
 were spinning by steam engines, hut there was 
 a general turn-out of all the hands employed in 
 all trades, except of those who assisted in the 
 
 production of the most ordinary necessaries of ^ 
 life. I believe the baker and the butcher were 
 permitted to go on ; but even the shoemaker 
 and the tailor were stopped in their labours, 
 until the object of the turn-out should be carried. 
 
 But it -was manifest, that, if this rule was en- 
 forced rigidly and to the letter, very great public 
 mischief must ensue ; and accordingly there sat 
 in at least two places (I say two, because I am 
 in a condition to prove there were two, but I 
 believe there is some evidence of committees 
 sitting in other places), committees who at first 
 styled themselves committees of public safety ; 
 but whether the recollection of the connection 
 of that name with some of the scenes of the 
 French revolution suggested that they bad better 
 adopt another name, I am not prepared to say ; 
 but I believe they afterwards called themselves 
 the committee of operatives. Their object w^as 
 to receive applications for a remission of the 
 strict rule of abstaining from labour, and to give 
 licence to persons to carry on, to a limited extent, 
 their labours, for the purposes specified in the 
 license. Gentlemen, I stated to you, and I did 
 so most unequivocally, that I have ever considered 
 the existence of those committees as one of the 
 most formidable evidences of the extent to which 
 the “ strike,” as it is called, had pervaded all 
 classes of operatives ; but I can prove to you, 
 that two, I think at least, of the defendants (one 
 of them is named Durham) sat at a table, com- 
 posing a committee of some ten or twelve, and 
 received applications of tlm nature I have alluded 
 to. For instance, a tailor on one occasion, in 
 consequence of tlie death in the family of one 
 of his customers, was applied to to make some 
 mourning clothes ; but he did not dare to do so 
 until he went to the committee and obtained 
 permission. I believed there was some doubt 
 entertained that he went beyond the license, and 
 a deputy was sent to enquire into the matter. 
 
 On one occasion the water works of the town was 
 nigh being stopped under a similar pretence. It 
 so happened that the power which conveyed the 
 water was also employed in connection with 
 some private works ; and, while the committee 
 gave an order to have the power employed for 
 the use of the water-works, they forbade it with 
 reference to the private interest connected with 
 it. In other cases, a license was granted to get 
 coals enough to supply the engine which kept 
 the coal-pits free from water. I believe, I need 
 not detail all the instances of this kind which 
 occurred ; hut you will find, that there is quite 
 
12 
 
 evidence enough to satisfy you that a committee 
 sat, and that one or two of the defendants were 
 members of that committee ; and that they were 
 granting licenses, permitting persons to carry 
 on, to a certain extent, the labour which other- 
 wise they would not be permitted to do. Gen- 
 tlemen, this is a proof of the extraordinary 
 extent and intelligence with which this matter 
 was carried on, and the numbers that were en- 
 gaged in this species of strange violation of the 
 law, at the same time that it appeared to have for 
 its object, to a certain extent, the interest of so- 
 ciety. Gentlemen, there can be no doubt, that, if 
 any attempt of this sort was to be again made, it 
 perhaps could not be made with more respect for 
 property and for life than what it generally did 
 obtain, even where violence was used. I should, 
 gentlemen, bear willing testimony to the for- 
 bearance and moderation that frequently ap- 
 peared, even in the midst of the lawless acts 
 that were committed. The boldest defiance of 
 the law was accompanied by a respect for life 
 and property to which I bear willing testimony. 
 I feel rejoiced that I live in a country where, if 
 excesses of this description occur, they are tem- 
 pered by the forbearance and moderation which 
 shines conspicuously even amidst the violation of 
 law which I have mentioned. Gentlemen, in 
 addressing you, I have been under a sense of the 
 extreme importance of the duty I have to dis- 
 charge, and which you will by-and-bye, have to 
 discharge. In making this statement to you 
 and in bringing forward the evidence, and you 
 dealing with it as gentlemen upon your oaths, 
 there sitting, sworn to do justice, I have, I hope, 
 not less from temper and feeling than from a 
 discreet discharge of my duty, abstained from 
 using one solitary expression of harshness. 1 
 desire to give no chai'acter to these offences be- 
 yond that which the law does, and has done ; 
 I desire not to raise your feelings, from any 
 sense of danger, that you will not do justice. I 
 invoke you as dispassionately as it is possible 
 under these circumstance to do, calmly and 
 boldly, but firmly, to assist in the administra- 
 tion of the law. Gentlemen, to you will be 
 ultimately committed the question of the guilt 
 or innocence of the parties who will be respec- 
 tively called on. It is possible, that as to some, 
 there may be that weakness of evidence, or that 
 absence of violent spirit, which may induce you 
 favourably to consider the case of some individuals. 
 In that favourable consideration I shall cordially 
 go along with you, whether it be to exclude 
 
 from your verdict of guilty or to find them 
 guilty, or to recommend them to the favourable 
 consideration of the Court above. Gentlemen, 
 with these observations, endeavouring as much 
 as possible to abstain from any topic that may 
 disturb you in the calmest exercise of your func> 
 tions, and in the most faithful discharge of your 
 duty, as well to the defendants as to the public, 
 on whose behalf it is professed this prosecution 
 is brought before you, I leave the case for the 
 present in your hands. Dismiss every recollec- 
 tion you have of any party, attend to the evi- 
 dence, do justice, and deliver your verdict ac- 
 cordingly. ^ 
 
 The JUDGE : — With respect to what has 
 been said by the Attorney-general in reference 
 to Scholefield, I wish to know, are there any 
 others against whom he will not proceed ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Perhaps your lordship will 
 allow him to be acquitted. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not think it right to ac- 
 quit him till the whole case is gone through. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — My learned friend the Attor- 
 ney-general offered it. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — I think we had better let the 
 whole case be gone through. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! wiU give 
 you a nolle prosequi, 
 
 George Johnson, one of the defendants, in- 
 formed the Court that he understood Mr. Mur- 
 phy had undertaken to defend him, but he 
 (Johnson) would rather defend himself. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY My Lord, I am to defend 
 him. 
 
 Geo. JOHNSON : — My Lord, I have not fur- 
 nished the learned gentleman with a brief, and 
 I will give you the reasons which have induced 
 me to defend myself. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Give no reasons. Are you to 
 defend yourself or to be defended by Counsel ? 
 
 JOHNSON : — I will defend myself. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — I have a roving commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Mr. FEARGUS O’CONNOR applied to have 
 all the witnesses on both sides ordered out of 
 Court. 
 
 The JUDGE complied, and an order to that 
 effect was immediately given. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL asked permis- 
 sion for two reporters, who were to be examined 
 from their notes, to remain in Court. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I shall not order out of Court 
 either witnesses to character, or witnesses who 
 are to give testimony of a formal nature, such 
 
13 
 
 as proving notices. &c. The order applies only 
 to witnesses who are to speak to the facts of the 
 case. 
 
 Mr. FEARGUS O’CONNOR No, my Lord, 
 not witnesses to character, or to facts of im- 
 portance. I do not wish you to order out of 
 Court such witnesses. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — There are two reporters 
 to the public Newspapers here, my Lord, Mr. 
 Hanly and Mr. Grant, who are to speak to what 
 they have in their notes, and it is not necessary 
 that the order should extend to them. 
 
 Mr. F. O’CONNOR : — I cannot take upon me 
 to speak as to reporters who speak to material 
 facts. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL They are to 
 give evidence as to what took place on other | 
 occasions. 
 
 The JUDGE : — They will produce a written 
 paper ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL They will 
 speak to facts from written documents. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then I shall not order them 
 out of Court, that is in substance, producing a 
 written document. 
 
 Joseph Haigh was then called and examined 
 by the Hon. Stuart Wortley. 
 
 You live at Ashton-Under-Lyne ? I do, sir. 
 Were you living there in July last Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Are you sworn ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — What business do you fol- 
 low ? I am a milk-man. Do you remember in the 
 course of that month any meetings taking place 
 in Ashton? Yes. Were you present at any 
 meeting which took place in July last ? Yes. 
 Where was that meeting held ? On a piece of 
 waste ground, near Thacker’s foundry. It is a 
 piece of waste ground pear Thacker’s foundry, 
 and sometimes called Thacker’s ground ? I be- 
 lieve so. What time of the day was it that you 
 wei’e at that meeting ? It was in the evening, 
 from half-past eight to a little after nine o’clock. 
 Can you give us any idea of what number of 
 persons were assembled ? Well, I should fancy 
 there were from 3000 to 4000, or perhaps moi'e, ' 
 present. A large meeting, was it ? A very large 
 meeting, sir. Were you there when they first 
 assembled, or did you go afterwards ? Afterwards. 
 You found them assembled ? Y"es, sir. Was 
 there any chairman ? There was, sir. Who was 
 he ? Wm. Woodroffe. 
 
 The JUDGE Woodroflfe ? : 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — He is one of the defend- | 
 Ants, my Lord. (To witness) Had you known him 
 before? Yes. Where was he placed, or how 
 did you know him to be chairman ? I know him 1 
 
 to be the chairman by his introducing the speakers 
 to the meeting. Was he elevated on any thing ? 
 He was. What was it ? I cannot say whether 
 it was a cart or a waggon. What business does 
 Woodroffe follow? He is a shoemaker. You 
 say he introduced the speakers to the meeting — • 
 who was the first speaker ? Mr* Aitkin. 
 
 Mr.WORTLEY : — That is another defendant, 
 my Lord. (To witness) Had you known him 
 before ? I had, sir. Can you tell us any par of 
 what Aitkin said ? Yes, sir. What do you re- 
 member him saying ? After speaking oh the ( .ar- 
 ter and different things a considerable tin.3, he 
 said, he should advise the cotton lords, particu- 
 larly the Messrs. Reyners, to keep within the 
 precincts of their own palaces, as dark nights 
 were coming on, and the reckoning day was at 
 hand. Had you seen that expression any where 
 that morning? I had not, sir. During the 
 meeting, or during that day, did you see any 
 thing of that kind ? Before that day, sir. Weil, 
 before that day, what had you seen ? A placard 
 on the walls of Ashton. Containing those words ? 
 It was headed that way, or contained some such 
 words. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I suppose it was a placard 
 headed, “Behold, the reckoning day is nigh 1” 
 
 The JUDGE : — What do you mean by placard i 
 
 Witness : — A placard announcing the meeting. 
 Was it near the wall, or placed on the wall ? It 
 was on the wall. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I object to evidence respect- 
 ing that placard because it is not pretended to be 
 brought home to any of the defendants. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is not 
 worth while contending about it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — If it was pasted to the wall I 
 do not know how you can bring it into court 
 without bringing the wall. 
 
 Mr.WORTLEY : — “ The day of reckoning is 
 at hand,” what after that? Witness. I do not 
 particularly recollect any thing further, than that 
 he should advise the Messrs. Reyners to keep at 
 home, as the reckoning day was at hand. Did 
 he explain the “ reckoning day ” in any way ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS “ What did he say more,” 
 Mr. Wortley, if you please ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — And did he say any thing 
 more about the reckoning ? Nothing that I can 
 recollect. Did he speak about any other parties 
 in that way? I cannot say. Were yOu at a 
 meeting on Friday, the 12th of August? Yes. 
 Where was that meeting ? In Charlestown meet- 
 ing-room. 
 
 The JUDGE In Charlestown meeting- room 
 — is that adjoining Ashton ? Witness : — Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 Mr.WORTLEY:— Can you speak to any other 
 
14 
 
 P&TSOH who took part in the meeting ? I cannot, i of any other person who was at that meeting, and 
 But dkl you see any other person who took part ! is a defendant here ? I saw nobody else who is 
 
 here. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You left the meeting at half- 
 past nine o’clock ? Witness I did, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. W ORTLEY”: — Were you at a meeting on 
 the 14th of August ? 1 was. That was a Sun- 
 day ? It was. Where was the meeting held ? 
 On Thacker’s ground. At what time ? It would 
 be a little after nine o’clock when I got there. 
 In the morning ? It was, sir. Was there a cart 
 or waggon for the chairman? There was, sir. 
 Who was in the chair ? A person of the name of 
 
 m the proceedings ? Yes, but I do not know 
 'sirlm they were. Now, you say there was a meet- 
 itjg on the 12th of August in the Charlestown 
 chapel ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that a chapel or a meeting- 
 room ? Witness : — I do not know, my Lord, 
 trhich. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — At what time of the day 
 was that meeting held ? At nine o’clock in the 
 morning. How was that meeting called ? By 
 the bellman, sir. Who was in the chair at that 
 
 meeting? John Alexander Stuart. Were you 1 
 
 there to see v*’ho moved his taking the chair? 
 I was. Who moved that he should take the 
 chair? Woodrofie asked him privately, to him- 
 scif, if he would take the chair. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The same Woodroffe who 
 W3ii present at the other meeting? Witness : — 
 Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. BAINES: — Were you near him? Y’'es. 
 And did you hear him ? I did. 
 
 WORTLEY" : — How many persons were 
 pre:ient in that meeting-house ? From 60 to 80, 
 as licai' as I could fancy. Did the number in- 
 crease during the meeting ? I cannot say it did 
 during the time I stayed. Did you hear Woocl- 
 roJTe taking any part in the proceedings besides 
 what you have already noticed? I did. What 
 dhl you hear him say ? That he had a resolution 
 to propose, to the effect, that it would facilitate 
 the advance of the wages of operatives, if all ; 
 labcmr should cease till that advance were ob- ' 
 tained. j 
 
 The JUDGE : — That was the effect of the 
 resolution ? Yvitness: — Y'es, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. W’^ORTLEY" : — Did Stuart say anything 
 npou that ? He said something on taking the 
 chair. What did he say ? He hoped no- 
 thing would be brought forward that would be 
 injurious, or that would bring either him or the 
 jn*eefjag within the pale of the law, but that, as he 
 tetd taken the chair, he would put such resolutions 
 sEs the meeting thought proper. What did Wood- 
 roffe do. He advocated the principle of the 
 vesolsitloD proposed. Where was he? On a 
 •waggon. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Did Woodroffe propose that 
 resolution? Witness : — Yes. 
 
 My. "WORTLEY': — Was he elevated on a plat- 
 fonu? Yes. In some kind of a pulpit? He 
 was ia an elevated position. Can you remember 
 anything he said— anything particular? I left 
 the place about half-past nine o’clock. W’^as any- 
 tfciiig said as to who called the meeting ? Wood- 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he a machanic ? Witness : — 
 No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY': — How was the meeting be- 
 gun ? I do not know. O ! it was begun before 
 you got there, was it ? It was, sir. Was there 
 any singing ? There was one hymn sung. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A hymn ? Witness : — One or 
 two verses, my Lord. Of a hymn ? Yes, my 
 Lord. What was the hymn ? 
 
 Mr. DUND AS : — There was no defendant pre- 
 sent, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. W'ORTLEY'" : — Was Challenger there? 
 W’itness. Y'es. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Alexander Challenger ? Y'es, 
 ray Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY:— W’’as any other defendant 
 there? Yes. Who was he? George Johnson. 
 Who gave out the hymn? George Johnson. 
 Do you remember the nature of the hymn? I 
 recollect the first verse. What was it ? 
 
 “ A charge to keep I have ; 
 
 A God to glorify ; 
 
 A never dying soul to save. 
 
 And fit it for the sky.” 
 
 After that hymn what did Johnson do ? He ad- 
 dressed the meeting, and gave them a religious 
 exhortation. No'W while this was going on, did 
 the chairman take any part in the meeting ? No, 
 sir ; afterwards he did. After Johnson had done? 
 After he had done, other persons came and gave 
 exhortations. Then what did the chairman say ? 
 He said he had received a communication — he 
 knew not from whom, but be would read it to 
 the meeting. Did he read it aloud ? He did. 
 Do you remember what it was ? It was to the 
 effect, that the committee had come to the deter- 
 mination that labour should not be resumed till 
 the Charter became the law of the land. Was 
 that the first thing that was said about the Char- 
 ter or labour ? That was the first I heard. Was 
 there any thing further ? There was nothing 
 particular. At the time that announcement was 
 
 laoffe fiaid he had been one of the persons calling made a great consternation took place in the 
 llui meeting. Very well ; are you able to speak } meeting ; there was some confusion as if the 
 
people were dissatisfied. Were Johnson and 
 Challenger present when the chairman read that 
 out ? They were. Challenger was at the hinder 
 part of the chair, and Johnson was in front— a 
 little to his (the chairman’s) right; both were in 
 the waggon. Is there a street called Stamford 
 Street in Ashton ? There is. Were you in Stam- 
 ford Street on the 13th of August ? Yes. 
 
 The JUD.GE What Street ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Stamford Street, my Lord. 
 (To witness) What time ? 
 
 At nine o’clock in the morning. What did you 
 see on going up the street on your way to the 
 townhall, at that time ? I was a special constable 
 then, I had been sworn in on the 12th of August. 
 Well, what did you see in Stamford Street ? I 
 saw a procession go up the street. 
 
 The JUDGE : — While acting as special con- 
 stable ? Witness : — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Describe the nature of 
 the procession ? In passing up the street on the 
 
 right-hand side, my attention was Describe 
 
 the procession at once ; we have a great deal to 
 do and cannot hear unnecessary details. What 
 did the pi’ocession consist of? Of men, women, 
 and boys. How were they arranged ? Four or 
 five men abreast in front, and a lot of women and 
 boys followed. Were there any other men be- 
 sides those -jnmediately in front ? Yes, sir. The 
 largest of the men were in front ; afterwards, the 
 wom.en ; and the boys in the order of size. Did 
 you know any of the four or five persons in front ? 
 I did. Who was that? Mr. Woodi*ofie. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He w'as not in front ? ' 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY He was, my Lord. (To 
 witness) What nnm])er was there altogether ? 
 
 About 60 or 80 of men, women, and boys. 
 Were there any others there that you know to be 
 defendants ? No. Did you hear any thing said 
 by any of them as they passed? Y’es. What 
 was that? “ Fall in, fall in,” Which way did 
 they go ? Towards Stalybridge. How far did 
 you follow’ them ? As far as the Globe Inn, about 
 200 yards. How far is that out of Ashton ? It 
 is in the town ; it joins the north side of the 
 churchyard, in Stamford Street. Where W’ere 
 you when you first saw them ? ’ I was below the 
 district bank when I first saw them. Were you 
 near them ? I was within a few yards of them. 
 They left you, did they ? Yes, sir. And went 
 on towards Stalybridge ? They did, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — How far is Stalybridge fur- 
 ther to the east ? Witness : — It is about a mile 
 and a half east of Ashton, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY You go through Ashton 
 in going from Manchester to Stalybridge. If 
 your Lordship would look at that [handing the 
 judge a map of the locality] you would see the 
 
 relative position of the places. How far Is Duck- 
 infield from Ashton ? Duckinfield is close to 
 Ashton; the river divides them. And Hyde? 
 Hyde is three or four miles from Ashton. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I may keep this map I sup- 
 pose ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — You may, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I suppose it is sulRciently ac- 
 curate for our purpose. Stalybridge, I perceive 
 by this, is nearly east from Ashton ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY: — I cannot say, my Lord. 
 (To witness) Ashton, Duckinfield, Hyde, Staly- 
 bridge, and Mottram, are all near to each other? 
 
 Yes, w’ithin four or five miles of each other ; 
 and Glossop is a little further to the east. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Now, Mr. Dundas, you ap- 
 pear for Brooke ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I appear for Brooke, my 
 Lord. (Cross examines the witness). And there 
 you lost sight of the women and the boys ? Yes. 
 Pray w’hat took you to the meeting on the 26tli 
 of July? Having seen a placard on the walls, 
 sir. Was W^'m. Aitkin a working man of any 
 kind? A schoolmaster, I have been given to 
 understand. Woodroffe was a shoemaker ? Y"es, 
 sir. You took notes, I dare say, of what passed 
 at that meeting ? I did not, sir. Y^ou have a 
 very good memory ? Tolerably, sir. Y^ou vrere 
 a special constable, I think you told us, on the 
 12th of August ? I was, sir. Did you go to 
 a meeting after being sworn in as special con- 
 stable ? I went before. Did you go on your 
 own accord, or were you sent by any person ? I 
 v/ent on my own accord, sir. Is the bellman, 
 the bellman of the town ? Yes, Sir. Do any 
 magistrates live in the town? They do, su'. 
 How many magistrates live in Ashton ? Three 
 or four, sir. Were they living at home at that 
 time ? I do not know. Have you any doubt 
 about it ? Witness : — On the 12th, sir ? 
 
 Mr. AVORTLEY Yes. They were at the 
 Town Hall about 12 o’clock. What are you 
 “fumbling” for? This is my summons to 
 appear at the Town Hall on the 12th of August. 
 Had the bellman gone round before you received 
 your summons ? He had. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The summons to go and be 
 sworn in as a special constable ? Witness ; — Y^es, 
 my Lord. I received my summons a little be- 
 fore the bellman went round. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Now go on to the Sunday 
 before that, the 14th of August, when you say 
 there was another meeting. What was Alexander 
 Challenger ? A factory operative, I believe. 
 What is George Johnson? I believe he is a 
 hatter. Is he a working hatter, or a master 
 hatter, having people under him, and he selling 
 his own hats ? I do not know, but I have 
 
16 
 
 seen Hm in the shop at work. You say the 
 chairman gave exhortations, were they religious 
 exhortations ? I did not say that the chairman 
 gave exhortations. 
 
 The JUDGE No. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — ^WeU, other persons did — 
 were they religious exhortations ? Witness : — 
 Yes, sir. How many people were at that meet- 
 ing ? Several thousands. There were several 
 thousands on Sunday in the chapel ? I did not 
 mention the chapel ; I am speaking of the meet- 
 ing on Thacker’s ground. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought it was the meeting 
 in the Chapel. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS So did I, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — No, at the meeting on 
 Thacker’s ground there were singing and exhorta- 
 tion, and Hilton was in the chair. Witness : — 
 You will find me correct. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Now, after the chairman 
 read out what you stated, you said there was 
 great dissatisfaction ? There was. How was 
 that expressed ? By divisions of opinion, mur- 
 murs, and confusion. Divisions and murmurs 
 Yes. The people were put into a sort of moving 
 condition ; instead of sitting calm as before, they 
 became agitated. And how long did it last ? I 
 cannot tell — 1 came away while it was on the 
 way. While what was on the way ? The dis- 
 satisfaction that appeared to seize the meeting. 
 While it was “ agate,” I suppose ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — While the dissatisfaction was 
 going on you came away ? Witness : — Yes, my 
 Lord ; I said — 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Never mind what you said. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Mr. Baines, do you appear for 
 Scholefield ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Mr. Murphy, whom do you 
 appear for } 
 
 Mr. MURPHY ; — Johnson having repudiated 
 me, I appear only for Railton and Durham. 
 
 Mr. M‘OUBREY : — My Lord, I appear for 
 James Mooney, John Thornton, and William 
 Aitkin. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — I appear for Stephenson 
 and Fenton. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I will now take them in the 
 order in which they are in the indictment. Mr. 
 O’Connor, do you ask this witness any questions ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — No, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then I wish to know if any 
 of the other defendants wish to ask any ques- 
 tions ? 
 
 George JOHNSON : — I wish to ask one, my 
 
 Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE Bj all means. 
 
 George JOHNSON »— I want to know whe- 
 ther the meeting to which he refers as having 
 been held on the 14th of August, did not com- 
 mence by prayer ? 
 
 The JUDGE ; — He says, in substance, that 
 he cannot tell how it began, because it began 
 before he got there. The first thing he heard 
 there was the hymn. 
 
 George JOHNSON : — Did not you swear be- 
 fore the Magistrates that there was no prayer at 
 that meeting ? Witness ; — I am not aware. 1 
 wish to ask you, and I hope you will tell the 
 truth, did not you swear positively before the 
 Magistrates that there was no prayer at that 
 meeting.^ I am not aware that it was men- 
 tioned ; I can say something if you ask me 
 about the charter, Mr. Johnson. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do not make a speech but 
 answer the question. 
 
 JOHNSON : — I want the truth' In my ex- 
 amination before the Magistrates did not you 
 swear that there was no prayer either at the 
 beginning or the end of that meeting ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says he does not remem- 
 ber if there was any prayer ; but there was a 
 hymn sung and some religious exhortations 
 given. Are there any other defendants who 
 wish to ask this witness any questions ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR r—No. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT MURPHY :--My Lord, I 
 appear on behalf of Peter Murray M‘DoualI. 
 He is not here, but will abide the judgment of 
 the Court whatever it may be. 
 
 Henry Brierly (examined by Sir GREGORY 
 LEWIN). Where do you live? At Stalyi 
 bridge. What is your occupation ? A factory 
 operative. On the 29th of July were you at a 
 meeting ? Yes. Where was that meeting held ? 
 On a plot of ground called the Haigh, near Staly- 
 bridge, on the Manchester road. Do you know 
 in what manner that meeting was called together ? 
 I am not aware how it Was caUed together. At 
 what time did you go to this meeting ? It was 
 near 8 o’clock. In the morning or evening? 
 In the evening. What sort of a meeting was it ? 
 It was a large public meeting. Have you any 
 notion of the number of people there were there ? 
 No. Hundreds, or thousands, or tens? WeU, 
 there might be some hundreds there. Was there 
 any chairman ? Yes. Vv’ho was that? James 
 Fenton, of Ashton. Were you there when he 
 was called to the chair? Yes..* When he was 
 called to the chair was any difficulty raised ? No, 
 he was unanimously chosen. WeU, when he took 
 the chair, was any thing particular said ? No ; 
 
17 
 
 nothing particular. Well, after he had taken the 
 ehair, what was done ? There was a resolution 
 moved. Who moved it ? Well, I rather think 
 his name is Challenger. Did you know Chal- 
 lenger before ? No. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Did you know him by sight } 
 Witness : — No ; I never saw him before. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN What leads you 
 to say his name was Challenger ? He was called 
 eo by the chairman. What was the nature of that 
 resolution ? That the present reduction of wages 
 was injurious, not only to the manufacturers and 
 labourers, but also to the shopkeepers and to all 
 classes of the community. Was that motion put 
 from the chair ? Yes. Was it carried or not? 
 It was carried unanimously. Were there at that 
 time any other persons there you knew that you 
 can speak to now ? Yes, there was a man there 
 from Ashton, named Pilling. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he in the indictment ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWTN : — ^Yes, my Lord, he 
 is. I will tell you, my Lord, when any name is 
 mentioned that is not in the indictment. 
 
 (To the witness). Who else was there ? A 
 man named Brophy was there. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN He is not in the 
 indictment, my Lord. 
 
 • Mr. GREGORY:— He is. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN 0 then he goes by 
 two names. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He is spelled Brossley here. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN I understand it 
 should be spelled Brophy, my Lord. (To the 
 Witness) Who else was there ? 
 
 Wm. Stephenson. Do you know a man named 
 Storah ? No, but he was there. How do you 
 know ? He was called upon to speak. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You cannot make that 
 evidence, a person named Storah was there is all 
 you prove. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN That is all, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE Then it is the same as a person 
 named Challenger ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN That is all my 
 Lord. (To the Witness) Well, what was done 
 after that ? 
 
 Another resolution was moved by Pilling. 
 What was the nature of that resolution ? It 
 went to say, that the reduction which was 
 made was injurious. It was something similar 
 to the first — it wanted a fair day s wages for a 
 fair day’s work. Was that resolution put from 
 the chair? Yes. Was it carried ? Yes. Was 
 that the whole of the resolution, or was there any 
 thing more ? They were of opinion that a fair 
 day’s wages could not be obtained without the 
 
 B 
 
 Charter being made- the law of the land. That is 
 as near what was said as I can think. Do you 
 know who seconded that resolution ? I do not 
 know, but I think his name was Milligan, or 
 something like that. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN His name is not 
 in the indictment, my Lord. 
 
 (To the witness). Was that resolution put 
 from the chair and carried ? Y^'es. Was there 
 any opposition ? No. After this second reso- 
 lution was carried, what was the next thing that 
 occurred ? There was a third resolution. Who 
 moved it ? I rather think that Brophy moved it. 
 Did you know him before ? I never knew him 
 till he came to the town delivering teetotal lec- 
 tures. But you knew him when he moved the 
 resolution ? Yes. Who seconded it ? Storah. 
 Is that the same person who moved the other 
 resolution? Yes. What was the nature of it? 
 To draw up a memorial to Sir Robert Peek for 
 10,000 stand of arms to be raised. For 
 what purpose ? To protect the lives and pro- 
 perty of the working classes against those who 
 refused to pay the property-tax. Were any par- 
 ticular persons mentioned as refusing to pay the 
 property-tax ? No. Was it at the meeting at 
 the Haigh these resolutions were moved ? Yes , 
 they were all moved at one time. Well, after the 
 third resolution was carried, what was the next 
 thing that occurred? The meeting broke up 
 then. In what manner did they break up ? 
 Peaceably. Before they broke up was there any- 
 thing said from the chair ? No, nothing particu- 
 lar. Was any notice given of breaking it up ? 
 No. Was an adjournment moved ? No, not at 
 that meeting. O yes, there was an adjournment at 
 that meeting. Where did they adjourn to ? They 
 adjourned to Hyde. Who moved the adjourn- 
 ment ? I cajmot say. Well, then, they adjourn- 
 ed to Hyde? Yes, sir. At what time were they 
 to meet ? Well, I rather think it was on Satur- 
 day or Monday. Did the meeting take place at 
 Hyde? Yes. Were you present ? No, I was 
 not. Did another meeting take place ? Yes, and 
 it was adjourned to Duckintield, and was held 
 either on the 2nd or 3rd of August. Were you 
 present? Yes. In the morning or evening ? In 
 the evening. What number of persons did you 
 find there ? A good number. Give us some notion 
 of it ? Well, I think there was above a thousand. 
 Where did they meet ? In the Hall Green. Was 
 any chairman appointed ? A chairman had been 
 already appointed. When you got there what 
 did you see done ? They were moving a second 
 resolution. Who moved it? Storah. Was that 
 the same man you saw at the other meeting ? 
 Yes. Who seconded it? I cannot say; they 
 were up in a high room talking from a window. 
 
 Mr DUNDAS : — He has not got any persca 
 there. 
 
18 
 
 Sir GREGOUY LEWIN (To the witness): 
 * — ^The mover of the resolution was called Storah? 
 Yes. And the same person was named Storah, 
 and called upon to speak at a former meet- 
 ing? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — How do you know that it 
 is this Storah, (the defendant) ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN He was called by 
 that name at a previous meeting. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, it 
 may be at once necessary to take your lordships 
 opinion on this distinct point. Now, I will as- 
 sume that the Storah, who spoke at the meeting, 
 is not the person called in the indictment by 
 that name; but then I say that the person 
 named Storah, (not the defendant), was present 
 at a former meeting where some of the defend- 
 ants w'ere also present. The Storah at that 
 meeting goes to another meeting, and what takes 
 place at this meeting and various other meetings 
 it is quite evident are connected. The indictment 
 charges that all the defendants conspired with 
 divers others, and this meeting, we are now 
 speaking of, is an adjournment of a former 
 meeting where some of the defendants were 
 present. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is not proved. They 
 adjourned from Hyde, and he w'as not at Hyde. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. — I wish to 
 take your lordships opinion upon this point. If 
 some of the persons present at a former meet- 
 ing are proved to be at this, then evidence ot 
 the general character of the meeting, and what 
 was going on, may be admitted. In Hunt’s case 
 I am told it was expressly held so. 
 
 The JUDGE : — In a case of this kind where 
 you cannot prove exact coincidences it is so. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I understand the Attorney- 
 general to dwell much upon this point that 
 Storah is the person in the indictment. No per- 
 son is spoken of but a person of the name of 
 Storah, and who that person is, he (the witness) 
 knows not, except that a person was so named 
 by the chairman. He does not kno^Y who were 
 at the other meeting. Ail we have in evidence 
 is, that there was a meeting at which this per- 
 son, Storah, was present ; but who the others are 
 we do not know, nor have we Storah indenti- 
 fled as one of the defendants. They must prove 
 that Storah and some person at a former meet- 
 ing are defendants, but it will not do 1;o prove 
 that at this third meeting there were persons 
 proved to be present at a former meeting. 
 
 The JUDGE I think it will. If it had 
 been proved that 50 of the people at the former 
 
 meeting were at this meeting, then no doubt it 
 would connect both in their objects. Well, by 
 proving only one to be present you are only 
 reducing it. It is only pulling out the horse’s 
 tail hair by hair — one by one. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN There is an end 
 of your point. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS (To the witness) : — What was 
 Piiling doing? He was delivering a lecture. 
 I Was there any other defendant there ? Challen- 
 ger was there. Any other besides Challenger ? 
 
 I I think Woolfenden was there, but I am not cer- 
 tain. You said the resolution was moved by 
 Stephenson? Yes. What was the nature and 
 character of that resolution ? It was the same 
 as that moved at a former meeting. Which of 
 the three ? The middle one. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the second resolution 
 that was moved at the other meeting. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — A fair day’s wages for a fair 
 day’s work, and something about the Charter. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN (To the witness) 
 
 Say it over again. The resoluMon was, that 
 they were of opinion that it was injurious not 
 only to man and master, but also to all classes of 
 the community. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That the reduction of wages 
 was injurious ? 
 
 Y'es, my Lord, and that they would cease 
 working until they had a fair day’s wages for 
 a fair day’s work ; and they were of opinion 
 that this could not be obtained except the Char- 
 ter became the law of the land. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— You say that 
 Pilling was delivering a lecture ? Yes. Was 
 the resolution put from the Chair and carried ? 
 Yes. Y^ou heard a part of Pilling’s lecture ? 
 Y^es. Just tell us as well as you can remember 
 v/hat he lectured about. He lectured about the 
 state of the country. Do you remember what he 
 said ? He said things were very bad, and that if 
 was hard to get a living. He also exhorted them 
 to be peaceable and quiet, and to keep good order. 
 Did you hear Challenger say any thing? No, 
 nothing particular. Did you hear Storah say 
 anything ? No ; they were lecturing to the 
 effect of the resolutions. Which resolution ? 
 The one I have just now repeated. Did you hear 
 what any of them said ? No ; only to keep peace, 
 law, and order. How long did the meeting 
 last ? Till half-past nine, when a collection was 
 made to defray the expence of posting some 
 bills to call another meeting. Who proposed 
 that the collection should be made ? It was pro- 
 posed fromawindow. Where was the other meeting 
 to be held? AtWaterhead Mill, near Oldham. 
 Did the meeting adjourn ? Yes. Where did they 
 
10 
 
 adjourn to ? To Droylsden. When was the 
 meeting to take place at Droysden ? On the fol- 
 lowing day. I believe you did not attend that 
 meeting ? No, 1 believe not. When did you 
 next hear or see any thing of the nature you are 
 speaking of.’ On Friday, the 5th of August, I 
 was at home, and heard a shout of the pro- 
 cession of Bayley’s hands then on the road. 
 Did you see them ? No, 1 heard them. Did 
 you go out to see them ? I did, and saw them 
 walking in a procession. Where was this ? At 
 Stalybridge. Some hundreds of them were 
 coming from Bayley’s mills. Where are Bayley’s 
 mills They are within a mile of Stalybridge, 
 on the Duckinfield side. Did you join them ? 
 Yes. Where did they goto? They went on a 
 plot of ground at Melton Green, near Cheetham's 
 factory. When they got there did they stop ? 
 Yes. Was there a meeting held ? No, there 
 was not. What d'd they do then ? The women 
 and a good many men sat down so that Cheet- 
 ham’s hands could see them stop. Where did 
 they go to from there ? To the Haigh. When 
 they got there did they choose a chairman ? Yes. 
 Who was the person chosen? James Fenton- 
 How many persons were there at this meeting ? 
 A large number. Whom did you see besides ? 
 James Fenton, Thomas Mahon. Any body else ? 
 John Durham. Do you know a man of the 
 name of Stephenson ? Yes ; he was there. 
 These four, Stephenson, Fenton, Durham, and 
 Mahon, were there ? A'es. What is Stephen- 
 son’s ChristiA name ? William. Who were 
 the speakers this meeting ? These were the 
 four principal speakers. Did you hear any thing 
 in particular that any of them said ? No, nothing ; 
 only they exhorted the people to stick out till 
 they had a fair day’s wages, for a fair day’s work, j 
 Do you know if any of these four persons you j 
 mentioned were of Bayley’s work-people ? No, | 
 none of them. Were any resolutions moved at 
 this meeting ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — You don’t knov/ that any of 
 them were Bailey’s hands ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN (To the Witness) 
 You called them Bailey's hands, did you not ? 
 Yes, they were Bailey’s hands : all of them. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The pi’ocession people were 
 Bailey’s hands ? Witness : — Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— But the four 
 speakers you mentioned were not part of Bayley’s 
 work-people? No. Well, now, how long did 
 this meeting last? Perhaps it might last an 
 hour. Did they afterwards adjourn ? Yes, till 
 night. Well, at what time did they meet again? 
 Between seven and eight o’clock. Where ? On 
 the Haigh. Durham, Stephenson, and Brophy 
 wer* there. The same four that you saw at the 
 
 j other meeting ? Pilling was not there that 
 night. What was done? They delivered lec- 
 tures. Of what nature ? To keep “peace, law, 
 and order,” and try to obtain the Charter by 
 lawful and legal means,— that is as much as I 
 know about it. At what time did they adjourn ? 
 The meeting broke up about ten o’clock. Where 
 did they adjourn to, and when ? There was to 
 be another meeting in the morning. Ai'.d was 
 there another meeting in the morning? Y"es. 
 What day of the month ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY:— The 6th. ' 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Did they meet the 
 next morning? Witness : — Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE: — At what time? At five 
 o’clock in the morning, which is the factory 
 time, and went in procession through Duckin- 
 field to Hyde, and came back through Newton. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Did they meet 
 again the same evening? Y^es. Where? In 
 the same place. When they returned through 
 Newton I believe they dispersed ? Yes. They 
 had to go for their wages, and they dispersed to 
 draw their w’^ages ? Yes. Then the same evening 
 you say they met again at the same place on the 
 Haigh ? Yes, they met that evening. Where 
 there the same persons there ? Yes. Any body 
 else besides those persons you mentioned? 
 Thei'e was a gentleman from Liverpool, but I do 
 not know the man. Was there a person there 
 named Crossley ? I know him, but I cannot re-^ 
 collect seeing him there. Was there any otner 
 person there ? Yes, a man from Liverpool who 
 came there to give a lecture. What did he say ? 
 Tie said he was sorry to find the country in the 
 state it was in. He advised them to go to 
 their work again. Anything more ? No, he said 
 he thought it was not possible to get the Charter, 
 and that the work-people ought not to come out 
 for it. He gave them a very good lectui’e. Was- 
 that the general opinion? Y’'es, (witness was- 
 leaving the box). 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS and Mr. MURPHY :— Stay, 
 stay ! 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— How was the 
 lecture received ? Witness: — Favourably. Did , 
 any one else speak ? Yes, Brophy. What did 
 he say on the siibject? He exhorted them to 
 turn teetotallers, and keep sober. How many 
 persons were present at this meeting of the even- 
 ing of the 6th of August? About 8000 or 
 10,000. Were any resolutions moved? No. 
 How long did the meeting last ? About two 
 hours and a half. Did you hear any other 
 speeches ? No, only from the Chairman who 
 opened the meeting. Who was the Chairman ? 
 Fenton. Was there any other meeting? Yes, 
 they were to go to a camp-meeting. Where was 
 
20 
 
 it held ? It was held on Sunday the 7th of Au- 
 gust, at Wedensough Green, usually called Mot- 
 tram Moor. At that meeting how many persons 
 were present? Several thousands. Who was the 
 chairman ? I don’t know his name, but he was 
 the bellman of Hyde. That was on Sunday 
 morning? Yes. About what time ? The church 
 bells were ringing just as they (the meeting) were 
 about to sing a hymn. Did any body address 
 the meeting? Yes. Who was that? I don’t 
 know the name of all the persons who spoke. 
 Tell me one of them. WiUiam Stephenson 
 spoke. What did he say ? Something about the 
 principles of the people’s Charter. I believe there 
 was a hymn sung. In the afternoon a text was 
 taken from Isaiah. Was there any resolution 
 moved ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — You said something about 
 Isaiah. Witness : — A text was taken from the 
 10th of Isaiah. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Were any reso- 
 lutions moved ? None. Either in the morning 
 or afternoon ? No, I did not hear any. Did 
 you stay till the end of the meeting ? No, I 
 came off just as it was going to close. I was 
 told afterwards that it was adjourned. We went 
 to the Haigh back again in the zifternoon. Did 
 any thing take place there ? No, there was no 
 meeting ; they only broke up there. Where was 
 the next meeting held ? In a preaching-room, 
 called the Cave of the Adullamites, at the back 
 of the Moulder’s Arms, in Vaudrey Street, Staly- 
 bridge. 
 
 The JUDGE : — On Sunday evening ? Yes. 
 At what time ? About seven o’clock. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN How many per- 
 sons were there ? About forty or fifty. Who 
 was there that you knew? William Stephenson 
 and Thomas Mahon. Any body else that you 
 knew ? No. What was done ? There was no 
 lecturing. Was there any speaking ? No, ex- 
 cept one to another. What was the general sub- 
 ject of conversation ? Well, a man said, Mr. 
 William Bayley wanted to see the committee. 
 The working men had formed a committee to go 
 and meet the masters. 
 
 The JUDGE : — How do you know that ? 
 They do so in general when there is a ‘turnout.’ 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN ; — Were you present 
 when they were formed ? I was present when 
 one of the committee said he was one of the com- 
 mittee. Was Mahon present then? Yes, he was. 
 Well then, a person came in you say, and said 
 that Mr. William Bayley wished to see some of 
 the members of the committee ? Yes. What 
 took place then ? Some of them thought it ad- 
 visable to go, and others not. How came it to 
 be so determined that they would not go ? Ma- 
 bon said there was little use in going tothem. 
 
 I Did be say anything more to them ? Well, not 
 ' to my knowledge. Did he give any reasons for 
 saying there was little use in going to them? 
 No ; he said they had come out for the Charter, 
 and they would stick to it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS:— Who said that? Thomas 
 Mahon. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — He is not one of 
 Bayley’s hands ? Witness No, he is a shoe- 
 maker. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — On Mahon’s 
 saying that, was there any show of hands taken ? 
 No. Well, what was done on his saying that they 
 would not go ? — ^You say the meeting was broken 
 up — was it adjourned? Yes; they were to go 
 on to the Haigh again, in the morning at five 
 o’clock. Were you at that meeting again on the 
 following morning ? Yes. Who was there that 
 you knew? The same persons that addressed 
 the meeting in the morning. Who was in the 
 chair ? Fenton was in the chair. Brophy, 
 Stephenson, Mahon and Durham were present. 
 Was Crossley there ? I cannot recollect him. 
 Now, who addressed the meeting ? Brophy. 
 To what effect did he address the meeting ? That 
 they might get the hands out from work. Tell, 
 as nearly as you can, the words that he used. 
 He stated that they must get them out by legal 
 means if possible, or stop them as they were 
 going to their work ; that is chiefly what he said. 
 Did any other person speak besides Brophy ? 
 Yes, several of them spoke. Do you know 
 their names? Yes, Durham. — ^Yhat did he 
 say ? He said they would hav^a procession 
 through Duckinfield and Ashton. For what 
 purpose ? To let them see that they were 
 out. Did any others that you knew say any 
 thing ? No. Any of those that you have 
 named ? — Stephenson — Did he say any thing ? 
 No. Or Mahon ? — No ; — only that he was going 
 through Ashton to have a procession. Did 
 Mahon and Stephenson say so? Yes; after 
 breakfast they were going through Ashton, and 
 to have a procession. Did they do so ? Yes, the 
 body of the people then divided in several lots, 
 and fetched out all the hands of all the mills in 
 the town. Did you go with one of the parties ? 
 No, I went down to Caroline Street, to a house 
 there. When they had turned out the hands, 
 did they return to the Haigh? Yes. Did you 
 return there too ? Yes. Was there a chairman 
 appointed ? No. Did any one address the meet- 
 ing? Yes, Durham said, “Form in procession, 
 and put Bayley’s hands out first, as they came 
 out first, and go in a procession through Ashton. 
 Can you tell me the order in which they went ? 
 He told them to go peaceably. No ! no ! — 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Yes, I will have this ; he 
 ordered them to go peaceably. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :—I am not asking 
 
21 
 
 you that, but tell me the order in which they 
 went. They had colours and banners ; and Dur- 
 ham, Stephenson, Mahon, Brophy, and several 
 others that 1 do not know, were in the procession. 
 Was Crossley there ? I saw him there as they 
 were going down Duckinfield brow, but he did 
 not set off with them. Who was he talking to ? 
 He was talking to Brophy. W ere they together ? 
 They were walking alongside of each other. 
 Where did they go to ? They went in procession 
 down Caroline-street and up Duckinfield brow 
 to Hindley's mill. Were they linked arm-in- 
 arm ? Yes, the procession was linked, four deep. 
 Had they any sticks ? No. Banners ? Only 
 two or three colours. When they got to Hind- 
 ley’s mill what did they do there ? When the 
 hands heard the procession coming they stopped 
 the engine, and ‘ turned out’ before the procession 
 arrived. Was there any mob collected ? No. 
 Was the procession of which you speak the first 
 people that got up to the mill, or did any pro- 
 cession get up to the mill before hand ? A num- 
 ber of little boys and stragglers went to^ the mill 
 before the procession reached it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You say that no mob was col- 
 lected, and some other question was asked which 
 I did not hear. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN: — I asked him 
 whether the procession was the first that got up 
 to the mill, or whether anybody preceded it? 
 and he said little boys went there before the pro- 
 cession. 
 
 WITNESS : — Yes, they are oft ready in run- 
 ning first ; but the hands were out before either 
 the boys or the procession got there : when the 
 procession was going up the brow. By the hands 
 you mean Hindley’s workmen? Yes. Is that 
 the only mill they stopped at ? No ; they went 
 through Ashton, and all the mills stopped that 
 day. Now, I am speaking of the procession ; 
 did the procession stop at some of the mills ? 
 At some of them. 1 believe you left them in 
 Ashton ? I did. Did you join them again during 
 that day ? I went to Hyde. What time did you 
 get there ? About half-past four o’clock. When 
 you got there, was there a meeting there ? Yes. 
 What did you see done when you got there ? 
 They were fetching them out from the factories 
 on Newton moor. Who were doing so ; any of 
 them that came from Stalybridge ? None of the 
 men that came from Stalybridge was there. 
 Were there any of the persons there who attended 
 the morning meeting ? Yes, Stephenson. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — I beg your pardon — You say 
 there were none of the people there who were at 
 Stalybridge. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Yes, my Lord. 
 This was the meeting at Hyde, which meeting 
 
 I was held at half-past four o’clock. (To Witness) 
 Who were there ? Durham, Stephenson and Leach 
 of Hyde. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — His name is John 
 Leach, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that so ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Yes, my Lord. 
 Your Lordship may take that. (To Witness) 
 Was Crossley there ? 
 
 No ; Crossley was not there. Was Candelet ? 
 No ; I don’t know any of them except those that 
 belong to our own neighbourhood. Pilling ? 
 No. Brophy? Brophy was not there. Did 
 anybody address the meeting ? Leach was ad- 
 dressing the meeting when I got up to it. What 
 was he saying ? He told them it would be more 
 proper for them to stand out for the wage than 
 the Charter question. Did he give any reason 
 why ? Y'es ; he said it was impossible for them 
 to get the Charter at present. Was there any- 
 thing more ? There was no more, only he gave 
 them a lecture to that effect. W-’hat did Thomas 
 Mahon say? He said “ the Stalybridge people 
 must meet on the Haigh in the morning ; and 
 the Ashton people must meet near Thacker’s 
 foundry.” And have a procession, and go to 
 Manchester ? Yes ; but they must take no 
 sticks with them. Was that agreed to ? Yes. 
 What is Leach of Hyde ? I rather think he is a 
 tailor. V/as there a meeting the next morning ? 
 Yes. Were you present ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What day was this ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN It would be the 
 9th of August. (To Witness) Were -you at the 
 Haigh ? 
 
 Yes. Who was there ? The same men. Was 
 Challenger there ? No. Storah ? No. Was 
 Fenton there ? Yes ; he gave them a lecture. 
 Who was in the chair ? Fenton was chiefly 
 chairman. Was Durham there ? Yes. Ste- 
 phenson ? Yes. Brophy ? No. Crossley ? I 
 cannot recollect him. You say a lecture was 
 given by Fenton ? Y^es. Of what nature ? He 
 was exhorting them to keep “peace, law, and 
 •order” in the procession to Manchester. He told 
 them to go peaceably, and keep good order. 
 How long did this meeting last ? It did not last 
 long. They formed a procession, I suppose, after 
 they had had their breakfast, but I w^as not 
 there. When you left them it was understood 
 that they were to form a procession to go to 
 Manchester? Y^'es. Did you go to Ashton ? No. 
 W'ere you at Ashton that day, or at Thacker’s 
 foundry ? No. Did you see Pilling that day ? 
 No. Or Challenger ? No. W^hat was the next 
 thing you saw ? W^hat — after that meeting broke 
 up ? 
 
22 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Yes. There was 
 a meeting at the Haigh that morning. 
 
 The JUDGE: — What time was that? Five 
 o’clock. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN: — Who were 
 there? Fenton, Stephenson, Durham, and 
 Mahon. ^Vho else ? None else that I know. 
 How many persons might there be present? Not 
 many ; they were to go to Glossop that day. 
 How long did that meeting last ? About an hour 
 and a half, perhaps. Was Crossley there ? No, 
 
 I did not see him. Who were the principal j 
 speakers ? Fenton and Durham. What did [ 
 they speak about ? They were to go in peace- j 
 able, good order to Glossop, and see how the 
 Glossop people were coming on. Did they say 
 what they meant by “ how the Glossop people j 
 were coming on ? ” No ; I don’t know what ! 
 they meant by it. Did you go to Glossop with 
 them ? No. You saw them the next morning 
 (the 11th) on the Ilaigli? Yes; they were 
 falling out that morning. What were they falling 
 out about ? Between the wage question and the 
 Charter. Who was in the chair ? Fenton, I 
 think : he was giving them a lecture on the wage 
 question : he said it w^as more proper to contend 
 for one thing at once. Who took the opposite 
 side? Durham was also in favour of the wage 
 question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Fenton said one thing at a time 
 was enough ? Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Well, what did 
 the others say ? They said they might as well 
 contend for the Charter. Who were the others ? 
 Stephenson and Mahon. Did Crossley say any- 
 thing ? No ; he was not there to my knowledge. 
 Do you mean that he was not there on the morn- 
 ing of the 11th? No; not to my knowledge. 
 Where did you see Crossley that day ? I saw 
 them going to take a walk to “ Bill’s O’ Jacks — ” 
 Where did yon see Crossley ? I saw Crossley 
 that morning with the procession, going towards 
 Greenfield. How did the falling out between 
 the Charter and the w^age question end ? They 
 were to have a meeting in Hyde on the question, 
 and they were to be ruled by the majority. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That w'as said at the meeting 
 on the Haigh in the morning ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Well, was there 
 a meeting at Hyde? Yes, there was a meeting 
 in Hyde, but I was not there. You know nothing 
 about it ? They met every morning at five o’clock 
 at the Haigh. Then what did you meet for every 
 morning ? They told them that they must go to 
 their work on that plot of ground. " What work 
 were they to go to ? Well, to their spinning and 
 weaving, for anything I know. They made it a 
 regular phrase among themselves that they wer« 
 
 going to their work. Did you hear any other 
 speakers ? No, I cannot recollect. Well, what 
 did they meet for ? You say you attended these 
 meetings every morning at five o’clock— what 
 did they meet for on the Haigh ? To keep them 
 combined together. 
 
 The JUDGE : — ‘The people said they were 
 going to their work ? Yes, they always said in 
 the morning they were going to their work, and 
 then they went to the Haigh ; they always met 
 peaceably and quietly. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— I ask you what 
 they met for ? To have lectures. Well, what 
 was the nature of the lectures on the morning of 
 the 12th ? On the wage question — “ a fair day’s 
 wages for a fair day’s work.” Was there any- 
 thing said about mills or factories ? No. Well 
 now^, on the 13th they arrived at Stalybridge from 
 Glossop ? Yes. You saw the procession after it 
 arrived ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — At Stalybridge ? Witness : — 
 Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— When the pro- 
 cession came, who w’as with it ? I did not know 
 any of them. Was it joined by any body at 
 Stalybridge ?. There was a public meeting there ; 
 Durham, Stephenson, Mahon, and Fenton were 
 present. Crossley and Dawson ? Nay ; I did 
 not say Crossley. Who was in the chair ? A 
 man from Ashton. What was his name ? I did 
 not hear him proposed. Do you know a man 
 named Wilde ? I rather think that was his name. 
 I heard them call out — “ Pull him dowm out of 
 the chair.”' Do you know a person named 
 Aitkin? Y"es, he was there; Millington was 
 there; Leach, of Hyde, was there; Johnson, 
 from Ashton, was there. They had liked to 
 have thrown Wilde and Johnson out of the cart, 
 and Fenton too. Was Lees there ? No. Do you 
 know General Lees ? No. Who were the 
 speakers? Wilde opened the meeting for the 
 wage question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You mean in favour of the 
 wage question ? Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Well, what did 
 they say they would do ? They were talking of 
 sending delegates to the manufacturing districts, 
 to ascertain which of the masters were giving 
 most and least wages, and to draw a list up be- 
 tv.reen both so as that the hands could go to their 
 work. Something in the happy medium, I sup- 
 pose ? Yes. What were they to do in the mean- 
 time? They were to hold their meetings as 
 usual, and keep “peace, law, and order.” And 
 what were the operatives to do ? — ^W ere they to 
 go to work in the meantime ? They could not 
 go to w'ork for the masters had shut up their 
 mill-doors for a month. When was it their inas» 
 
23 
 
 ters agreed to shut up the mill-doors ? After they 
 had turned out, the masters agreed not to let them 
 in again for a month. Was there another meet- 
 ing on that same day (the 13th), or only one meet- 
 ing ? Only one. Was there a great many persons 
 present? Yes, in Glossop. Hov/ many thou- 
 sands ? There might be 10,000 or 12,000. Was 
 any resolution moved ? Somebody moved a reso- 
 lution to the effect that we should have the 
 Charter. Who moved that ? I don’t know : I 
 could not get up near enough to hear. Well, as 
 near as you can recollect ? I did not hear it. I 
 heard a resolution at the time they were pulling 
 Wilde and Pilling out of the chair. Was any- 
 thing said about the hands — what they were to 
 do? No, only that they were to keep “peace, 
 law, and order,” and be peaceable and quiet, 
 until the Charter was obtained ? No. There : 
 was a resolution passed that they were to stick i 
 out for the Charter, but it was forced on them 
 by the Glossop people, who came every one of ; 
 them armed with bludgeons and great sticks. | 
 
 The JUDGE : — This resolution about having 
 the Charter was forced on them b\ persons from ! 
 Glossop, who came armed with sticks and bind- I 
 geons ? Yes. j 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — Was there , 
 another meeting on Sunday forenoon ? Yes. i 
 Was there any question then raised ? No ; there j 
 were very few people there. Well, but there j 
 may be questions raised by a few people, as well ' 
 as by a great many? It was a camp-meeting, j 
 Who was there ? I saw Wm. Stephenson there. I 
 He was the only person there that I knew. | 
 What did they do ? They sang and prayed. ! 
 Was there anything about the Charter ? No, | 
 nothing in the forenoon. Well, was there in the 
 afternoon ? Well, I left Woolfenden beginning a : 
 a lecture. You say there wms something about i 
 the Charter ? It was a camp meeting. That was 
 in the morning ? Yes, and in the afternoon too. 
 Well, was there anything about the Charter in 
 the afternoon ? Well, I told you that I left 
 Woolfenden beginning a lecture in the afternoon. 
 What was that lecture about? Woolfenden was 
 taking a text, but I left and went to church. 
 Did you hear the Charter mentioned that even- j 
 ing ? Yes. By whom ? By Woolfenden and j 
 Stephenson, hut not in connection with the wage i 
 question, or with the hands. Well, what did he i 
 say about the Charter ? He said he hoped the i 
 people Avopld obtain the Charter. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Who said that? Woolfenden, 
 my Lord : but he thought it would be sometime 
 before it would be obtained. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— When did you 
 next attend ? In the evening. Where was the 
 meeting in the evening ? In the same place. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then you went to church, 
 and bad another meeting in the evening } 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWiN:— Did you know any 
 body at that meeting ? Yes. Was Durham'there ? 
 No. Yfas Mahon there ? He came before the meet- 
 ing vras over. Was Woolfenden there ? No. Who 
 j else was there ? A gentleman from Manchester. 
 ' Had he but one arm ? Yes. What did he lecturo 
 upon? He said he was very sorry the people ia 
 that part of the country were out of work. It hurt 
 his feelings to think they had come out for the 
 I Charter, for he thought they could not obtain it. 
 Did any body else speak about the Charter at that 
 j meeting ? Yes, they lectured about it. Who lec- 
 I tured about it ? Another man did, but I don’t 
 I know who he is. Were the speeches you heeird 
 , in favour of or against the Charter ? They were 
 both against it and for it. Now, on the morning 
 of tlte 15th, was there another meeting? Yes. 
 Where was that meeting ? In the same place. 
 Who attended that meeting ? I do not know- 
 Was Fenton there? Yes. Stephenson? Yes. 
 
 Mahon ? Yes. Durham ? . Was Crossley 
 
 there ? I cannot recollect him. How long have 
 you known Crossley ? Well, the first time I knew 
 him, he was chairman at an Anti-corn-law Meet- 
 ing. How long ago was that ? Sometime, per- 
 haps in May or June, when Falvey was giving a 
 lecture Now, at this meeting of the 15th, was 
 Aitkin present ? Yes. Did a discussion take 
 place ? Yes. What about ? Between the Charter 
 and the wage question. Who spoke ? There 
 were several speakers that had not been there be- 
 fore. Who spoke in favour of the Charter ? 
 Mahon and Stephenson. What did they say? 
 They said they might as well contend for both as 
 one. Did they give any advice ? No, it was ruled 
 by a majoiity of the people. But what did they 
 say ? They said they would go on with the majo- 
 rity of the people. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did the meeting say that, or 
 was it Mahon and Stephenson that said so ? 
 Mahon and Stephenson. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Did they say any 
 thing about wages? Yes; they said they must 
 have “ a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work.’' 
 Did they say anything more ? No. Did they say 
 anything about what the operatives were to do ? 
 To keep “peace, law, and order,” attend their 
 meetings, and injure no person. You know the 
 Chartist Association room ? Yes. Was there a 
 meeting there ? There was one called. Were you 
 present? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE :■ — On that same day ^ Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— NowteU me what 
 took place there ? A piece was read out of the 
 Northern Star, about appointing delegates to go 
 to the conference in Manchester. 
 
24 
 
 The JUDGE He says something was read 
 from a newspaper. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I take your 
 Lordship’s objection. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Who was there ? 
 Mahon was there, but there was no chairman 
 there. Well, I do not ask you that. Was Ste- 
 phenson there ? No. Fenton ? No. Crossley ? 
 No. Aitkin? No. Pilling? No. Mahon is the 
 only one I can name. He read something from a 
 newspaper ; and he was to go to Manchester as a 
 delegate. Was he elected to go ? There was not 
 a meeting to elect him ; they were to have another 
 meeting before he vrent. What was that other 
 meeting for ? To elect him. You mean that that 
 was suggested at this meeting, and that he was 
 the person to be elected to go ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He was the person they ap- 
 proved of, and another meeting w'as to be held 
 to elect him ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant MURPHY : 
 — Pray sir, what are you by occupation ? I am a 
 carder in a cotton factory. Were you acting as 
 one of the turn-outs on that occasion ? No. Have 
 you ever had experience of a turn-out before in a 
 cotton factory ? Y’es. Had that turn-out extended 
 to more thaii one factory ? YYs, to several ; they 
 were all stopped for eleven or twelve weeks. How 
 long previous to this period was it ? Twelve years, 
 on the 4th of December. May I ask you whether, 
 on the occasion of that turn-out, there was any 
 mention among the public of a Charter being ob- 
 tained at that time ? No ; no mention w'hatever. 
 Now, was there not, on that occasion, a general 
 committee appointed among the working classes, 
 to direct the movement of the turn-out ? Y'es. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :~Twelve years 
 ago. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY . — Yes, twelve years ago. 
 
 The JUDGE : — To direct the movement of 
 the people’s “ turn-out ?” 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Yes, my Lord. (To Wit- 
 ness) — Was not one of the objects of that com- 
 mittee to treat with the masters, and adjust 
 the wages between them and? the operatives ? 
 
 Witness: — Yes. Did that “ turn-out” confine 
 itself to the factories in the neighbourhood of one 
 particular town, or did it extend and ramify itself 
 over the whole of Lancashire generally ? There 
 were then fifty-tvvo masters obliged to stop their 
 mills, because the masters would not let them 
 work in consequence of the turn-out. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Because we would not let 
 them work ? The masters would not let them 
 w'ork. 
 
 Mr. M URPHY” : — The masters would not let 
 them return to their work in consequence of the 
 
 turn-out. (To the witness)— I understood you to 
 mean that twelve years ago a similar resolution 
 had been come to on the part of the masters ? 
 Yes. Now are you aware whether, on the occa- 
 sion of that previous turn-out, delegates were sent 
 to the various factories, and from one district to 
 another, to watch the proceedings of the turn-out ? 
 Yes, there were delegates appointed for such a 
 purpose on that occasion. Do you recollect any 
 processions at that time ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — I do not 
 know in what way my learned friend wfishes to 
 connect what occurred twelve years ago with 
 the present case. I suppose he does not mean 
 to justify it. A mere passing allusion to explain 
 how it affects the evidence is all I require. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought as the cross- 
 examination was going on, that the object of 
 it was to show that the fact of delegates having 
 been appointed, twelve years ago, to go from one 
 factory to another to ascertain what were the 
 proceedings of the different turn-outs, would not 
 per se be criminal. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — My Lord, my object i« 
 clear — it is perfectly obvious. The Attorney- 
 General suggests that all this turn-out is con- 
 nected with the Charter, and some vast conspi- 
 racy for the promotion of Chartist principles 
 throughout the country. I want to show that 
 when no Charter was spoken of similar conduct 
 took place. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not think that is strictly 
 admissible. A procession is either legal or 
 illegal ; if legal, we do not want to justify it by 
 a reference to similar things done before; if 
 illegal, then to show that similar things were 
 done on a former occasion would not justify it. 
 I thought, however, it would be evidence aa 
 tending to show what is the meaning of appoint- 
 ing delegates. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — They appointed delegates 
 to go and enquire what masters were pajung the 
 highest and lowest prices, and to strike a me- 
 dium. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Confining: it 
 to that object it might notjbe illegal. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY (To Witness) :— You in- 
 stanced one place where a few little boys were 
 before a procession ? Y’es. Now, is it not always 
 the way that the hands employed in factories 
 turn-out voluntarily as a procession comes up ? 
 That is the practice. At all the meetings you 
 attended, where mention was made of a fair day 's 
 wages for a fair day’s work, was not “peace, law, 
 and order inculcated ?” Yes, on all occasions. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — I hope the order will be 
 
25 
 
 repeated to desire all witnesses to go out of 
 Court, except those who have been examined. 
 
 (Orders to that effect were then given.) 
 
 (Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON) : — 
 In August last were not wages very low in Ash- 
 ton, Stalybridge, &c. ? Yes. Is it not also a 
 fact, that a great deal of dissatisfaction and grumb- 
 ling took place among the shopkeepers on that 
 account ? Yes. So that both the work-people 
 and shopkeepers were dissatisfied on that account ? 
 Yes ; and a great many could not get half meat 
 enough. Many persons were out of work, and 
 many in it were very poorly paid ? Yes. That 
 was notoriously the case in all those places. Yes. 
 Is it not also a fact that wages, for some consider- 
 able time previous, had been greatly declining and 
 getting lower and lower ? Yes, for the last six- 
 teen or seventeen years. General distress was 
 prevailing ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE: — For sixteen or seventeen 
 years ? Yes, ever since the year 1826. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON Now, on the occasion of 
 any of the meetings of which you have spoken, 
 did you ever witness any interference on the pai’t 
 of the shopkeepers, or any attempt on their part 
 to prevent those meetings, or to dissuade the 
 people from holding them ? No. The shop- 
 keepers had meetings themselves, and said they 
 would support them, and thus enable them to keep 
 out till their wages were raised. During all this 
 time none of the shopkeepers, or other classes of 
 workmen, interfered to dissuade the people from 
 holding these meetings I don’t understand that 
 word. No persons, shopkeepersj or others came 
 to those meetings to tell the work-people to give 
 
 them up. They were not interfered with ? 
 
 No, not to the best of my knowledge. You say 
 no attempt was made to interfere with them ? No. 
 (Cross-examined by IMr. Me Oubrey) : — Pray, 
 sir, what are you ? A carder. (Cross-examined 
 by Mr. Feargus O’Connor) : — I think in the 
 commencement of your examination you spok« 
 of “wakes” ? Yes. Are those times in which 
 strangers come from all parts of the country to 
 take part in the amusements ? 
 
 The JUDGE The “wakes?” I do not re- 
 collect his mentioning it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — He did, my Lord, in the 
 commencement. These are annual feasts, and 
 strangers come from all parts of the country to 
 where the wakes are held. Witness : — Yes. 
 
 The first gathering you spoke of as of any im- 
 portance was on the 5th of August ? Yes. You 
 then spoke of the “turn-outs” at Bayley’s mills 
 sitting opposite Cheetham’s mills — Bayley’s men 
 leading the van ; now are you aware, or have you 
 understood that all the hands in Bayley’s mills 
 received notice to leave their work ? Were they 
 
 under notice if they did not consent to a reduc* 
 tion of 25 per cent, on their wages ? Yes. If 
 they did not consent to a reduction then they 
 were to give over? Yes. Then you « spoke of 
 several gatherings of Bayley’s men-* being in ad- 
 vance of the processions, and taking part in the 
 turn-out ? Yes, they were always the first. 
 Now, I understood you to say, that when a pro- 
 position was made for them to return to their 
 work, that they said there was no use in doing 
 so, because the masters said they (the hands) 
 should remain out for a month ? Yes. Did you, 
 or did you not hear that Bayley’s hands com- 
 plained that their masters told them to play for 
 a month ? — Did you, or did you not hear that ? 
 Yes* 
 
 This, my Lord, I put, because Sir Gregory 
 Lewin seemed to think, from what the witness 
 said, that it was the men themselves that refused 
 to go back. 
 
 • The JUDGE : — (To the vdtness) Was that 
 the way you put it ? Yes, my Lord, they (the 
 mill-hands) said there was no use in going 
 back, because the mill-doors were locked. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, you brought 
 your narrative down from the first meeting of 
 the 5th of August to the meeting of the 15th, 
 when Mahon was nominated as a delegate ? Yes. 
 Do you remember any meetings after the 15th ? 
 Yes, O yes, they kept meeting, and they opened 
 the chapel doors for them. Wlio opened the 
 ciiapel doors for them ? Well, some of the 
 leaders of the chapels. The owners of the 
 (?hapels ? Yes. Did they open those chapels 
 because they commisserated them, as they were 
 out of work ? Yes. Because they felt for them ? 
 Yes. They were not Chartists who opened the 
 chapels ? No. What chapels were opened for 
 them ? The “ New Connexion” chapel was 
 one. Now, you have spoken of meetings of shop- 
 keepers to assist — 
 
 The JUDGE -.—The new xoliat ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY :— The “ New ConnQxion”— 
 the new Methodist Connexion, my Lord. Yvit- 
 ness : — Yes, to be sure. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You spoke of meetings 
 of shopkeepers to assist the working men wl-.ile 
 they were out ? Yes. Did you at any of those 
 meetings hear complaints made of the masters 
 for turning them out ? I was not at the shop- 
 keepers’ meetings ; they had them in the Town 
 Hall. Did you hear generally— was it a rumour, 
 or merely expressed in conversation, that the 
 masters had turned the men out, and that the 
 men were much commisserated on that account ? 
 Yes. Now, having attended all tliosc meetings 
 
 from place to place but how long did they 
 
 meet last ’ From Saturday evening to Tliursdav 
 
26 
 
 morning. Now, did you see at all these meet» 
 angs one breach of the peace ? No. 
 
 The JUDGE When did the “ wakes” be- 
 gin ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — They began on Saturday 
 and ended on Thursday, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What Saturday? Witness: — 
 the Saturday before St. James’s day. Was it in 
 August? No; it was before August. How 
 much before August were these wakes ? A week 
 before : from Saturday to Thursday. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — St. James’s day was on 
 the 25th of July. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Did not Bayley’s hands 
 go up in a body to request to be admitted to 
 work ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL :— Were you 
 there when they did so ? No ; but many of 
 Bayley’s hands live near me. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — It is a thing as well 
 known as any other fact you have sworn to ? 
 Yes^ 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did you see them going? I 
 did. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — You say that in oiie of 
 the speeches the chairman desired them to be 
 peaceable, and that Brophy desired them to be 
 teetotallers? Yes. And on that suggestion you 
 saw them all peaceable ? Yes. No opposition, 
 and not one breach of the peace ? No. When 
 did the men begin to return to their work ? I 
 think Piatt’s men were about a month out : they 
 returned on a Friday, the latter end of August. 
 Can you remember the day of the month ? No. 
 Did they begin to return generally, or progres- 
 sively, and by degrees, till things came to the 
 present state ? Some of them would not open 
 the doors till the month was out. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Some of the masters ? Yes. 
 Mr. OICONNOR: — Were the men ready to 
 go back? Yes, they were. Wliat day was 
 Mahon nominated as a delegate ? On Sunday, 
 the 15th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The 15th of August vras 
 Monday. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — About the 25th of Au- 
 gust, the whole question about wages and the 
 Charter was given up ? Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — How many mills or factories did you 
 see turned out ? A procession went through 
 Ashton. Were you at Bayley’s ? Bayley’s were 
 out. Were you at Cheetham’s? The Cheet- 
 ham’s did not open their doors till Monday 
 morning. Did any procession go there? Yes, 
 on the Friday, to the back- side of the New-mili, 
 but not to turn them out. Did you go to Lees’s ? 
 We did not. How far were you from Lees’s ? 
 
 I was on the bridge when Lees’s hands were 
 
 fetched out. I observe, you say “ fetched out,” 
 
 what do you mean by “fetched out ?” Turned 
 out— coming out. Did you see anything of that 
 transaction at all ? No ; I did not. Were you 
 at as many as four or' five mills ? O ! there were 
 four or five mills there altogether. Were you 
 there ? I was on the bridge. When were you 
 at Lees’s ?— Did you see them turned out ? They 
 came out themselves. Did you see them ? I 
 was not at Lees’s ; I was on the river-bridge. 
 I was informed how the door was broken. Did 
 you see it ? No ; I did not go so far. You said 
 no breach of the peace ? No, I did i\ot, for my 
 part. Were you present when any mob or pro- 
 cession got to three or four mills ? I was in the 
 sti’eet. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR ; — He has spoken generally 
 to that fact, that all the mills in Ashton stopped 
 on that day. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— How many 
 are there ? Great numbers. 25 or 30 ? I dare 
 say there are. Did you see in any instance what 
 took place when the people came out of the mill ? 
 They joined the procession. Did you see how it 
 was that they joined the procession ? — whether 
 they came out of their own accord, or were turned 
 out ? They came out of their own accord gene- 
 rally. But did you see any instances where they 
 did not come out of their own accord ? No, I did 
 not. 
 
 Wm. Clayton, constable of Hyde, examined by 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Are you constable of Hyde? 
 Yes. Were you present at a plot of ground near 
 the Sportsman’s Inn, on the first of August last? 
 
 I was. How many persons were there ? About 
 2000 persons were assembled there. Do you 
 know any person who acted as chairman at that 
 meeting? Yes, -George Candelet. Was there a 
 platform ? There was a cart which served as a 
 hustings. Was the meeting addressed by several 
 persons ? It was. Will you mention some of 
 the persons who addressed the meeting ? George 
 Candelet, John Leach, and Robert WUde. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is Wilde one of the de- 
 fendants ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — No, my Lord, his name 
 is mentioned in connnexion with other proceed- 
 ings. (To witness) Who else was there ? 
 
 Wm. Muirhouse. There was an Irishman 
 there whose name I don’t know. Was there a 
 resolution put by Candelet ? Yes. What was it ? 
 That, if there was another reduction of wages 
 offered by their masters, would they (the hands) 
 one and all turn out ? Was that resolution car- 
 ried at that meeting ? It was ; there was a cry of 
 “Yes!” “Yes!” Did Candelet, the chair- 
 man, announce that the resolution was carried at 
 the meeting ? He did. He proposed a show of 
 
27 
 
 Ban ds to that effect. When informed that it was 
 carried did Candelet say anything ? Their was a 
 general shew of hands. Did Candelet address 
 the meeting ? He did. What did he say ? He 
 said, “ I hope you, men of Hyde, will be true to 
 one another, and then we will soon have our 
 rights : that will be the Charter and nothing but 
 the Charter,” The other speakers then followed 
 turn ; and, after announcing that a meeting 
 would take place the follov,nng Sunday morn- 
 ing, at Wedensough Green (Mottram Moor), at 
 nine o’clock, the meeting broke up. Do you re- 
 member Monday, the 8th of August ? Mr. 
 Little, special high-constable, attended a meeting 
 on that day. Do you remember any procession 
 coming to town on that day ? Yes, Did a pro- 
 cession enter the town of Hyde on that vlay ? I 
 saw a procession enter the town. From what 
 direction did they come ? From towards Newton. 
 What might be their numbers, speaking roughly.^ 
 
 in their hands ? Some few of them had sticks. 
 What did that procession proceed to do ? I did 
 not take any notice of them. Was there a sus- 
 pension of labour at Hyde from Monday the 8th 
 of August for some time.^ Yes, sir; there was. 
 Was there a meeting in the market-place of Hyde 
 for some time ? I do not know. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Can you say for how long 
 from the 8th of August ? No. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD Do you remember the 
 meeting on Thursday, the 11th of August ? No, I 
 don’t. You do not know any thing of that meet- 
 ing ? No. Nor of Thursday, the 11th of August ? 
 No. Do you remember any meeting where John 
 Crossley acted as chairman ? No. On Friday, 
 the 12th of August, can you, to your knowledge, 
 speak of any meeting taking place in the market- 
 place? There was a meeting, but the particulars 
 of it I do not know. On Wednesday, the 17th of 
 August, did any meeting or meetings take place 
 within your knowledge ? I believe there was. Are 
 you able to speak to the particulars ? I believe I 
 am not, sir. On the 18th of August, are you able 
 to speak to any meeting ? I am not. Are you 
 able to speak to any meeting after that — to any 
 other meeting ? I am not, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is there any defendant who 
 wishes to ask this witness any questions ? No 
 answer. 
 
 Joseph Little, examined bv Mr. POLLOCK : 
 —What are you? Special high- constable of I 
 Hyde, Were you acting as special high-con- 
 stable in last August ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — As special what ? Witness : — 
 
 I am special high-constable, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Special high-constable ! 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS' — It is a new office, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD There has been a new 
 act for that, my Lord. (To the witness) Did 
 you attend a meeting in August last ? 
 
 Yes ; I attended a meeting on the 7th of Au- 
 gust, on Wedensough Green, commonly called 
 Mottram Moor. I wrote notes of what occurred, 
 whicn (notes) I took immediately after the meet- 
 ing. If the Court will allow me, I will produce 
 them, 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS How soon after the meet- 
 ing was over ? The same day, in the afternoon; 
 perhaps an hour after the meeting. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did you on every occasion 
 make your notes as soon as you could after the 
 meeting? Vv’itness : — Yes, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — As soon as you could ? Yes, 
 ray Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — Well, how long after the 
 meeting did you raake your notes ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — You may save yourself the 
 trouble of asking him any more questions on that 
 point. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — Well, look to your notes, 
 and say how many people were at this meeting ? 
 Witness : — The meeting took place in the morn- 
 ing about half- past ten o’clock. There were about 
 400 people present. W'ere any of the defendants 
 present ? George Candelet was there. Who was 
 acting as chairman ? William Muirhouse. Were 
 any speeches made? There were. Who spoke? 
 Muirhouse spoke. What did he say ? In the 
 morning he said, “ ISIy friends and fellow- work- 
 men, — I am appointed chairman to this meeting, 
 and must inform you that we are not met here 
 for a wage question, or for a religious question.’' 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Is that what you said you 
 took down immediately after ? Witness : — It 
 is. I thought you said it was in a book ? This 
 is what I took down in a public-house imme- 
 diately afterwards. Have you anything in your 
 book that you took down before that ? Moor- 
 house’s speech, which I took down in the book 
 on the 7th of August. Did you take it down 
 on that piece of paper in your hand, — and not 
 into the book first ? I took it down on this paper 
 — this is the first I have had in writing about it, 
 (Witness proceeds with the speech of Muir- 
 house) — “It is for a national question; but I 
 will not intrude on your time, as you will be ad- 
 dressed by ray brother Chartists from Staly- 
 bridge, Ashton, Hyde, and other places, who are 
 more able to address you than 1. They will 
 explain that we, as Chartists, are met here for a 
 national question. Y"ou will be addressed by”— 
 and then he turned round to the cart and called 
 upon some man, who was a stranger, my Lord, 
 and I did not know him. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did that other man speak ? 
 He commenced speaking, and I came away. 
 
28 
 
 "Was that all you heard at that me^Jng ? It was 
 all I took notes of at that meeting. You have 
 already mentioned Candelet — do you know any 
 one else who was there ? No. Were you in the 
 afternoon at another meeting, somewhere else ? 
 I was. At what time of day was it ? It took 
 place about two o’clock in the afternoon. How 
 many people were there ? There was a much 
 larger number than what v/as at the other meet- 
 ing— about 700 or 800. "Vv'ho was in the chair ? 
 William Muirhouse. Who else was at the meet- 
 ing? Robert Wilde, John Leach, and George 
 Candelet. I was told the names of others but 
 I could not swear to them. Who spoke ? Muir- 
 house spoke. WTiat did he say ? At the close of 
 the meeting, in the afternoon, he said, “ You 
 people have been told the evils that we labour 
 under, and I am requested also to tell you that 
 to-morrow a meeting will take place at Staly- 
 bridge, at five o’clock in the morning, when we 
 will proceed from factory to factory, and all hands 
 that win not willingly come out we will turn them 
 out. And, friends, when we are out, we will re- 
 main out, until the Charter, which is the only 
 guarantee you have for your wages, become the 
 law of the land. I hope to meet you aU to-mor- 
 row morning at Stalybridge; when we will join 
 hand-in-hand at this great national turn-out.” 
 Who else spoke ? George Candelet. \Miat did 
 he say ? I don’t think I have notes of it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS:— When did you make that 
 note ? The same day, when I went home. Was 
 it put into that book originally ? Yes ; I keep a 
 leger daily, for years, and it was put in there. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — I believe it is your duty to 
 make a report of every thing that happens, in 
 order that you may lay it before the magistrates ? 
 Yes. WTiat did Leach say ? He began by point- 
 ing towards me, and said there is one of the 
 government men, who is like the black -coated 
 gentleman who attends yon place. (He then 
 pointed to a church near Wedensough Green). 
 Built for a good purpose, but now filled by 
 thieves and rogues of the cotton fraternity ; but 
 •we would all be parsons and blue-bottles, if we 
 were all paid by government, as they are, 80/. 
 a year — 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK What do you understand 
 by blue-bottles? It is a name they give the 
 Manchester police. —Witness proceeds — a nice 
 sum for a man working one day out of seven — 
 and a man looking after us honest, poor, indus- 
 trious labourers ; but let me tell you, that the 
 church is an open heU, filled by the cotton lords, 
 ■who are a set of thieves and rogues ; and good 
 honest people they’ll not allow to enter. But, 
 friends, let us be true one to another ; there’s 
 property in this plentiful country Efficient 
 for us all. If you have not the common neces- 
 
 saries of life, take them ; and, who can stand 
 against you? None. The prisons are full : in the 
 prisons they don’t want you. The police are in 
 no fault. I wish you all to be quiet. You must 
 not damage property or persons ; but above all 
 keep out of public-houses. To-morrow there 
 will be a general turn-out in both the coxmties 
 of Cheshire and Lancashire ; and the Charter will 
 then be obtained. He wished them to be true to 
 one another, and they would gain their object. 
 Is that the whole of Leach’s speech ? It is all 
 I have taken down. He said more, but I could 
 not retain it in memory. Did any one else 
 speak ? There were many others who addressed 
 the meeting, but I have no more notes. Did 
 Candelet speak ? He did, but I have no notes of 
 what he said. When did the meeting break up ? 
 About five o’clock. Was there anything said 
 about meeting again ? Muirhouse said they would 
 meet again at Stalybridge, the following morning, 
 at five o’clock. When was the next meeting you 
 attended ? The day following, in the market- 
 place at Hyde. Who was present on that occa- 
 sion? John Leach and George Candelet. Any 
 one else ? Wm. Muirhouse, and a man named 
 Stephenson, whom I did not know ; he his a 
 stranger to me. Who was chairman ? I do not 
 remember ; I do not think there was a chairman 
 chosen. Were there any speeches made ? There 
 were. Have you a note of them ? I have not. 
 What was the effect of them ? Recommending 
 the people to remain out, as they were out, till 
 the Charter became the law of the land. Was 
 anything said at that meeting about when they 
 should meet again ? Muirhouse said a meeting 
 should take place at five o’clock the following 
 morning. Mr. O’Connor : — Was this on the 
 eighth ? Yes. You have no notes of what took 
 place at that meeting ? No. 
 
 The JUDGE : — They are speeches gene- 
 rally, recommending the people to remain out 
 till the Charter becomes the law of the laud 
 that is all he has. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — When was the next meet- 
 ing they had ? They dispersed from that meet- 
 ing about eight o’clock the same evening, and 
 went away to their homes peaceably, and aU 
 was very quiet. When was the next meeting 
 you attended ? The following morning. When 
 was that ? On Tuesday, the 9th of August, in 
 the market-place at Hyde. 
 
 The JUDGE : — At what time in the morn- 
 ing ? Five o’clock in the morning, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — ^WTio were present at that 
 meeting ? Muirhouse, the chairman, John 
 Leach, and George Candelet. Any one else 
 
29 
 
 who spoke at that meeting? They, all three, 
 spoke. Have you notes of the speeches ? I have 
 of Leach’s. Leach informed the meeting that 
 they intended to go and join the Ashton people ; 
 they intended to go to Ashton ; and from Ashton 
 they said they would go to the Exchange, in 
 Manchester, where they would meet the cotton 
 lords, and he doubted not but they would have 
 the advance. Of wages ? I understood it to be 
 wages. Anything else ? And never to go to 
 work till they had either the advance or the 
 Charter. Do you remember anything else that 
 was said at that meeting ? I do not, sir. Was 
 there an adjournment made of it ? There was a 
 meeting in the evening, sir. Where was the 
 meeting in the evening? In the market-place 
 at Hyde. I passed at the time the meeting was 
 there, but I was engaged with the Magistrates, 
 and could not attend. Do you remember when 
 a number of people came to Hyde — when Horse- 
 field’s mills were stopped ? I think it was on 
 Tuesday, the 9th. I saw a number of people — 
 some thousands, go towards the mill. "When 
 was this ? It was either on Monday or Tuesday, 
 I won’t swear which. Hov/ many people were 
 there ? Some thousands. Not going in any 
 order ? No. From which direction were they 
 coming ? From Ashton and Stalybridge towards 
 Hyde. It was in Hyde you saw them ? I sav^r 
 them coming from Newton and pass through 
 Hyde-lane, towards Messrs. Horsefield’s mill. 
 Was there any other mill stopped that day ? I 
 am not sure, but the hands were out of all the 
 mills that day. You were not present ? I was 
 not. Was there a meeting held in Hyde that 
 day? I spoke to a meeting which was held here 
 that day. On the 10th of August was there a 
 meeting ? On Wednesday, August the 10th, there 
 was a meeting in the morning. Where was it ? 
 In the market-place at Hyde. Whom did you 
 ’see there ? The same speakers : John Leach, 
 William Muirhouse, and George Candelet. Have 
 you notes of any speeches made at that meet- 
 ing ? I have merely an outline — I have not 
 taken it word for word. Can you give us 
 the substance of what was said ? The speakers 
 desired the people to be quiet, and Muirhouse 
 told them that they were to proceed to 
 Compstall Bridge, Glossop, and to all the 
 mills, and make them turn out. They left 
 the market-place. Leach spoke ; the substance 
 of what he said was to recommend the people to 
 remain out till the Charter became the law of the 
 land. He also advised them to be very quiet 
 
 and not to molest the property of their masters. 
 Was there a meeting on Thursday the 11th, at 
 Hyde ? There was a meeting before that on 
 Wednesday evening. Were you present at that ? 
 I was, sir. Who else was present ? Leach, 
 Candelet, and Mr. Crossley, a draper. Flave you 
 notes of what passed at that meeting ? Yes, 
 Leach got on a waggon, and said, he had attended 
 a meeting of shopkeepers, at the Mechanics’ 
 Institution, and the shopkeepers had come to the 
 resolution, or determination, I dont know which, 
 that they would keep the turn-outs for two 
 weeks. He requested that they would not be led 
 to put any trust in the false shopkeepers. He 
 wished the people of Hyde to be true one to 
 another ; and on Wednesday next, they would be 
 met by Mr. O’Connor, at Manchester, and then 
 they would come to a resolution what to do. 
 He cautioned the people to be honest ; not to 
 take any thing but their own ; not to assault 
 any person, or take any property. Have you any 
 thing more that he said ? No ; Candelet followed 
 in nearly the same strain of language. Were 
 you at the meeting on the following day —Thurs- 
 day, the 1 1th of August ? No, I was not. What 
 state was Hyde in at that time ? It was in a 
 riotous state during that day, and all that week. 
 W’’ere the mills at work that day ? No, sir. 
 Was any party at work ? Labour was com- 
 pletely stopped. Did you see any number of 
 persons leaving Hyde that day ? — Did you sec 
 a large number of persons coming to Hyde that 
 day ? — Was there a very large number of persons 
 in Hyde that day ? Witness : — (After some hesi- 
 tation) yes, they came in in a sort of broken pro- 
 cession, not regular, with clubs and sticks in 
 their hands. Did you see what course they took, 
 or which way they went ? They went towards 
 Stockport. At what time of the day did they 
 leave Hyde ? They left Hyde in the morning, and 
 another party left it in the evening. There 
 were two parties, one in the morning and another 
 in the evening, but that in the morning was the 
 larger. Were you at any meeting on Friday, the 
 12th of August? Yes, in the market-place of 
 Hyde. How many people attended it ? A large 
 number. Who was present at it ? There was a 
 man called Charles Swindell, a fruit-dealer, John 
 Leach, a man called Booth, who, I was informed, 
 came from Newton Heath, Joseph Wardlaw, and 
 George Candelet. Have you notes of the speeches 
 made on that occasion ? I have sir. Will you read 
 them. “ Swindell rose in the waggon, waved his 
 hand, and called ‘ silence.’ Wardlaw said, they 
 
30 
 
 vrere not to come there day by day, talking and 
 speaking ; they wanted to come to the determi- 
 nation how they were to get bread ; and he, for i 
 one, would go to the masters, as he knew they | 
 could not get the Charter at present. He de- 
 manded a show of hands for going to work, but 
 he was hooted and hissed down.” Have you 
 anything more of his ? No. Did any one else 
 speak on that* occasion ? John Leach. What 
 did he say ? He told them that Rayner, that 
 had addressed them last night, had been deputed 
 by the shopkeepers of Ashton to come and try 
 to get them to go to their work ; but he wished 
 them to be quiet and true to one another, and 
 to submit to nothing but the people’s Charter. 
 He then made several remarks about a meeting 
 at Stockport the day before, and said, that he 
 headed the people up when they went to the 
 hastile and took their loaves, and blood wmuld 
 have been shed had he sot prevented it. Also 
 the Mayor of Stockport had shown him a drawer 
 which had been broken open, and 71. stolen ; 
 but he wished them not to do anything of that 
 sort. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — How did he say that ? He 
 said it in a laughing sort of a way; he said, 
 Yesterday, the Mayor of Stockport told me, 
 and hundreds besides, that there was plenty in 
 the store-rooms and mills, and if they would not 
 give it them, take it.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did he say tbs Mayor told 
 them that ? Yes, my Lord, he said the Mayor 
 of Stockport told them so the day previous. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Leach said that the Mayor 
 of Stockport told them to take it, and not that 
 Leach told them to take it ? Yes, my Lord, 
 but he did not wish the people of Hyde to do 
 so. Did the Mayor of Stockport say that, or 
 Leach } Leach, my Lord : he said the Mayor of 
 Stockport told them so ; but Leach told them to 
 do as in the time of King John, when Magna 
 Charta was granted. That was granted in one 
 day. The people went in a large body to the 
 King and demanded it, and it was granted. He 
 (Leach) told them to be true to one another, 
 and the Charter would be the law of the land. 
 Samuel Sidebottom, an auctioneer, of Hyde, also 
 addressed the meeting. He proposed that the 
 people should go to their masters, and ask for 
 the wages of 1840. Who spcke next ? Booth. 
 "What did he say ? He went on with nearly the 
 same strain of language as Leach had done. I 
 did not take it down word for word. Were 
 there any navigators there ? There were many. 
 
 I The JUDGE : — What are navigators ? 
 
 I Mr. POLLOCK: — People employed on the 
 i Manchester and Sheffield railway. (To the wit- 
 I ness) Did Booth say anything to them ? He 
 j said the “ navvies” were in great distress, and 
 they wanted support. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The ‘‘ Navvies !” He meant 
 the navigators were in great distress, I suppose. 
 He sad the “ navi^,” but that is what he 
 meant, my Lord, — “ but they might, if they 
 choose, do as the Mayor of Stockport said.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought you did not know 
 what he said ? This was at the end, ray Lord, 
 when there was a rush of the navigators. “ They 
 might do, if they choose, as the Mayor of Stock- 
 port said — that is, go into the stores and help 
 themselves.” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — That is what the Mayor 
 of Stockport said ? [Handing a paper to the 
 Attorney-General.] Witness : — He (Booth) 
 said, “ as the Mayor of Stockport said.” He 
 (Booth) did not advise so; but when a great 
 man, like the Mayor of Stockport, advised them 
 so, “ then,” said Booth, “ you may please your- 
 selves.” Was there any cry among the people 
 in consequence of that } Some of the excava- 
 tors cried out that they would go to the first 
 shop they met, and help themselves. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The excavators are the same 
 as the navigators ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — They made a rush to- 
 wards a shop } Yes, but one of the excavators 
 told them to stop ; and they did so ; and did 
 not go into the shop. Candelet then began 
 speaking, but I left to go to the magistrates 
 office. Were you at the railway at all that day ? 
 I was. Do you remember any person coming 
 there? Yes. What time of the day? About 
 eleven o’clock in the morning, but previous to 
 that I saw a large body of people passing the 
 magistrates office, coming in a direction towards 
 the railway. Did you follow these people to- 
 wards the railway ? — Did you go after them to 
 the railway ? I went to the Newton Station, and 
 kept a short cut in company with Mr. Howard, 
 one of the county magistrates. What day was 
 that? On Friday, the 12th of August. What 
 happened at the railway ? There was a large 
 number of persons assembled who were con- 
 ducting themselves riotously. Was there any 
 cry among them ? 0 there were different cries 
 of ” Stop them !” I cannot speak to any one 
 who was there. A detachment of the Rifle 
 
31 
 
 Brigade came. Did the people separate ? I left 
 the company of the magistrate. 
 
 Mr. D LINDAS : — My Lord, I do not see that 
 any of the defendants were at that meeting. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — I think you were at no 
 meeting on the 13th? No. On the 14th were 
 you at a meeting ? I was. Where was that ? 
 It was on Mottram Moor. At what time of 
 day ? About half-past two o’clock in the after- 
 noon. How many people were there ? It was 
 not a very large meeting. One, or two hundred ? 
 About two hundred I should think. Whom did 
 you see at the meeting ? Robert Wilde, Cart- 
 ledge, and a man whose nam® I understood to 
 be William Glossop. I am not sure that that 
 was his name, but I understood so. Did Wilde 
 speak? He did, sir. What did Wilde say? 
 Robert Wilde was chairman. What did Wilde 
 say ? He recommended ther to be true to one 
 another, and the Charter: would soon become 
 the law of the land. You heard another 
 speaker ? Yes. What did he say ? He said a 
 general meeting would take place the following 
 morning at eight o’clock, when delegates should 
 be appointed to go to Manchester immediately. 
 On Tuesday morning, at four o’clock, they would 
 assem’Jle at W'edensough Green — that is Mot- 
 trauB Moor, and in procession they would pro- 
 ceed to Manchester. Were you at a Meeting 
 on the 15th? I was, sii'. Where was that? 
 In the market-place, at Hyde. What time of the 
 day? At eight o’clock in the morning. How 
 many persons were present ? I have not the 
 number down, sir, and I do not remember. Can 
 you speak to any of the people that were there ? 
 Leach and Boothe were there, and William Muir- 
 flouse was in the chair. Were there any other 
 speakers there you can speak to ? No. Did 
 Leach speak? Yes. Have you notes of his 
 speech ? I have. What did Leach say ? He 
 made a long speech about the large sums of 
 money it took to support the queen, and said, 
 ** Where did that come from, but from the 
 pockets of the poor ?” and finished, by request- 
 ing the people to remain out of work till the 
 Charter w^as obtained. Did you attend any 
 other meetings on the same day — the 15th ? 
 There was one in the evening at eight o’clock. 
 Can you speak to any one as being present 
 there ? Yes ; Muirhouse and Brooke were there. 
 Did they speak ? Muirhouse said the meeting 
 would take place the following morning at six 
 o’clock, but, at six o’clock, Muii house and Boothe 
 being there, they got on a waggon, and an- 
 
 nounced that a meeting would take place the 
 following morning at six o'clock. 
 
 The JUDGE : — One the evening of the 15th. 
 Muirhouse said there would be a meeting the 
 next morning at six o’clock ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Nothing was done at that 
 meeting, except to appoint a meeting the follow- 
 ing day. (To witness) — Did you attend that 
 meeting ? No, but I ordered my constables to at- 
 tend. Did you attend mi/ meeting on the 16th f 
 I did, sir. Where ? At Mottram Moor, at half- 
 past six in the evening. Was there anything done 
 at that meeting ? Boothe addressed the meeting at 
 very great length. What did he say He had a 
 large placard in his hand. Was it printed ? It 
 was. Did you see what was written upon it ? I 
 could not see to read it. What size was it ? Some-, 
 thing about the size of this sheet of brown paper, 
 (exhibiting a sheet of paper.) 
 
 The JUDGE : — About three feet long ? 
 
 Yes, my lord ; about two feet nine inches, or 
 three feet long, by fifteen or sixteen inches broad, 
 Boothe took it and held it up before him, and com- 
 menced reading it. Did you hear what was read ? 
 Yes ; it began by stating what a large expense her 
 Majesty was to poor people. What a large quan- 
 tity of wines she drunk ; what a large quantity of 
 fq/irits she drunk ; and what a number of fat oxen 
 she eat — 
 
 Mr. MURPHY:— Was he reading from the 
 placard ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Are you reading now from 
 your notes, or speaking from memory ? I am 
 speaking from memory. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — You ought to tell us then 
 that we may know the difference. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — ^Weli, my lord, if that be so, 
 he ought to produce the placard, and let it speak 
 for itself. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I do not 
 know that there was any placard. 
 
 The WITNESS proceeded : — The large num- 
 ber of sheep and lambs she eat, and said ebe cost 
 the poor people yearly about 60,000^ 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — Did anyone else speak? 
 At that time Mr. Sidebottom, one of the county 
 magistrates, came up in his gig, and sent for me. 
 I then left the meetfng. A cry was then raised 
 that the magistrates were going to take them, and 
 Muirhouse and others leaped out of the cart. 
 Muirhouse then said, “ A meeting will teke place 
 to-morrow morning, at six o’clock.” Did you 
 attend a meeting: on t he 17th ? I did. Where was 
 it ? At the market-place at Hyde. At what time ? 
 At eight c’-^’ock in the morning. Who else was 
 present ? A man who said he was a delegate from 
 Manchester. Muirhouse was the chairman ; Caii- 
 delet was there, Mention the names of those 
 
32 
 
 you know who were there ? John Leach, Boothe, 
 a man named Barlow, who is not indicted. He is 
 a factory operative. What was first done at this 
 meeting ? An excavator got on to a waggon, and 
 said he wished them all to turn out, and that in 
 five minutes all the “navvies’' would be out. 
 The excavators had gone to work that morning, 
 my lord. W'ho spoke next ? A man who said he 
 was a delegate from Manchester. What did that 
 man say ? He said he was sent from that place to 
 inform the people of Hyde, that he was in attend- 
 ance at the Hall as a delegate. Of the delegates 
 assembled, 340 were for the Charter, and 18 
 against it. The latter were for the wages of 1840, 
 or for a scale of wages ; but the middle classes, 
 and all other classes of people in Manchester, 
 were for the Charter, “ except the men of steel " 
 — the steel-hearted manufacturers. Did Can- 
 delet speak ? He did. Had there been a procla- 
 mation posted on the walls at that time ? There 
 was. Who did it come from — was it a proclama- 
 tion from the Queen.’ It was, sir. What was it 
 about ? I left the copy I had at Chester. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Would not the proclama- 
 tion speak for itself? If I saw a copy of it I would 
 know it. (A paper was then handed to witness 
 by Mr. Gregory). No, that is not it ; that is the 
 magistrates' proclamation. (Another paper was 
 handed to witness, who examined it carefully) . It 
 was one similar to this. I believe this is a copy of 
 it. It was the Queen's proclamation, dated the 
 13th of August, 1842, and offering a reward of 
 50^. for the conviction of offenders. 
 
 The proclamation, of wliich the following is a 
 copy, was then put in : — 
 
 “ BY THE aUEEN '' 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Victoria R. 
 
 * ‘Whereas, in divers parts of Great Britain , great 
 multitudes of lawless and disorderly persons have 
 lately assembled themselves together in a riotous 
 and tumultuous manner, and have, with force 
 and violence, entered into certain mines, mills, 
 and manufactories, and other places, and have by 
 threats and intimidation, prevented our good ' 
 subjects therein employed from following their i 
 usual occupations and earning their livelihood. 
 
 “We, therefore, being duly sensible of the 
 mischievous consequences which must inevitably 1 
 ensue, as well to the peace of the kingdom, as j 
 to the lives and properties of our subjects, from 
 such wicked and illegal practices, if they go un- 
 punished, and being firmly resolved to cause the 
 laws to be put in execution for the punishment of 
 such offenders, have thought fit, by the advice of 
 our privy council to issue this proclamation; 
 hereby strictly commanding all justices of the 
 peace, sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and all other civil 
 officers whatsoever, within the said united king- 
 dom, that they do use their utmost endeavour to 
 discover, apprehend, and bring to justice the 
 persons concerned in the riotous proceedings 
 above-mentioned. 
 
 “ And, as a further inducement to discover the 
 
 , said offenders, we do hereby promise and de- 
 clare, that any person or persons who shall dis- 
 cover and apprehend, or cause to be discovered 
 and apprehended, the authors, abettors, or per- 
 petrators of any of the outrages above-mentioned, 
 so that they, or any of them, may be duly con- 
 victed thereof, shall be entitled to the sum of 
 fifty pounds for each and every person who shall 
 be so convicted, and shall also receive our most 
 gracious pardon for the said offence, in case the 
 erson making such discovery as aforesaid shall 
 e liable to be prosecuted for the same. 
 
 “ Given at our Court at Windsor, this 13th day 
 of August, in the year of our Lord, 1842. 
 
 “ God save the Queen." 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Now we will go to Cande- 
 let's speech. — W^hat did he say ? He began by 
 reading the proclamation and pointing towards 
 it : it was on the walls. 
 
 The JUDGE : — This was on Wednesday, 
 the 17th? Yes, my Lord. He said he did not 
 care a straw for the proclamation as those 
 meetings were legal, and held in the day-time to 
 protect the interest of the poor. The special 
 constables and soldiers would be of no use ; the 
 bayonets, in eight days' time, would be of no use; 
 delegates were going about in agricultural dis- 
 tricts,warning and turning the labourers out — all 
 excfcpt the millers and the reapers of grain ; but, 
 in fact, they W’ere all nearly out. Then (he 
 asked) where will the military and the special 
 constables be ? But as I am to be in Manchester 
 at 10 o'clock this morning, I must conclude 
 by telling you that, when in the Hall [of science] 
 last nfght at 6 o'clock, Mr. Biswick, the superin- 
 tende nt of police, entered and told the people 
 that he was sent by the Magistrates to inform 
 the people there assembled, that they were not 
 allowed to hold their meetings any longer, while 
 the to-wn was in that disturbed state ; that three 
 magist rates then entered, and gave the people 
 ten minutes to disperse; but in five minutes 
 they were all gone. The battle is part won ; and 
 be true to one another, and never submit to go 
 to work until we have all the points of the 
 Charter. Is that all you have of that speech? 
 Yes, Sir. Did John Leach speak ? Yes ; he said 
 he w'as appointed one of the great national con- 
 fp’rence, and, at 11 o'clock, he had to meet 
 McDouall, for he had sent him word that he 
 longed to see him. “ I will collar him," said 
 Leach, “ and bring him here with me to Hyde this 
 evening, and in 8 days' time will be a fixed wage 
 by act of parliament, and the Charter will be the 
 law of the land." Is that all that passed at that 
 meeting ? He made some observations about the 
 shopkeepers of Hyde. He said they were a 
 hypocritical set. Did you hear of any adjourn- 
 ment of that meeting ? — What was the next meet- 
 
33 
 
 ing that you attended on the 18th, the follow- 
 ing day ? I did not attend that in the morning, 
 sir. Did you attend any meeting on the 18th ? 
 I attended one in the market-place at Hyde, at 
 half-past seven in the evening. Who was the 
 chairman? Muirhouse. Was Leach there? He 
 was, sir. Was any one else there ? There was a 
 man from Glossop, who, I believe, was called 
 Robert Wilde. Have you any notes of what he 
 said? I have of what Leach said. What did he 
 say ? He began railing against the shopkeepers, 
 and middle-class people. You say there was a 
 man there from Glossop ? Yes, sir. Had he 
 spoken before Leach ? It was a delegate that 
 spoke before Leach. What did he say ? I did 
 not take notes, and I do not know anything about 
 him. You said a man came there and said he 
 was a delegate from Glossop? Yes. Did he 
 say he was a delegate ? No. Did Leach say 
 anything in his speech about this man from 
 Glossop ? Leach began by saying, how much 
 money he had expended on account of the spin- 
 ner’s union in Glasgow, Paisley, &c., and com- 
 plained that one penny had not been spent for 
 the Charter. Go on. “ Does not,” said he, “ my 
 friend from Glasgow tell you that there is plenty 
 of able-bodied men in Glossop-dale, well armed 
 with their bludgeons, and not frightened to use 
 them ? Where will all the specials and red-coated 
 gentry be then ? Glad to give in, and we will 
 have them to-morrow in large numbers, to meet 
 and go to Ashton.” Have you any more of his 
 speech ? He strongly recommended the people 
 to be firm, and as long as he lived he would 
 agitate, for the aristocracy of this country were 
 bad, and without alteration would soon be worse. 
 Did you hear any notice given of when they 
 would meet again ? There were notices given 
 that a meeting would take place the following 
 morning at 9 o’clock. Did you attend the fol- 
 lowing morning ? I did not, sir. During all the 
 time you have been speaking of, were the mills 
 at Hyde and the neighbourhood out of work ? 
 They were, sir. How long did they continue 
 out of work ? I do not know exactly the date, 
 some were out of work longer than others. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON. I think 
 you have been speaking of Hyde and the neigh- 
 bourhood ; now, during that time was there not 
 considerable distress among the manufacturing 
 operatives, and the labourers ? I am not aware 
 of any. Are you not aware that wages were 
 very low at that time? No. Don’t you know 
 that at that time the wages of workmen were 
 
 c 
 
 low ? I don’t. Don't you know tliat they 
 had been growing lower at the time ? No. You 
 don’t know anything about it one way or the 
 other, I suppose ? No. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. POLLOCK. Do you re- 
 member a large placard headed “ the Executive” ? 
 I do, sir. Do you remember when that was posted 
 in Hyde ? Yes. I ordered one of my men to pull 
 it down, but am not aware of the day. State to 
 between a day or two of it ? It was between the 
 14th and 19th of August. [The placard is handed 
 to witness and he examines it.] Was that ex- 
 tensively posted about Hyde ? Not extensively. 
 Did you see half a dozen ? I did not see many 
 of them. Did it excite much attention there ? 
 I saw very many people reading it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You saw very few copies 
 of the placard, but very many people reading 
 them ? Very few, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS. Y'ouwere 
 asked if you had seen half a dozen of copies, 
 now, upon your good faith, did you see more 
 than one ? I do not think I did. Now, did you 
 read it so as to be able to say that is a copy of 
 it ? I did not say that that w^as a copy of it ; I 
 said it was similar. Well, what is it ? I did not 
 read this, sir ; if you allow me to read it I will 
 be able to tell you whether it is like the other 
 or not. [Witness reads a portion of the pla- 
 card.] I have not read it all, but I believe that 
 is a copy of it. Well, do you undertake to 
 swear that that is a copy of the one that was 
 on the wall ? To the best of ray belief it is a 
 copy ; it may be a word wrong ; or two or 
 three lines wrong. It may be ten lines wrong ? 
 It may. Then do you undertake to say, that it 
 may be more than ten lines wrong ? Yes, or it 
 may be less. Then do I understand you to say, 
 that, notwithstanding there may be a wide dif- 
 ference between that placard and the one on 
 the wall, that such difference is of no conse- 
 quence ? The heading, and the last sentence are 
 the very same ; and, I believe it is the same. 
 Mr. Constable — Mr. Special High Constable, at- 
 tend ! I do not ask you about the heading ; 
 
 I ask you about the body of the placard. You 
 have sworn that there may be ten or twelve 
 lines, and still you say they are similar ? Yes, I 
 say they are similar still. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. ATHERTON re- 
 sumed. Let us understand what you are : are 
 you a special constable, or a high-constable ? I am 
 special high-constable. Well, that is a prominent 
 post. — You are not a special constable in the com- 
 
34 
 
 mon sense of the term ; it is your trade — your 
 occupation ? Yes. I think you said you were in 
 the habit of taking notes of what went on day 
 by day ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Let me look at your book ? 
 [Witness hands the book to Mr. Dundas.] 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — And for that purpose 
 you took notes ? Yes. To lay them before the 
 magistrates from day to day ? Yes. Did you 
 do so Undoubtedly. Two or three times a 
 day if required ; and I gave explanations, if the 
 magistrates required any, from my notes. And 
 you did that from day to day, as these things 
 took place ? Yes, up to the present day. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, 
 Little, you appear to be a conscientious witness. 
 You would not swear from recollection when 
 you had your notes, to anything ? No. You 
 preferred swearing from your notes ; now, this 
 book is not a transcript from notes — this is the 
 original ? Yes. Did you take any notes but 
 what you transcribed into this book ? I am not 
 aware that I did. Cannot you recollect whether 
 you did or not ? — Were all these transactions 
 written on the day they occurred, or as nearly 
 as possible afterwards ? Yes. Were you ex- 
 amined before the magistrates ? I was, many a 
 time. Were you examined when Leach was 
 arraigned before the magistrates ? Leach never 
 was brought before the magistrates ; he ab- 
 sconded. Was Candelet brought before the 
 magistrates ? No. Was Muirhouse brought 
 before the magistrates He was. When ? If 
 you allow me the book, I will tell you, sir. Well, 
 it is at the end of the book ; that will do as well 
 as if you told me. It is the last transaction in 
 the book. Well, I don’t know till I look, sir. 
 [Mr. O’Connor hands witness the book, and he 
 looks at it for sometime.] I believe it was 
 Friday, the 26th of August. Did you take it 
 from that book ? Yes. Well then, show me 
 that book ? [Witness hands the book to Mr. 
 O’Connor.] Now, sir, give me leave to ask you, 
 did any of your evidence go to chai-ge him when 
 swearing against him ? I am not aware. You 
 do not remember that ? I am not aware. Now, 
 then, it was about the 26th you say you were 
 swoim ? I 
 
 The JUDGE : — About the 26th. ! 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — About the 26th, my ^[iOrd. 
 (To Witness) This book brings your transac- 
 tions down to the 18th to the meetings that 
 
 Leach attended.^ To Saturday, the 20th, sir. 
 Saturday, the 20th ? Did you produce this 
 
 book when examined before the magistrates.* 
 No, sir, because there was no evidence against 
 any one. Was the evidence against Muirhouse 
 
 different from that in the book ? It was in 
 
 that book you got the evidence against Muir- 
 house ? Yes, and on this piece of paper. (Ex- 
 hibiting some paper to the Court.] 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the book from which 
 you are now speaking ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I thought you handed me 
 back the book. Witness : — It was another book 
 I handed you. Mr. O’Connor : — Did you pro- 
 duce this book when examined before the magis- 
 trates, in open court, when Muirhouse was 
 charged } I did not. You could not give evi- 
 dence here, except your memory was refreshed 
 from this book ? No, sir. Did you not swear 
 that it was your duty to take notes daily for the 
 purpose of submitting it to the magistrates ? 
 
 I Y^es. And could you think of a more fitting and 
 ; proper opportunity for exhibiting this book than 
 ! when this man was examined ? I can explain the 
 , reason why I did not produce the book. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Explain it. 
 
 On apprehending the prisoners, we were obliged 
 ' to take them away to Stockport. We could not 
 keep them in Hyde, as we had no military, and 
 as our police force was too weak, and therefore 
 w'e conveyed tliem to Stockport, and the magis- 
 trates came over and committed them. I went 
 with the prisoners, and gave evidence from 
 memory. Mr. O’Connor: — Were you examined 
 after they were committed ? — I beg your pardon, 
 you were speaking of Muirhouse ; was there any 
 other person against whom you gave evidence ? 
 I swore against about twenty. Well, was any of 
 these persons remanded } They were committed. 
 And you did not present that book ? No. Now, 
 the first transaction you speak of, was on the 
 morning of the 7th? Yes. Was that a violent 
 meeting ? No. You were bound to collect every 
 thing for the magistrates ; and for that purpose 
 you attended the first meeting, which took place 
 on the morning of the 7th, and yet you left that 
 meeting after Leach had spoken, and you do not 
 know anything more that occurred ? O, I re- 
 turned ! The reason I left was, a number of peo- 
 ple were going into a public house, and I went to 
 turn them out. That is the reason I left. Now, 
 you told us that on the 9th, a large number of 
 people came into Hyde to stop Horsefieid’s 
 mills ? I did not swear on the 9th : I said on the 
 8th or 9th. But did not you swear that they 
 came to stop his mills ; and did not you know 
 that Bayley’s mills were the first from which the 
 hands turned out ? No. Did you hear anything 
 about the distress that existed ? No. It is your 
 duty to collect inform&tion for the magistrates ? 
 
35 
 
 It is in my division. 'And yet you never heard 
 a word about the distress ? No. Not a word ? 
 No, I won’t swear “ not a word,” sir. Well, 
 what did you hear ? I did not hear any unusual 
 expressions about distress. I heard Leach 
 saying that the shopkeepers had come to 
 a resolution to support the turn-outs for a fort- 
 night, but he advised them not to be led by 
 the shopkeepers. Now, I think, that in speaking 
 of the 10th, you said the disturbances were great 
 about Hyde ? Yes. From the 11th they were 
 great? They commenced on Monday, the 8th. 
 For a week they were great ? For a week or more. 
 When did they cease ? — V/hen did the public 
 mind appear to sober down a little ? After Sa- 
 turday, the 20th. When Leach left the town, 
 we never had any disturbance. When did you 
 see this placard ? Which placard ? That placard 
 you have been questioned respecting — as to its 
 body, head, and tail ? From the 14th to the 19th. 
 What was the first day you saw it ? That is the 
 nearest I can come to it. Have you made no 
 note of it ? No, sir. You have of all the morn- 
 ing and evening meetings, and none of that ? 
 The reason is, I took the placard down and de- 
 livered it to the magistrates, after putting my 
 name on it. I expected to see it here, and that 
 I could identify it by the writing on the back of 
 it : but it is not here. After the 20th, all turbu- 
 lence ceased ? Yes. Did the men begin to return 
 to their work about that time ? They did, sir, in 
 some parts of my division. Did those who had 
 turned out go in gradually from the 20th to the 
 present time ? They did. Now, you say that on 
 the l7th, Leach said he was going to meet 
 McDouall? He did; but I won’t swear to the 
 date without the book. You have sworn — 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says he won’t swear to the 
 date without the book — but (to the witness) it is 
 the date you have already mentioned. 
 
 What day was it that Leach said he was going 
 to Manchester to meet McDouall, to collar him, 
 and bring him to Hyde if possible ? On Wed- 
 nesday, the 17th. On Wednesday, the r7th, he 
 was going as a delegate to Manchester? Yes. 
 Then you have sworn as to a meeting on the 18th, 
 when Leach returned ? I have, sir. Did Leach 
 say anything about the delegates’ meeting he at- 
 tended? You have not told us anything about 
 that yet. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did Leach say anything about 
 what ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — As to the delegate meet- 
 ing he was sent to Manchester to attend. Wit- 
 ness : — I don’t remember. He said nothing ; he 
 spoke about the distress of the country, and not 
 a word of that. Now I think you have spoken of 
 another delegate, saying, at a delegates’ meeting. 
 
 that 340 were for the Charter, and 18 for the 
 wages of 1840. — Is that what you said ? Yes. 
 That was said at the trades’ meeting, was it not ? 
 Was it not at the trades' delegated’ meeting that 
 that was said? — Answer me.— You know that 
 
 340 and 18 do not make 40 ! Did you make 
 
 any correction, alteration, or interlineation in 
 this book since you wrote it out from memory ? 
 I might, since I was called before the magistrates. 
 Now look at the interlineation there, and see 
 if it is in the same ink. [Mr. O’Connor hands 
 the book to witness.] When was that inter- 
 lineation written ? I believe on Monday morn- 
 ing, the 8th. I drew my blotting paper over 
 it. On Sunday night I put that down [point- 
 ing to the original writing] ; and on Monday 
 morning I put that [the interlineation] down. 
 Were you examined, since you were examined 
 before the magistrates, on these topics ? I w'as. 
 Were you examined since you were examined at 
 Chester? I have not been examined by any one. 
 Was that book out of your possession since? 
 No, with the exception of a short time. Now, 
 sir, how was it necessary that counsel should 
 force it out of you that Leach said “ v/ith a 
 laugh,” what he did say about the Mayor of 
 Stockport ? He had it that way. The question 
 is, how' did counsel for the prosecution know- 
 how to put it to you ? I gave that evidence 
 before at the special commission at Chester, and 
 it was from that it was taken. He took it from 
 the depositions, no doubt. Hand me the book. 
 [Witness hands the book to Mr. O’Connor.] 
 Now^ sir, I ask you again; upon your oath, were 
 the several transactions written in this book on 
 the day on which they occurred ; or, at the 
 farthest, on the morning after ? They were, sir. 
 Did you make any alteration in your notes since 
 you were before the magistrates ? Yes, I might 
 have made some. And all about the Charter ? 
 Well, shew us what you did make. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There is a 
 not left out in one place. Don’t let it be said 
 that wholesale alterations have been made. 
 
 The JUDGE, having received the book, ob- 
 served — On the 8th of August, there’s an inter- 
 lineation about the Charter. 
 
 Mr.O’CONNOR : — When he was going before 
 the magistrates, my Lord, which was on the 8th 
 of August. 
 
 The JUDGE Yes, that was the 8th. 
 
 WITNESS : — There is an alteration on Tues- 
 day, the 9th of August. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Read it, and read how it 
 stood first in the text, and then read the altera- 
 
36 
 
 tions. Witness then read the following extract : 
 “ Tuesday, the 9th of August. — Muirhouse and 
 Leach were the speakers, and Candelet. At a 
 quarter to seven, a, m. the meeting broke up, 
 part of the people going to Manchester, and part 
 to Ashton, and part to Stockport.’’ 
 
 Mr. O’COJsNOR Now, out -with the altera- 
 tions. Witness : — “ They advised the people to 
 remain out of work.” Now, I put that in but 
 it does not apply to anything. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Why it applies to every 
 thing. Now, Mr. Special High County Con- 
 stable for Hyde. Witness For the Hyde 
 division, sir. Did Leach live at Hyde ? Yes. 
 I believe he took a prominent part in all dis- 
 cussions in Hyde ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — John Leach? Is that so ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Yes, my lord. 
 
 WITNESS : — I am not aware that he did. 
 Was he not always opposed to the Anti-corn-law 
 League ? Don’t you understand that ? I don’t 
 remember him to say anything about it. Don’t 
 you remember him to be a staunch opponent of 
 the Anti -corn -law League ? I do not. Now, how 
 does it happen that in your ledger, except in one 
 or two cases, you have got all that Leach said, 
 but nothing of what more than one or two more 
 said ? Because I knew more of him. He was 
 your townsman, and therefore you reported him 
 at length in reference to the Charter, and passed 
 over the others with a comment. I have no 
 more to ask this witness, my lord. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My lord, I wish to have an 
 opportunity of looking at this book. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Are there any other defend- 
 ants that wish to ask him any questions ? 
 
 Cross-examined by GEORGE JOHNSON, 
 one of the defendants : — Y''ou recollect being called 
 up to depose against some of the Duckinfield 
 people, in the Court-house of Ashton ? I do. 
 You gave the same account at that time ? I did. 
 Did you produce that book then ? No, I had not 
 the book. I was called on by the magistrates to 
 depose, but I did not. Did not you swear, when 
 myself and some more were examined, as to what 
 you heard at the Wedensough meeting ? I was 
 brought before the magistrates, and I said I could 
 not swear without my notes, and therefore no 
 evidence was taken down against them. Will 
 you swear that you never mentioned the Weden- 
 sough meeting before the magistrates ? I did 
 mention that meeting. I was asked if I had been 
 at the Wedensough-green meeting, andj said I 
 was. But you did not depose to anything ? No. 
 Well, I don’t wish to hurt your feelings, but just 
 recollect yourself? Yes, I was brought to the 
 Town-hall, and swore at the Town-hall respect- 
 ing the meeting at Mottram Moor. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Was youc 
 examination taken in writing ? No. 
 
 GEORGE JOHNSON:— How long have you 
 been in Hyde ? About 18 months. Did you not 
 hear of people working short time ?— I suppose 
 your vocation brings you into the houses of the 
 poor ? Not often. Are you aware that there has 
 been a great increase of distress on the people ? 
 I don’t know .—My Lord, I have nothing to do 
 with making distress. Have you any know- 
 ledge as to the number of applicants to the poor 
 law guardians ? The poor law guardian meetings 
 
 are not at Hyde They are at Stockport. Well, 
 
 you swore that you have no knowledge of the 
 increase of applications to the poor law guardians 
 during that 18 months ? In fact I know nothing 
 of what you are asking me. The guardians of 
 the poor meet in Stockport, which is out of my 
 division. 
 
 Cross-examined by the defendant PILLING : — 
 Are you not aware that I stopped a mill at Hyde ? 
 No. Has there not been charity subscriptions 
 for the poor of Hyde ? [No answer] Has there 
 not been coupling of jennies ? I dont understand 
 what you mean. Do you know of spinners’ spin- 
 ning with 3 deckers ? — Do you know what it is 
 for one man to do three men’s work? No, I never 
 was three times in a factory in my life. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He tells you he does not 
 know. 
 
 RICHARD PILLING : — He has no notion of 
 what he should know (laughter). 
 
 Mr DUNDAS : — There are five or six altera- 
 tions in this book, my Lord, and I shall take 
 them in order. The first alteration is — “ They 
 also make allusion to the Charter.” 
 
 The JUDGE :— When is that ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— On the 8th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Candelet says, “My friends and 
 fellow workmen, it is a wage question” — where 
 does that [interlineation] come in ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — It is further down, my Lord. 
 
 and in John Leach’s speech No, my Lord, it 
 
 must be in Muirhouse’s speech — “ He began by 
 making some observations about the church, 
 and the people that attended it.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — He has not said a word of 
 that here. I want to know if any alteration is 
 made that I can see here. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS -.—There’s an interlineation 
 here on an important point, and I want him to 
 tell us whether it is an alteration made in a rea- 
 sonable manner ? Witness : — That was made the 
 next morning. 
 
37 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS But the alteration made is 
 in allusion to the Charter. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 won't object to it, if your Lordship thinks I ought 
 not. Your Lordship sees they have got a 
 memorandum made in some part as to which 
 the witness has not been examined, and which 
 has not been given in evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE But if they find any part 
 fraudulently altered it might go far to impugn 
 the general accuracy of the whole. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL:— Then, my 
 Lord, the book is in evidence and is before the 
 jury ; and it is no longer a private memorandum. 
 For when the book is taken and looked at, not 
 as to that part on which evidence has been 
 given, but to other parts not read, then it ceases 
 to be a private memorandum book, and the jury 
 must see the whole of it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS My Lord, it is not at all 
 necessary that you should bis bound to make it 
 evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I shall not give any prospective 
 decision ; as questions arise, I shall decide them. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Then he says that, on a Mon- 
 day, he introduced that interlineation. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is discussing about 
 nothing, for the whole of what follows is all 
 about the Charter, and it is only putting at the 
 top of it a little of what the whole book was full 
 of before and after. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Then, on the 9th of August. 
 Would you be good enough to look, and you 
 will find an interlineation there. “ It is good 
 stuff — it is very good stuff — they advise the 
 people to remain out of work." (To Yv’itness) 
 Now, would you look at that if your please ; it 
 is on the 9th of August ; now tell us v/hen that 
 interlineation w'as made? I do not remember 
 what that alludes to. When did you make that 
 alteration ? Will you swear it was written 
 at the same time as the rest ? I do not know. 
 Then, hoiv long after the rest ? Will you swear 
 that what you wrote down there was either on 
 the same day the rest was written, or as shortly 
 
 after as possible ? In what time was it wrote ? 
 
 Witness : — I do not know' ; I have not given it 
 in evidence. During the riots I did not leave 
 home, but now I am in Lancaster, and I cannot 
 enter anything in ray book till I go home. When 
 W'as that alteration made ? It is not made for 
 an alteration ; the book is not altered in any 
 respect, or shape. Then let me see. Take the 
 book. What you originally wrote is this : — 
 
 “ Tuesday, August 9th, 4 a.m., large meeting 
 commenced 5 o’clock a. m. ; speakers, Muir- 
 house, Leach, and Candelet.” And then you 
 put in this : — “ They advised the people to re- 
 main out of work," as I read it ; but you will 
 read your own w'riting better than I do. “ They 
 advised the people to remain out of work." 
 Why did you introduce that ? and when did you 
 introduce it ? — You say it is not material, but 
 that is a question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What he has stated is exactly 
 the same thing. It is as if it were a marginal note, 
 
 Mr.DUNDAS : — Yes, but it is a marginal note 
 introduced afterwards. 
 
 The JUDGE : — [To Witness] Is that so 
 Witness : — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Well, you will not tell me 
 when that note was made ? Witness : — No. 
 Well, we will go on. Here is another. Was 
 that alteration made at the time you wrote the 
 note or afterw'ards ; say at what day of the 
 month ? This is a copy of the report given me 
 by one of the men, but it is not given in evi- 
 dence, because I did not go to these meetings 
 myself, but sent a constable, and I copied his 
 report in my handwriting. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I confess his account of 
 what was in the book led me to suppose thaj 
 whatever he w rote in that book was either taken 
 down the day the transaction occurred, or ira- 
 racdiatcly afterwards. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Yes, every thing which re- 
 ferred to the transactions of w’hich her is giving 
 evidence, but there are things in that book which 
 gives an account of meetings that he did not 
 attend. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Now, here is some evidence 
 about !Magna Charta. How comes this loose 
 leaf ? Witness : — It has eome out, but you will 
 find that it is the same in every respect as the 
 others. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS My Lord, on Friday, the 
 12th of August, you wall find that part of the 
 evidence about Magna Charta : “ He did not 
 wish the people of Hyde to do so, but to do as 
 was done in the time of King John, when 
 Magna Charta was granted. The people w'cnt 
 in a large body to the King and demanded it, 
 and it was granted." Then comes the interli- 
 neation: — “J/e told them to he true to one ano- 
 ther, and the Charter would he the law of the 
 land.” These words arc an interlineation, and 
 are in evidence. Now, sir, tell me whether 
 these words, about which there can be no mis- 
 
38 
 
 take, were put down originally, when you put 
 down the rest ? When I came to examine all 
 the speeches over singly, one by one, before I 
 reported them to the magistrates, I added that 
 to it. When ? Before I reported to the ma- 
 gistrates. Did you write it with the same pen ? 
 I do not remember. You will swear that ? 1 
 
 did it before I read the note over to the magis- 
 trates. Then here is, on Monday, August the 
 15th, another interlineation. 
 
 The JUDGE : — When was that made ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — It is that evidence where 
 Leach made a speech about the expenses of the 
 Queen. ‘ ‘ And where did that money come from ? 
 It came from the pockets of the poor.” This 
 fc'ds on Monday, August the 15th. It is in the 
 very beginning of the book, my lord. The very 
 third line. [To the witness] — I understood you 
 to say, that you compared this with your notes as 
 soon as you corrected it ? When I got back from 
 the meeting to the office, which is a short dis- 
 tance, I wrote the speeches down as nearly as I 
 could think. Did you write them in that book ? 
 Yes. Y'ou have no other papers of that transac- 
 tion } Yes, two at Wedensough Green. But 
 of that transaction have you any notes ? Not 
 here, sir. Have you any notes of it ? No. Then 
 what did you mean by saying “ Not here ?” Be- 
 cause you have one down there, sir. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Yes, you 
 have some of the notes down here. 
 
 Mr. DUNDx^S : — Then what you read from 
 that book, was made from what you had in your 
 own mind, and not from any notes you had ? Yes. 
 Then look in the 15th of August, and tell me i 
 whether that about the “ pockets of the poor” j 
 was written down at the same time with any of the I 
 rest } I wrote it iu Hibbert’s office. I told the | 
 magistrates what I had heard, and afterwards 
 wrote it down. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — That is the account of that i 
 on the 15th of August. Well, then I will take 
 you to another which you w'rote the following 1 
 day. Now, my lord, on the 17th of August, on | 
 Wednesday, in giving an account of what was j 
 said, we have this interlineation : “ The battle is 
 your own, and never submit till you have all I 
 points of the Charter.” Now tell me when that 
 was written ? That was written in the same man- j 
 ner as the other, when I was called before the I 
 magistrates; and being asked did I hear any- I 
 thing of the sort, I said I did, and wrote it down. | 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Then I am to understand j 
 that the words — “ The battle is your own, and ; 
 never submit till you have all points of the Char- ! 
 ter,” was asked you by the magistrates? Yes;'! 
 How soon, then, after yo# entered the rest, was { 
 
 it that you entered this particular marginal note 
 here ? I believe it was the day after— yes, I be- 
 it was. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-When did 
 your duty commence ? It is stated in that book ; 
 on Wednesday, the 3rd of November. Now*, 
 that, is the first book you had after you were 
 appointed at Hyde? It is a report of duty com- 
 mencing Nov. 2nd, 1841. Now, does not this 
 contain the entry of your duty from that day for- 
 ward down to the end of it? It does, sir. Re- 
 gularly, day by day, during the year 1841 ? Yes, 
 sir. And then going to 1842, down to this period 
 in August, and since ? Yes, sir. Now give me 
 that book [witness hands it to the Attorney- 
 General] .—Now are these two books all the 
 books you have kept since you have been on duty 
 in Hyde ? Yes, sir. These are all the books you 
 have had during the whole time ? Yes, for that 
 purpose. For that purpose ? Yes. I understood 
 you to state that you never made any other notes, 
 except what are here — except that paper about 
 the meeting at Wedensough Green, Where is 
 that paper ? It is down there. Well, let us see 
 that we do not lose it. [This paper was missing, 
 and after considerable searching it was found 
 under one of the defendants] . Now, that is the me- 
 morandum relating to the Wedensough Meeting ? 
 This is Muirhouse’s speech, M'hich I took down 
 in that way. Why did you take it down in that 
 way, and not put it in the book ? I had not the 
 book there, sir. Did you shew this book to the 
 magistrates, and give them such explanations 
 from it as they required ? Yes, sir. Will you 
 undertake to swear, that from day to day, as you 
 made the entries in this book, the magistrates 
 were in the habit of seing it ? — When you made 
 he report, did you refer to the book ? Yes, sir. 
 Now, on some occasions, you say, that on going 
 before the magistrates you made some altera- 
 tions ? Y'es. Several of the alterations made did 
 not refer to the evidence given to-day? No. 
 Y^ou think the explanations you have given 
 about these alterations true ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Are you able to say that the 
 alterations were made when your recollection 
 enabled you to say that they were perfectly con- 
 formable to truth ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — On looking over the book, 
 my Lord, I do not perceive that there is one 
 single interlineation in all the other parts of the 
 book, down to the time to which his cvid^ce 
 relates. Here is an alteration made in lo41, 
 and, for aught I know, it may be a very im- 
 portant alteration, “ Thomas Hammond” is 
 struck out and “ Edwaid Hammond” is put in. 
 
39 
 
 THOMAS BEATTIE having been called, 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 am requested by the defendants not to go fur- 
 ther in this case to-night. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, I believe there are 
 jurymen in attendance, and if so, we may take 
 another case. [It vras then intimated that there 
 Were no common jurors present.] Well, I will j 
 do it as far as I can, but I must not run the risk 
 
 of being unable to get through the business. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Perhaps U 
 will not occur again, my Lord ; the suggestion 
 relates only to to-day. 
 
 The jury also having expressed a wish to ad* 
 journ, his Lordship assented, intimating that ha 
 would sit late the following day. 
 
 The Court rose at half-past five o'clock. 
 
 BND OF FIRST I>AY S TRIAL. 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 SECOND DAY, 
 
 Thursday, March 2nd, 1843. 
 
 Mr. BARON ROLFE took his seat on the bench precisely at nine o’clock, at 
 which hour the Court was as densely crowded as on the preceding day. Among 
 ihose present, we observed the Right Honourable Sir James Graham, Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department, James Kershaw, Esq., Mayor of Manchester, 
 Mr. Alderman Royle Chappell, of Manchester, Elkanah Armitage, Esq., borough 
 Magistrate of Manchester, Alderman Sir Thomas Potter, of Manchester, and several 
 other Aldermen and manufacturers from that locality, all of whom had been sub- 
 poDnaed by Mr. O’Connor to give evidence respecting the late outbreaK. Alderman 
 Brooks, of Anti-Corn Law League notoriety, had also been summoned by Mr. 
 O’Connor; the man who, at the Anti-Corn Law League rooms, in July, 1842, 
 moved the notorious resolution predicting the outbreak, and calling on the people to 
 impede the wheels of Government, found it more convenient to be sick on this occa- 
 sion, and accordingly, a professional gentleman was in attendance with an unau- 
 •ihenticated physician’s letter o claim an exemption, for him, if called. In conse- 
 quence, however, of Mr. O’Connor’s having changed the line of his defence, Mr. 
 John Brooks was spared an examination, which, doubtless, would have gone far 
 towards developing the secret springs of that movem^it, “ for conspiring to encou- 
 Tage” which, the Chartists had been indicted. 
 
 Immediately after his Lordship took his seat, 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR rose and said : — I understand, my Lord, that several witnesses 
 on both sides have arrived since yesterday, and therefore I beg to repeat my appli- 
 cation, that all the witnesses do leave the Court. I see the Right Honourable the 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department here, and I wish to make an exception 
 in his favour. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Let all the witnesses on both sides leave the Court. Does any 
 defendant wish Sir James Graham to go out of Court. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I presume not, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL^: — The penalty of remaining in Court after be- 
 ing ordered to retire, is the displeasure of your Lordship, and not merely the 
 penalty of not giving evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is contempt of Court, jmu know. 
 
41 
 
 JOSEPH SADLER :‘-Exammed by the 
 Attorney-geiieral : — ^What are you ? I am a 
 police officer of Stockport. Where you there on 
 the 11th of August last ? Yes sir. Do you re- 
 member some persons coming into the town of 
 Stockport ? I do. About how many ? Between 
 20,000 and 30,000. 
 
 The JUDGE 20,000 or 30,000 people? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Had you the 
 means of judging from what direction they came ? 
 They came from the direction of Ashton and 
 Hyde. Had they any arms ? They had bludgeons 
 and sticks. Where did you first see any part of 
 the mob ? In the market-place. In very great 
 numbers ? Yes. But where did you first see 
 them when you say they w'ere coming from 
 Ashton and Hyde ? I saw them coming through 
 a street called Newbridge Lane. In what man- 
 ner were they conducting themselves ? When I 
 saw them they were passing through the street. 
 Making a noise ? Yes, but nothing else at the 
 time. Did you make any application to the 
 magistrates ? I went to the Court-house where 
 the magistrates were then assembled. Did you 
 give any information ? I did, sir. Had you any 
 military in Stockport? We had. Sir. Where 
 were they ? They were assembled partly in the 
 Market-house, partly in the Court-house and 
 some in the barracks ; some of the yeomanry 
 were at their quarters. Where did this body of 
 persons from Ashton and Hyde go to ? They 
 went in different directions of the town, to the 
 different mills. Did they march peaceably and 
 quietly? Not in all parts. Now^, did their num- 
 bers create any alarm ? They did. What was the 
 consequence ? Ail the shops w'ere closed. What 
 was done at the mills ? The hands w'ere turned 
 out, and the mills were stopped. Were you present 
 at any of the mills where the hands were turned 
 out ? I was not. Where you present when any 
 of the mob did any acts of violence of any sort? 
 Yes. Were you present when the mob was at 
 the union wmrkhouse ? Yes, I went there with 
 the civil authorities. What did you find to be 
 the state of things there ? We found a great 
 number of persons there, coming away from the 
 workhouse, having a quantity of loaves of bread 
 in their possession. Vfere you at the workhouse 
 at the time they got there, or did you only 
 come up afterwards ? Afterwards. Where were 
 you? — Did you go into the workhouse, or did 
 you remain outside ? I went in with the magis- 
 trates and some part of the militarj\ Had you 
 any prisoners ? Yes, betw'een thirty and forty. 
 
 Did you know where they had been taken * 
 Some were taken in the workhouse, some out- 
 side in the vicinity of the workhouse, and some 
 in the road leading to it. Did any person, to 
 your knowledge, make an application to the au- 
 thorities and magistrates about releasing your 
 prisoners ? Yes. Who ? There were four per- 
 sons — certainly three, who made an application 
 to have an interview with the magistrates. Did 
 you know any of the persons ? I knew one par- 
 ticularly well. What is his name? John 
 Wright. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He is not in the indict- 
 ment. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Any body 
 else ? Witness : — One who gave his name as 
 Leach. Did you see him afterwards ? Only 
 during the interview with the magistrates. Did 
 he state what his name was beside Leach ? I 
 believe, John Leach. Did he say where he 
 came from ? Hyde. Were you present when 
 any application was made to the magistrates ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS My Lord, I object to the 
 answer to this question. I apprehend the de- 
 scription given by the witness is not sufficient to 
 satisfy the court that this is the person on the 
 record. He is only spoken of as a person called 
 Leach. The witness believes the name to be 
 John Leach. He (the witness) never saw him 
 again, and does not speak to any of the transac- 
 tions done by this John Leach, of Hyde. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, 
 without discussing the general question, whether 
 any thing done by a large mob of this description 
 would not be evidence, I submit that what has 
 been stated, should go before the Jury. Leach 
 was well known in the neighbourhood of 
 Stockport and Hyde. And I will recall to your 
 Lordship’s recollection the fact that Little proved 
 that John Leach of Hyde stated, that he had 
 been at Stockport ; and, I think, he stated that 
 he had had an interview with him, the mayor, 
 and magistrates. I think that is sufficient 
 evidence to go to a jury, that this individual was 
 John Leach, of Hyde. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS My Lord, I submit that that 
 is no answer at all. 
 
 The JUDGE : — WTiat day was this ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ;--The 12th of 
 .August. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Yes, my Lord, on Friday the 
 12th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE “ He then made some remarks 
 about a meeting which took place at Stockport 
 
 
42 
 
 the day before; he headed the people up 
 vbere they went to the bastile and took their 
 loaves.” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I submit that it is not at 
 all evidence. It is not sufficient to shew that 
 what a mob does shall be evidence in such a 
 case as the present, I object to what an indi- 
 vidual says in private to a magistrate, by way of 
 private application. Here is an application made 
 by a private individual, belonging to a mob, to a 
 magistrate about prisoners. Now, until such 
 time as you have exhausted all the John Leachs 
 of Hyde, you do not advance one single step — 
 You do not shew that this is the same John Leach 
 who on a former occasion was at Stockport. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think there is some John 
 Leach in this indictment, but we are not abso- 
 lutely certain that he is the same John Leach 
 who was at Stockport. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You will bear in mind, 
 my Lord, that the witness says, he is not sure 
 that he would not know him again. 
 
 The JUDGE : — There might be a different 
 objection arising, supposing John Leach was to 
 stand up and say, “ Am I the man ?” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — My Lord, as there are se- 
 veral counts in this indictment, and these counts 
 charge all the defendants alike, so that whatever 
 affects Leach will affect all ; therefore, each de- 
 fendant has a right to object. I object on the 
 ground that the witness not being able to iden- 
 tify Leach. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A person calling himself John 
 Leach, of Hyde, came up and made a certain 
 application. Now, what is going to be further 
 stated I cannot controul. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (To witness):— 
 Were you present when an application was 
 made to the magistrates of Stockport by a 
 person calling himself John Leach ? Yes. What 
 passed ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Now, I object to answering 
 the question ; and, on the same ground. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I shall take a note of the ob- 
 jection. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— I submit that 
 as against John Leach this is evidence. There 
 is a man whose name and place of abode cor- 
 responds with the John Leach ou this record. 
 Now, what did John Leach say.^ He said he 
 had come at the request of a public meeting, on 
 behalf of the prisoners then in custody, and re- 
 quested the magistrates that the prisoners might 
 be released. Did he give any reason for sajiag 
 
 nothing more about it ? He was informed by 
 the mayor, that they were in custody on a charge 
 of felony. 
 
 The JUDGE :— He said so. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Yes, my Lord, 
 in answer to a request. Leach was not the only 
 speaker. Witness :— And that they could only 
 be discharged by a proper course of law. What 
 I want to know is, was there anything stated to 
 the magistrates as a reason why they should let 
 the prisoners go ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS (To witness) : — Who stated 
 that ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— My learned 
 friend wants to know who stated it. Witness : — 
 One of the parties said, if the prisoners were 
 not released, they were in such a state of ex- 
 citement, that they (the mob^ could not answer 
 for the consequences. Then the mayor said, 
 “ They must be discharged by due course of 
 law ?” Yes. And, in point of fact, the prisoners 
 were not rescued ? They were committed. Was 
 there any meeting that day in Stockport ? There 
 was a meeting in a space of ground in Stock- 
 port, called the Waterloo Road. Is it Waterloo 
 Road, or Waterloo Ground ? Waterloo Road ; 
 it is an open space adjoining the Highway. 
 How many persons were present at that meet- 
 ing? More than 1000. Was there any plat- 
 form, cart, or waggon, for the speakers to stand 
 on ? The speakers stood on a wall. Were there 
 speakers ? There were. Did you get near enough 
 to see them, so as to know them again ? I saw 
 them in the act of addressing the people. Was 
 the riot act read? It was. When? Between 
 one and two o’clock. Where ? In the market- 
 place. Was that before or or after the attack 
 upon the workhouse, do you remember ? I do 
 not very well know. From the 11th was there 
 any disturbance in Stockport from day to day ? 
 Yes. For how long ? Till the 20th. And how 
 long after ? For several weeks ; but particularly 
 for ten or eleven days after, the town was in a 
 disturbed state. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Particularly till the 20th ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — ^The 11th was on Thursday, 
 and you mean particularly to the end of the fol- 
 lowing week ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — During 
 that time you have mentioned, were the shops 
 open ? Yes. Did the mills resume any labour ? 
 No. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — ^Just tell me for my infor- 
 mation, how far is Stockport from Manchester i 
 
43 
 
 S«ven miles. How far is it from Hyde ? Five 
 miles. 
 
 The JUDGE. — Manchester, Stockport, and 
 Hyde, seem to form a triangle. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — You say the riots and dis- 
 turbances continued till the 20th, and after- 
 wards Yes. Was the riot act ever read again 
 after the 11th ? I believe not. You should have 
 known if it had been ? Yes, sir. Very well. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Be- 
 fore I ask this witness any questions, my Lord, I 
 should wish that he was retained, because it may 
 be necessary to examine him afterwards. 
 
 The JUDGE By all means. [To the wit- 
 ness.] You are not to leave the town. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — [To witness.) Well, you will 
 mind that. 
 
 WITNESS : — My Lord, it will be a great in- 
 convenience to me if I am detained. 
 
 The JUDGE :— I cannot help that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — How long have you filled 
 that office you hold at present ? — As head of the 
 police ? Seven years. I have been in the police 
 more than 11 years. Do you recollect the riots of 
 1839 ? Yes. Were they as bad as the last riots, 
 or worse ? So far as Stockport was concerned, 
 there was not so much alarm. At the time of 
 the second holiday ? Yes. Do you know a man 
 of the name of Wm. Griffin ? Yes. Do you 
 know him well ? I knew nothing of him till that 
 occasion when he came to report in the Police 
 Court. What do you mean by reporting } He 
 came there to report for the Northern Star. I 
 think you said when you came to the workhouse, 
 you saw a mob coming away with bread Yes. 
 The Mayor of Stockport said, that the prisoners 
 must be discharged in due course of law? Yes. 
 Had you heard any exciting language used by 
 other parties in Stockport, not connected with 
 those parties that went into the workhouse ? In 
 the workhouse, sir. At any time previous to this 
 outbreak, had you ? I attended several meetings 
 by the direction of the magistrates, and am not 
 aware that I heard exciting language at any of 
 the meetings. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The question is, had you pre- 
 viously to this occasion — the attack on the work- 
 house — heard any exciting language ? No. 
 
 Mr O’CONNOR : — Did you hear this language 
 used by any of the speakers ; “ That he could 
 not be responsible for a breach of the peace ; I do 
 not mean to threaten outbreaks — that the starving 
 masses will come and pull down your mansions 
 —but I say that you are drifting on to confusion 
 without rudder or compass. It is ray firm belief, 
 that within six months we shall have the popu- 
 lous districts in the north in a state of social deso- 
 
 lation ; you may talk of repressing the people by 
 the military, but what military force would be 
 equal to such an emergency ? The military wiS. 
 not avail. I do not believe that the people will 
 break out unless they are absolutely deprived of 
 food. If you are not prepared with a remedy, they 
 will be justified in taking food for themselves 
 and their families.” — Did you see that? I am not 
 aware. Did you see it on a placard on the wall? 
 I am not sure. Did you see it handed about in 
 fly sheets among the people ? I believe I have. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do you remember when that 
 was circulated ? My Lord, I would not swear 
 with certainty as to the time I saw it, but I be- 
 lieve I saw it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Do you not think that, if 
 that language was repeated on the 10th of Au- 
 gust, at Hyde, it must have been said before the 
 12 th of August If that was read by a previ- 
 ous speaker on the 10th, does it not show that it 
 was printed before that period ? — Who was it at- 
 tributed to ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I must take a note of what 
 that paper contains. I have only got — “ I saw 
 a paper containing” — I could not follow what 
 you said. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— The question 
 put by Mr. O’Connor this moment was. Who 
 was that attributed to ? 
 
 The JUDGE :— I have not arrived at that yet. 
 It is necessary to take the substance of what 
 that paper contains. It will make nonsense of my 
 note to omit it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I may state to your Lord- 
 ship that it was a speech delivered by — 
 
 The JUDGE : — I would rather take a note of 
 what the paper contains. It was a paper con- 
 taining a writing 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I will only give your Lord- 
 
 ship three lines “ I don’t believe that the 
 
 people will break out unless they are absolutely 
 deprived of food. If you are not prepared with 
 a remedy, they will be justified in taking food for 
 themselves, and their families.” [His Lordship 
 then read the note which he had taken of the 
 evidence respecting the paper alluded to] . 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Yesterday, in the ex- 
 amination of Brierly, the Mayor of Stockport 
 was proved to have repeated these words ; that is 
 the reason why I felt justified in bringing it 
 prominently before your Lordship. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not recollect that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :-My Lord, Brierly, I 
 think, in speaking of what Booth had said on the 
 12th of August, said I do not advise so, but 
 
44 
 
 •when a great man like the Mayor of Stockport 
 advises so, I think all will be right.” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS It is not Brierly, but Little. 
 My Lord, you will find it in John Leach’s speech 
 on the 12th of August, and also in the fol- 
 lowing speech, where it is mentioned again by 
 Booth. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT MURPHY then read the 
 words attributed to the Mayor of Stockport. 
 
 The JUDGE That is what Booth said after- 
 wards. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR (to the witness) — Youhave 
 seen it in some paper ? Now, refresh your me- 
 mory as to what paper you saw it in ? I have seen 
 the speech alluded to as having been made by 
 the Mayor of Stockport, both in the newspapers, 
 and in placards on the walls. How long may you 
 have seen it remaining on the walls of Stockport ? 
 For several days. You are a high-constable or 
 chief-constable ? — Now, did you give any orders 
 to your men to take that down ? Never. Now, 
 sir, did you see something of this kind placarded 
 on the walls of Stockport; headed a “ Warning 
 Voice,” with the following lines upon it : — 
 
 There is a cry throughout the land, 
 
 A fearful cry and full of dread ! 
 
 Woe to oppression’s heartless band ! 
 
 A starving people cry for “ Bread.” 
 
 That cry was heard w'hen guilty Fravice 
 On the dread brink of ruin stood ; 
 
 Yet sound the viol, speed the dance ! 
 
 ’ Tis but the hungry cry for food ! 
 
 I charge ye, England's rulers ! grant 
 The justice that her sons demand! 
 
 Or, aroused, the demon power of want 
 Shall snatch the pike and wield the brand. 
 
 Have you seen that any where ? I do not know'. 
 I have no recollection of it; but there were so 
 many placards published at the time that it 
 would be quite impossible to recollect all. 
 
 The JUDGE : — By many placards, you mean 
 many violent and inflammatory placards ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Do you remember seeing 
 a placard headed “ Murder, Murder, Murder !!!” ? 
 
 I do remember seeing it. Did you take that 
 placard down ? I gave no directions respecting 
 it, nor am I aware that it wms taken otf. Did 
 you see among those placards that were posted, 
 one stating that the people would be justi^ed in 
 revolting if they did not get bread? I really 
 cannot answer with certainty. Words to that 
 effect ? I can’t say. As near as you can ? There 
 were so many placards of an exciting character 
 posted daily, that it would be impossible to tell. 
 You were not ordered by the authorities to 
 
 take down those placards? No. Now, I ask 
 you as chief of the police, were those placards, 
 in the state Stockport was then in, sufficient to 
 lead the people who were hungry, to excite- 
 ment ? They were. You were aware of the 
 mills being stopped ? Yes, I saw them stopped. 
 Is it notorious that there has been a greater re- 
 duction in wages at Stockport than in any other 
 town ? I cannot speak with certainty : I have 
 not heard that stated ; I have heard other 
 places spoken of as having reduced more than 
 Stockport. Have there been considerable re- 
 ductions in Stockport ? Yes. Now, sir, did you 
 see a placard headed with these words, “ Mur- 
 der, Murder, Murder — They that be slain with 
 the sword are better than they that be slain 
 with hunger; for these pine away stricken 
 through for want of the fruits of the field.” 
 Did you see a placard of that description posted 
 in Stockport ? I saw one headed ” Murder” 
 but I am not sure if that is it. I ask you, as 
 chief officer — as an honest man — by whom were 
 those placards put up, or by what parties ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — By whom ? — not by what 
 party ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — By whom ? Did you see 
 the printer’s names ? Yes. Do you recollect 
 any of the printer’s names ^ No. Not one? 
 Did you see Gadsby’s name at the bottom of 
 any of them ? I have seen placards with 
 Gadsby’s name to them ; and also with Dalton’s, 
 and others. Do you recollect any other names ? 
 Yes, several names ; Lambert, and a number of 
 others. Now, you saw from 10,000 to 15,000 
 persons in the town ? A great many more. On 
 that day ? Yes. These placards were up at the 
 time ? Some of them were. The mills were 
 all slopped ? The mills were all stopped. With 
 the exception of the attack on the workhouse, 
 and the taking of the bread, everything was 
 quiet and peaceable? No, sir, it was not peace- 
 able. You did not hear any riot ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Hear his 
 answer ; he says it was not peaceable. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Then you did not hear 
 any exciting language ? I heard no speaking at 
 the meeting. After the 20th, or about that 
 time, the riots began to subside ? They did. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is there any other of the de- 
 fendants that wishes to ask the witness any ques- 
 tion ? [No answer.] 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 
 — Y^ou say you did not hear any exciting Ian- ' 
 guajge at the meeting ? I was not sufficientljr 
 
4d 
 
 near. Did you hear any language at all? I 
 heard the shoutings and huzzas of the multi- 
 tudes as they passed through the town. But 
 you did not hear what was said ? No. Then, 
 when you say you did not hear any exciting 
 language, you mean that you did not hear any 
 language ? Yes. You know Bradshaw’s ? Yes. 
 What are his premises ? A mill for the spinning 
 and manufacturing of cloth. Is it in Stockport, 
 or near it ? It is in Stockport. Did any- 
 thing happen there ? The hands were turned 
 out. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — Did you 
 say the hands were turned out ? Yes. Where ? 
 At Bradshaw’s. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Do you re- 
 member Mr. Bradshaw's coming to the Town 
 Hall for assistance ? He sent. Did he get any? 
 Not at that time. Were you present when he 
 sent? I was not present; I only know this by 
 report. Did you ever see that placard posted in 
 Stockport ? [Handing witness the “ Executive 
 placard.”] 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Does this arise out of the 
 cross-examination, Mr. Attorney-General ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Unquestion- 
 ably. (To Witness) — Did you see anything like 
 that stuck up in Stockport ? Yes. I do not 
 want to know if you remember it word for word ; 
 but, looking at the beginning of it, can you 
 speak to having seen one like it ? 
 
 The JUDGE What is it ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is the 
 placard issued by the Executive Committee of 
 the National Chartist Association. Did you read 
 it? Yes. At what time? About the period when 
 the town Vv’as disturbed, but I could not speak to 
 the precise day. You said it was about the 11th 
 and 20th ? It would be about that time, but I can- 
 not speak to the day. Did you read it ? Yes, I am 
 certain that I read it. Do you remember the 
 conclusion of it— about the God of justice and of 
 battle — Do you remember any of the words ? Yes. 
 
 I am certain I saw a paper similar to that. Can 
 you fix the day on which you saw it ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Consider, as well as you can, 
 when you saw it. It was during the time the 
 town was disturbed, but I cannot speak to the 
 precise day, iny Lord. 
 
 Mr, DUNDAS : — Perhaps your Lordship would 
 ask him whether it was in the early part of 
 the time, or shortly after the riot act was 
 read ? 
 
 WITNESS: — I cannot speak precisely. I know 
 I saw one similar to that, but I cannot speak to 
 luB time. What was the paper about ? It was a 
 
 paper coming from the Chartists' Associatfon,.- 
 What was it about ? It was an address to the 
 Chartists. But what about ? I cannot pretend to 
 say. How do you know that it is similar ? I am 
 speaking from the heading of it, and the general 
 reading of it. What do you mean by the general 
 reading of it ? From seeing it on the walls ; I am 
 certain it was a similar paper. Is it from the 
 heading of it, or from the subject matter gene- 
 rally ? Yes. AVhat is the subject matter of ifc 
 generally ? I cannot say. And yet you have sworn, 
 that you know it from the subject matter, its ge- 
 neral appearance, and other things. I ask you 
 again, what is the meaning of the paper you are 
 swearing to ? It is an address to the Chartists' 
 Association. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — From the 
 general appearance of this placard you are able 
 to state that you saw a paper that resembles it ? 
 Yes. 
 
 THOMAS BARRINGTON examined by the 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL Are you governor 
 of the Stockport workhouse ? Yes. On Thurs- 
 day, the 11th of August, was your attention 
 drawn to the crowds outside the workhouse? 
 Yes. Does any part of the workhouse abut ou 
 the public street ? Y'es, the lodges. In conse- 
 quence of anything told you, did you go to the 
 front of the workhouse — to where the lodge is — 
 to see anything that was going on ? Yes. Whafc 
 did you see ? Several thousands of people. Had 
 they anything in their hands ? They had sticks 
 and bludgeons. What were they doing ? They 
 were going by at that time. What next took 
 place ? I went into the yard from the ground 
 between the lodges and the board-room. I 
 went through there to an inner-yard. What 
 next took place ? We had not been there more 
 than a few minutes, when somebody said, “ They 
 broke in.” Did you see what next occurred? 
 No, sir, for they made their appearance instantly. 
 Where ? In the inner-yard. Well, what them 
 did they do ? They came in thousands, and en- 
 tered into the house. I think you said they 
 came in thousands ? Yes, sir, some thousands. 
 Entered into the house ? Yes. Did they \ake 
 possession of the place? Yes. Did they go 
 where they liked ? Yes. Well, what did they 
 do? They took all the food that was in the 
 house. They took seven hundred loaves, up- 
 wards of 71b. each. Did they take any money ? 
 Yes. Did they do any damage ? Yes. What ? 
 They shattered several doors to pieces. Did 
 they injure the windows ? Yes ; they broke a 
 number of windows. At last, I believe, the 
 military came and drove them away ? Ye». 
 
46 
 
 Cros-examined by Mr. DUNDAS: — Pray, 
 Mr. Bumble,* I beg pardon, Mr. Barrington, I 
 meant. — Was it known that you kept that quantity 
 in the workhouse ? Yes ; we usually have that 
 quantity in the house. How much money was 
 there taken ? £6 and upwards. Where was it ? In 
 the collecting officer's department. Was it in 
 small money ? It was in copper, and half-crowns. 
 W^ould such a sum as £7 in half-crowns, and other 
 small money, be laid out on the counter for paying ? 
 It might, as that was pay-day. What windows j 
 were broken ? Windows were broken in different : 
 parts of the honse, where the mob broke in. 
 W'here they on the ground floor? Yes: doors 
 also were broken, on the ground floor, where the 
 mob entered. How long might they be with you 
 altogether ? From the time they entered, till the 
 mayor and the authorities came, it would be an 
 hour. In what room is the bread kept ? It is 
 stowed away in various rooms. Always on the 
 ground floor? Yes. Is the room in which you 
 pay the men, adjoining these rooms? Yes. 
 Partly separated from them by a door. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Well, 
 Barrington, you do not live on workhouse fare ? 
 Yes. Well, you are a good specimen. This 
 mob entered in a general scuffle ? — a rush ? Yes. 
 Such a rush as coming against doors, or windows, 
 would be likely to smash them ? They did smash 
 them. Was the Mayor of Stockport wuth them 
 at first ? No. I believe you are as likely a per- 
 son as any to know the state of the working j 
 classes, respecting the alteration of wages ? No. j 
 Don’t you know anything about the increased i 
 number of inmates in the workhouse ? They were 
 rather numerous at that time. Did they do you 
 much personal injury ? None, whatever. I be- 
 lieve the master of a workhouse is not, in general, 
 a very popular man — at least he is not so in ex- 
 cited times ? I cannot say. But you know you [ 
 were not injured ? I was not injured, but I 
 doubted it very much. 
 
 THE JUDGE : — He doubted it very much ? 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He doubted whether he 
 was hurt or not, my Lord. [To the witness ] 
 
 Have you heard a great deal about the reduc- 
 tion of wages ? I do not interfere in that matter 
 at all. Have you heard any thing about it? 
 Some little thing, but not mneh. You have not 
 heard of the prevailing distress in Stockport 
 consequent on the reduction of wages ? No, I 
 have not. Not a word? No. You may go 
 down. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Perhaps your 
 Lordship will allow me to give notice to the 
 : witness Crompton to be close at hand, but not 
 to come into Court. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Certainly. 
 
 ^Ir. MURPHY :— Within ear-shot. 
 
 WILLIAM MOORE examined by the ATTOR- 
 NEY-GENERAL : — What are you ? A dresser at 
 Marple. How far is that from Stockport ? They 
 call it five miles. You say you are a dresser ? 
 Yes. Were you working in the month of August 
 last ? Yes. Where ? In Shepley’s mills. What 
 direction is Marple from Stockport ? — Is it to- 
 wards Manchester, or the other way ? It is the 
 other way. Do you remember any number of 
 persons coming to Shepley’s mills ? Yes. On 
 what day? I believe it was the 10th of August. 
 On what day of the week ? Wednesday. Did 
 you see them when they came ? Yes. In what 
 numbers did they come ? When they came up 
 to our mill, perhaps there were about 200 of 
 them. What did they do or say ? They mus- 
 tered, and our master and a parcel of the men 
 assembled on the canal bridge, near the end of 
 the mill. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Your master — that is Mr. 
 Shepley ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— What did 
 the men say or do ? They said they wanted the 
 hands turned out of the mill. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is, the multitude which 
 you say made about 250 ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— What did 
 Shepley do ? He stopped the mills and turned 
 
 * This unintentional mistake on the part of Mr. Dundas, which produced so much laughter in 
 Court, is thus accounted for in the Manchester Guardian, of March the 15th. During the examina- 
 tion-in-chief of Mr. Barrington, the master of the Stockport workhouse, one of the barristers en- 
 gaged for the defendants, said, in conversation with Mr. Dundas, that he had been reading “ Oliver 
 Twist,” and alluded to the delineation of the character of Mr. Bumble. Immediately after the 
 turn came of Mr. Dundas to cross-examine the witness, and he commenced — “ Well, Mr. Bum- 
 ble,” — but immediately, and we may add, painfully conscious of this involuntary lapsus linguce (for 
 Mr. Dundas is ever remarkable for his coprtesy at the bar), he added, — “ I beg your pardon, Mr. 
 Barrington, I mean.” The joke went further than Mr. Dundas wished; even the learned judge’s 
 gravity was disturbed ; Sir James Graham, who w’as seated on the bench, and then in attendance as a 
 witness, v;as greatly diverted. As for the bar and the defendants, many laughed aloud, and 
 amongst those who seemed most keenly to enjoy the embarrassment and confusion of Mr. Dundas, 
 was Mr. Sergeant Murphy, whose laugh rang through the Court. 
 
47 
 
 the hands out. How many hands had Shepley 
 at that time — at work ? About 500 or 600. 
 Now, did you see on that day any meeting of 
 persons, or any procession ? No. Either that 
 day or the next ? The next day, I did. Where 
 did you see them ? I saw them coming on the 
 Waterloo road in Stockport. In what way did 
 they go along ? They came in about ten or a dozen 
 a-breast. Did they march in procession ? — Was 
 there any regularity or order in their move- 
 ments ? Yes, good order; they had their sticks 
 horizontal in their hands. So that by holding 
 a stick they kept in line ? Yes. How far across 
 the road did they reach ? There was hardly any 
 passing on either side. How many were there ? 
 A very great number. How long did you watch 
 them going by ? Above half an hour. It took 
 that time for the people to pass ? I believe it 
 did, or thereabouts. Now, how many of them 
 had sticks ? The majority of them had ticks, 
 I believe. Did they create any alarm I did 
 not see any alarm. Was there any meeting ? 
 Yes, there was a meeting about the middle of 
 Waterloo. Was it that same day ? Yes. There 
 was a chairman appointed ? Yes. Any speakers ? 
 Yes, there were speakers. Did you know the 
 name of any of the speakers? Well, I don’t 
 know, only their names were announced as they 
 began to speak. One of them was Christopher 
 Doyle, and the other was Leach. Did you 
 know Doyle ? No, I did not see him there. 
 Who else was there ? Muirhouse was there. 
 Did you hear any resolution put ? Yes, they put 
 a resolution, whether they would cease working 
 till they would receive an advance of wages, or 
 till the Charter became the law of the land. 
 (Repeat it again.) They put a resolution whether 
 they would cease working till they should re- 
 ceive an advance of wages, or till the Charter 
 became the law of the land ; and it was carried 
 that they should cease working till the Charter 
 become the law of the land. Did you see a 
 person named Leach there ? Yes, I saw him 
 that they said was Leach. Was there anything 
 said about his going after some prisoners ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Is that the same Leach that 
 is on this record ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL:— We will 
 take it so, until we have some other person of the 
 game name. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A person named Leach, of 
 Hyde, is spoken to as going from a former meet- 
 ing to Stockport, and here you have, at a meeting 
 in Stockport, a person of that name, and from 
 that place: you cannot have a clearer identifi- 
 cation. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Very lately 
 I was before the Court of Queen’s Bench, on a 
 similar subject, and it was laid down that a per- 
 son of the same name with the defendant, need 
 not be identified with the actual party on the 
 record. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I think that in this case 
 there is a great difference, for here there are two 
 defendants on the record of the name of Leach, 
 so that non constat. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL:— We will 
 identify him by his conduct immediately. [To 
 the witness] — A person said something about pri- 
 soners ; now, who was it that said anything about 
 prisoners ? I could not hear, but some of them 
 said they must go to the workhouse to see about 
 prisoners. Was that said by the persons stand- 
 ing round the chairman ? Yes. How far off were 
 you from the chairman ? Well, I suppose I was 
 100 yards. Did you hear it ? Yes. Then I 
 need hardly ask you, whether the people around 
 the chairm m must have heard it as well as you ? 
 It was said that two or three of them must go, 
 and see if they could get the prisoners released. 
 Well, what then ? I went off and left them. Was 
 that all they said ? Did they say anything about 
 coming back again ? They said if they were not 
 back in a certain time, they might know that they 
 had themselves been taken into custody. After 
 that was said, did anybody go away towards the 
 workhouse ? Yes, I went off then. Where did 
 you go to ? I went round the town as far as Mr. 
 Bradshaw’s mill, where I heard there was some 
 damage done. I waited there till they had alj 
 got off Waterloo, and then I came off Waterloo 
 to come home to Marple. 
 
 The JUDGE : — How soon before you re- 
 turned ? Perhaps an hour or two before I got 
 back again. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — When you 
 got back again to Waterloo-road, did anybody 
 tell the meeting about what had been done ? 
 As I was going off Waterloo-road, I heard a 
 noise, and turned back. I saw Leach and 
 Doyle. They were linked arm-in-arm. Several 
 of the people ran and shook hands with them. 
 
 The JUDGE :— Before they dispersed, you 
 mean ? (No answer.) 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Leach and 
 Doyle were coming back again, linked arm-in- 
 arm, and several went to shake hands with 
 them ? Yes. Did any one give an account of 
 what they did ? Y^es ; they got on a wall, and 
 Leach addressed them, and told them what had 
 happened. He said, they had been to the work- 
 house, and had seen the Mayor and the magis- 
 
48 
 
 trates ; and the magistrates and the Mayor told 
 him that there had been some money taken 
 from the drawer, and they had taken him to the 
 drawer, and shown him where the money had 
 been taken from. He said the Mayor was very 
 kind with him, and the magistrates too. He 
 asked them whether they could release the pri- 
 soners, and the Mayor said he could not — it 
 would be violating the law ; but if they would 
 go off, he would perhaps release them in the 
 course of an hour, or an hour and a half. Hid 
 he mention anything about the soldiers or the 
 cavalry ? Yes ; he said the soldiers were there, 
 and they trembled like an aspen leaf. Did he 
 do anything? He shaked his hand, and said 
 they trembled like an aspen leaf. He exhibited 
 his own hand ? Yes. Hid you afterwards see 
 any of these parties on the 15th of August? 
 Yes. 
 
 The JUHGE : — That vras the following Mon- 
 day ? Yes ; Hoyle was then at a meeting at 
 Marple. The meeting was held at ten o’clock 
 in the forenoon. How many people were col- 
 lected together ? Many hundreds. ^Yas there 
 a chairman ? Yes. And speakers? Yes. You 
 say Hoyle was there ? Yes. Who was in the 
 chair- ? A man named Joseph Taylor was in the 
 chair. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Was Taylor one of the de- 
 fendants ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Taylor was chairman. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — How long 
 did that meeting last ? Nearly an hour. Hid 
 you hear what was said ? No ; I was too far 
 off. 
 
 Air. AIURPHY” : — I don’t ask you any ques- 
 tions. 
 
 JAMES CROAIPTON examined by Air 
 iVORTLEY" : — Are you a constable of the Stock- 
 port division? Yes. AVere you on duty on the 
 15th of August last, at Alarple ? Y'es. What num- 
 ber of persons were there ? Nearly 1000. Hid 
 you see who was in the chair ? I did. Who 
 was that ? Joseph Taylor, of Alarple-bridge. 
 Hid you see Taylor there ? Y'es. AYas he near 
 the chairman ? Y^es. Hid you hear what the 
 chairman said ? I did. Tell us as near as you 
 can — did you take any notes? Y'es ; J took 
 some. AA'^hen did you take them ? I took 
 them at the meeting, AYhile he was speaking ? 
 Yes. Tnese notes you have now are the same, 
 and in the same state ? I'es. Well, read them ; 
 what did he say ? “ Friends, and fellow -work- 
 
 men, we are met here this morning, not to 
 discuss a question of wages, but to see whether 
 you are content to live slaves, or whether you 
 are willing to use every exertion in your power 
 to make the Charter become the law of the 
 land. ATou may obtain an equal representation, 
 and place yourselves upon an equal footing with 
 your tyrannical masters. If you was to go to 
 work to-morrow, you would be a hundred times 
 worse than you was before you left work ; but 
 if you will resolve to work no moi-e until the 
 Charter becomes the law of the land, you will 
 make them glad to give you anything you want.” 
 How was that received by the meeting? AATth 
 cheers. Hid the chairman then introduce any 
 person as a speaker ? He introduced Christopher 
 Hoyle, of Alan Chester. Hid Hoyle address the 
 meeting ? He did, sir. AVhat did he say ? He said 
 “ Friends and fellow- workmen, we are not met 
 here this morning for any party object, but for a 
 national object, — an object upon which depends 
 your slavery or freedom.” He then went on with 
 a great deal of abuse of the government (I have 
 not the particulars), and then said: “ Perhaps 
 you will want to know from me how to get the 
 Charter. You must work no more till it becomes 
 the law of the land ; and you that have money in 
 the banks and other places, must fetch it out, and 
 stop the supplies of the government. Then you 
 will make them glad to give you anything you 
 may want. You will, perhaps, want to know bow 
 you are to get meat. Lord Kinnaird said, in the 
 House of Lords the other day, if he wanted food 
 he would take it where he could find it ; now 
 your tyrannical masters will have no objection to 
 your doing what Lord Kinnaird said he would do. 
 I tell you, if you want food, take it where you can 
 find it, if your masters will not relieve you.” All 
 that you have been telling us last was spoken by 
 Hoyle, was it ? It was. Hid he propose any re- 
 solution ? He did. AA^hat was it ? He proposed 
 that there should be no more work till the Charter 
 became the law of the land. That was the reso- 
 lution, was it ? It was, sir. A\’as that resolution 
 put to the meeting ? It was, sir, by the chairman. 
 And what was done upon it ? There was a unani- 
 mous show of hands in favour of it. After the 
 resolution was adopted, did Hoyle say anything 
 more ? He said, “ I see you are all Chartists, and 
 there’s a meeting of Chartist delegates to day at 
 Manchester.” — 
 
 Mr. MURPHY”: — A\”hat day of the month 
 was that ? 
 
 Air. A\”ORTLEY” :— The 15th. 
 
 AAHTNESS continued— “ And you must elect a 
 person to go therel” He then proposed that 
 Mr. Joseph Taylor, the chairman, should be 
 elected. There w-as a show of hands, and he 
 was elected a delegate to go to Alanchester. 
 After he was elected, did Taylor say anything 
 
49 
 
 more to the meetiug ? He said he felt proud that 
 they had elected him as their representative. 
 
 I tell you/' said he, “ that you must stick firm 
 one to another, and work no more till the Charter 
 becomes the law of the land. I will go to Man- 
 chester, and represent you there." Was that 
 meeting adjourned } It was. Where to ? Possett 
 Bridge. What time was it adjourned ? At tea 
 o’clock. They went there immediately. Was it 
 said what they were to go there for.’ To give their 
 delegate proper instructions. Their delegate was 
 Taylor. Taylor, I believe, is now under sen- 
 tence .’ He is, sir. Did the mob move off then.’ 
 Yes, sir. In which direction .’ They went to- 
 wards Macclesfield canal, and went along the 
 canal-side, in the direction of Possett Bridge. 
 Was any of them armed at the time.’ Yes ; many 
 of them were armed with sticks and bludgeons. 
 Did they afterwards go to the Peak Forest Canal ; 
 or is that a different canal from the one you have 
 mentioned? They went to the junction. As they 
 were going towards that junction of canals, did 
 you see who were at the head of them ? Taylor and 
 Doyle. Is there a stringof locks there ? Yes. Which 
 canal are the locks on .’ On the Peak Forest Canal. 
 Were there any boats passing at the time .’ Yes. 
 Did you see anything done to these boats .’ The 
 mob tied the boats to the side of the canal, 
 and drove the horses away from the boats. 
 The mob told the boatmen that if they went any 
 further they would sink their boats. How many 
 boats were there ’ Seven or eight. At the time 
 that w^as done, how far off was Doyle ? He 
 was at the head of the mob. How' far was he 
 from where the boats were ? Perhaps forty or 
 fifty yards. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — In advance .’ Yes, in ad- 
 vance. ^ 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Where did the mob go to 
 next ? They went to the top lock of the Peak 
 Forest Canal. How far is that from the junc- 
 tion ? It is close to the junction, sir. Was Doyle 
 still leading them ? He w^as, sir. Did you follow? 
 
 I did. What did you see done? The mob went 
 to the lock, and I went too, and charged them 
 not to do any damage to it, and they threatened 
 to throw me into the canal if I attempted to 
 stop them. Did you then see what they did ? 
 Yes, I stood by till I saw them puUing the lock 
 in pieces. Yv'hat do you mean by pulling the 
 lock in pieces ? They pulled the bolt out on 
 which the door of the lock moves, and threw 
 the lock door across the canal. Did that take 
 them a long time to do ? About twenty minutes, 
 or so. What was the effect of that gate being 
 uncoUared .’ The effect was that the navigation of 
 
 the canal was stopped. Without working that 
 lock the navigation could not go on ? No, sir, it 
 could not. How long was the navigation slopped 
 
 in consequence ? I think about two days 1 
 
 am not certain. Was there much traflic on 
 that canal ? Yes, sir. While they were doing as 
 you say (taking the gate down) what was the 
 rest of the mob doing ? One part of the mob 
 went to Possett Bridge, while the others were 
 breaking the lock down ? About 200 or 300. 
 Were they shouting ? Yes. Y/Iien ? When 
 they accomplished the taking down of the lock 
 door. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS : — Were 
 you ordered by the magistrates to go out to a 
 meeting, where you took notes .’ No, sir. Did 
 you go of your owm head ? Yes, sir. You took 
 notes of your own head ? Yes, I thought it ray 
 duty as a constable, when so much damage was 
 done in the village, to go and see what they 
 would do further. Did you take notes of all 
 that was done ? I took down all that I took 
 down. Well, it is no boast to tell us that ! Did 
 you take down all ? There is one resolution 
 which I did not take dowm. Did you leave out 
 part of w'hat was said by the speakers ? No. 
 Then, am I to understand that you did not take 
 all down ? I did not. Did you leave out such 
 portions as suited your taste ? No. You left 
 out some portions ; such as those about the 
 government ? He was getting so warm that I 
 could not take it down. He ^vas stating so 
 many suras that people w’ere getting as pensions 
 from the government, that I could not take it 
 down. Was it that you were so shocked, that 
 you could not take them down .’ Well, I thought 
 there was no necessity for taking it down. 
 What did you go to take down .’ What I 
 thought proper. Did you not go to take 
 dowra what was against the Chartists ? I wrant 
 to take down whatever resolutions they might 
 come to about destroying property. Did not 
 you go to take down wdiatever was said by the 
 Chartists ? No, I was not aware that it was 
 a Chartist meeting. When you found it was 
 a Chartist meeting, you took down w'hat was 
 against the Chaftist ? Do I understand you to 
 say so ? Yes. Were you the only officer there ? 
 
 I was the only officer there, except a few special 
 constables. Did any of them take notes ? Not 
 that I am aware of. Is any of them here ? Moor, 
 
 I believe was there. Anybody else ? None, that 
 have come here as witnesses, I believe. Very 
 well, when the meeting dissolved, did they go 
 
50 
 
 away peaceably ? They went away peaceably to- 
 wards the canal. I don’t think you told us what 
 number there might have been there ? There was 
 near upon a thousand. Did you know Doyle 
 before ? No. From anything said at the time, 
 could you make out that he was then a turn-out? 
 He stated, that he was going to different places 
 lecturing. I ask you, did you, from anything 
 that Doyle himself said, or anything that was 
 said at the meeting, make out that Doyle was a 
 turn-out ? I understood he was not. I under- 
 stood he was going about lecturing. Well, he 
 might be a turn-out for all that. A man not in 
 work has more time to go about leeturing ? I did 
 not understand him to be a turn-out. He said 
 he was going to Bury, and different parts of the 
 country lecturing. Was there anything said 
 about his being a turn-out ? No. Did you know 
 in what way of work he was, as a workman? 
 No, I did not. You do not know that now, 
 even ? No, I do not. Now, with regard to the 
 other man, Taylor, from anything said at that 
 meeting, did you make out that he was a turn- 
 out? No. Did you knew him before? He bad 
 worked at a mill, but then he was a dogger. 
 That is a man who makes wooden shoes ? Yes. 
 What sort of mill had he worked in before ? 
 
 1 believe he worked in Andrew’s mill. For how 
 long had he ceased w'orking in that mill ? Per- 
 haps, twelve months. And had he begun as a 
 dogger after that? Yes. And where did he 
 live ? At Marple Bridge, one part of his time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — I pre- 
 sume you are well known to many of the people 
 at Marple, as constable of the district? Yes. 
 Now, were you in a position that they could 
 see you taking these notes ? In fact they might 
 see me. Well, did you make any concealment 
 about it, or did you do it openly ? I did it openly. 
 Have you any doubt that a great number of the 
 persons there said you were taking notes ? — 
 Was any molestation shewn to you ? None. Not 
 in the least ? No. What is the distance from 
 this junction, .where the canal joins, to the Possett 
 Bridge ? Perhaps 300 or 400 yards. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Me OUBREY : — 
 Have you ever been a witness before you took 
 these notes at that meeting ? Yes. Then, I pre- 
 sume, you have some notion of the terms of a 
 witness’s oath ? Yes. You know, sir, that the 
 witness is to tell the truth — the whole truth ? 
 Yes. Now, I ask you on yotrt* oath, the time 
 you took those nc^es, did not you expect you 
 should be called upon to give evidence of t^em in 
 a court of justice ? I did. Were you not con- 
 scious, sir, that you did not take down the whole 
 truth? No, I was conscious that I did take 
 down the whole truth. — You were conscious 
 that you took down the whole truth ! — Did not 
 you admit you only took down what made against 
 the Chartisie} ? — Did not you say so, sir. 
 
 The -4TTORNEY-GENERAL Let the man 
 answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY : — He is proceeding to an- 
 swer another question — I want him to answer 
 that question. Witness I say so still. And 
 are you not conscious that you are not telling 
 the whole truth ? I am conscious that I am 
 telling the truth as far as I have told. I am 
 not asking you that : I am not saying that you 
 are telling a direct falsehood, but have you told 
 the whole truth ? I am conscious that I have 
 not told all that passed at that meeting. Were 
 you not conscious that, at the time you took 
 those notes, you could not tell all that passed at 
 that meeting ? I knew that I could not rehearse 
 what I left out of my notes. Did not you in- 
 tend to leave it out of your notes ? Yes. Then 
 did not you believe that the man who thus fits 
 himself not to tell the whole truth, is perjuring 
 himself ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — You cannot ask a man that. 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY : — I do not say that he is 
 doing so, my Lord, but if the man who thus fits 
 himself to tell the whole truth is not peijuring 
 himself. Shew me your book. [Witness hands 
 the book to Mr. O’Connor.] 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Where 
 did you stand? Near the cart. You were in 
 the throng ? Yes. You wrote down in this book 
 every thing as it passed at the time ? Yes. No- 
 thing afterwards ? No, sir. Not a word ? No, 
 with the exception of what the chairman said 
 afterwards. Are you a short-hand- writer, or 
 have you ever been a reporter? No, sir. Did 
 he speak very distinctly and slowly ? What I 
 took down was at the beginning and end of his 
 speech. You took it down in this hand dis- 
 tinctly, and you never have been a reporter? 
 Yes. Well, sir, you think that those men who 
 were going to arrest the wheels of government, 
 and withdraw their money from the banks, were 
 turn-outs ? A quantity of them was. I think 
 you said that a great many of those at the 
 meeting you went to, were Chartists ? I did not 
 know what they were till I went there. But 
 you went to the meeting in consequence of the 
 damage that was done ? Yes. You expected it 
 was a meeting of the parties who did that da- 
 mage ? I did. And you went to prevent the 
 recurrence of it ? Yes. You did not know that 
 they were Chartists ? I did not know what they 
 were till I went to the meeting— I thought they 
 were turn-outs. Now, I have to ask you not 
 only whether you took down the whole truth, 
 but that all you took down was true ? It was. 
 
51 
 
 Was there not a resolution passed ? Yes. What 
 was it ? Mr. Robinson, a print master, had his 
 works stopped, and Christopher Doyle proposed 
 that he should be allowed to run his machinery, 
 and finish some pieces that w’ere damaging ; and 
 that all the sours and liquid should be saved. 
 Why not tell that part of the resolution ? I have 
 told it. Why not tell it in the first instance, 
 before it was dragged out of you ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He was not asked it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Did you hear any resolu- 
 tion like this passed at that meeting ? — “ That, 
 believing this country to be on the eve of a re- 
 volution, and being utterly without hope that 
 the legislature will accord justice to the starving 
 millions, a requisition be forthwith prepared, 
 signed, and forwarded to the members of this 
 borough, calling upon them, in conjunction with 
 other liberal members, to offer every possible 
 opposition to the taxing of a prostrate people, 
 for the purpose of a bread-taxing aristocracy, 
 by argument and other constitutional impedi- 
 ments, that the wheels of Government may be 
 arrested through the rejection or prevention of 
 all votes of supply.” That resolution was not 
 passed there ? — It W'as not there that was 
 passed ? No, sir. Did you hear anything 
 about that in Stockport ? No, sir. In speaking 
 of your passage along the banks of the canal, I 
 think you said Doyle was considerably in ad- 
 vance of those w'ho broke the lock, and stopped 
 the boats ? Yes. Now, was there any recom- 
 mending of force ? They delayed the boatmen. 
 
 I am talking of the meeting at Marples ; was it 
 not said there that they would be a hundred 
 times W'orse if they returned to work than they 
 were before.’ — Are you not aware that there 
 was a reduction of half Iheir wages proposed, 
 and that if they returned to work their condi- 
 tion would be a hundred times worse ? I am 
 aware that there was a large reduction proposed. 
 A meeting of delegates, you say, was on the 
 15th ? Yes. And a resolution was put in your 
 presence, as to whether the men should go back 
 to w'ork with the prospect of being a hundred 
 times worse Yes. That resolution was put 
 to the meeting, plainly and openly ? It was. 
 Now, at that meeting did you hear any violent 
 language as to physical force ? No further than 
 telling them if they were short of meat where 
 they could find it. Did the speaker quote any 
 authority for that ? He quoted Lord Kinnaird. 
 Did he quote any other authority ? No. Was 
 the Mayor of Stockport quoted? No. Have] 
 
 you ever heard the Mayor of Stockport recom- 
 mending that course ? No. You belong to the 
 police of Stockport ? I do not reside there ; I 
 belong to the county, not to the borough. Did 
 you ever hear in Stockport, or in the neighbour- 
 hood, that the Mayor of Stockport said 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Is that, my 
 Lord, right ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — We have got Lord Kin- 
 naird, and I wish to put him in company with 
 the Mayor of Stockport. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You have a meeting at a 
 public-house ; what is that ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — That is a meeting at a 
 Manchester public-house, to which the delegates 
 were elected to go, my Lord. (To the Witness) 
 — Did it come to your knowledge, sir, as con- 
 stable, that great complaints were made by the 
 working people that they were turned out of 
 work ? It did. Were you aware of the state 
 of the W'orking-classes generally, — that they 
 were at that time very much distressed ? I was 
 not aware of the circumstance. Did they com- 
 plain of being very much distressed ? Yes ; I 
 was aware of their complaints. Were you not 
 aware that wages were below existence-point ? 
 Yes. And were you aware that they complained 
 of that ? Yes. Did you hear anything of the 
 meetings of shopkeepers ? Not a word. Was 
 any reference made to the meetings of shop- 
 keepers ? Not a word. Now, refresh your 
 memory? There was a meeting on the lOtb, 
 at which Muirhouse was present, and he stated 
 that all donations from masters and others 
 would be handed over to the shopkeepers’ com- 
 mittee in Hyde. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That all the donations — what 
 is that ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — That aU the donations 
 they received from the masters in the country 
 should be handed over to the shopkeepers’ com- 
 mittee. (To the witness.) The donations came 
 from the gentlemen and masters of the country ? 
 Why, Muirhouse led the mob up to the mills and 
 frightened it out of them. That was the way in 
 which the donations came ? Yes ; he led the mob 
 up to the gentlemen’s houses and got the dona- 
 tions from them. What house did he lead them 
 to ? To Mr. Clayton’s, for one. Tell us more ? 
 Mr. Shepley’s. How many hands had Shepley 
 employed? 500. Was his mill stopped at that 
 time ? Yes. I suppose you are aware that gen- 
 tlemen and master manufacturers are not Char- 
 tists? I do not know. Are you aware whe- 
 ther the shopkeepers’ committee was a Chartist 
 committee, or a shopkeepers’ committee ? I do 
 
not know. Are you not aware tkat that com- 
 mittee was appointed to receive donations out of 
 which the persons out of employment were to 
 be kept ? No. I wish your Lordship to see that 
 book. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. WORTLEY ; — This is 
 the book in which you took notes Yes. I 
 observe it is all written in pencil.^ Yes. You 
 made no corrections in it since ? No. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, I wish your 
 Lordship to see this book for the purpose of 
 saying, whether it is possible that the witness 
 could have written it in that clean hand at the 
 time the speeches were made. He professes to 
 report 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is a question for the jury ! 
 and not for me. They had, perhaps, better look 
 at it now. 
 
 A juror requested to have the book, and also a 
 book produced by a previous witness. They 
 would rather see them when about to give in their 
 verdict. 
 
 The ATTORNEY GENERAL I have no 
 objection ; but am anxious that the book should 
 be submitted to the jui*y as soon as it becomes 
 evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE:— It is suggested that the wit- 
 ness is untrue, on the ground that he could not 
 have taken a consecutive note in that way. 
 
 A JUROR : — Do you wish us to say now, my 
 Lord, whether a consecutive note could be taken 
 so cleanly ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Mr. O’Connor objects to the 
 notes, on the ground, that they could not be taken 
 cleanly and consecutively in the way the witness 
 has stated. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY (To Witness) ; — Have you 
 told us all that of which you took a note ? I 
 have. Was there a considerable portion of the 
 speeches of which you took no note ? Yes, there 
 was a considerable deal said in abuse of the 
 government, of which I took no note. Had 
 you the means of wiating without being jostled ? 
 Yes. Did you stand in front of the waggon, or 
 on one side? On one side. Where was the 
 principal jostling of the waggon ? Chiefly in 
 front. You said you went to that meeting in 
 consequence of the damage done ? Yes. What 
 damage was there done ? I allude to the damage 
 done at the shops and public-houses in the town- 
 ship of Marple. Every shop and public-house, 
 nearly, in the village of Marple was robbed. 
 When did that take place ? On the 1 0th. . And 
 it was in consequence of that you felt it 
 your duty to attend these meetings, and see 
 what passed ? It was. You say there was an- 
 other resolution passed at that meeting, to en- 
 
 able Mr. Robinson to work out the goods which 
 were unfinished ? Yes. Where did Mr. Robin- 
 son live ? In a place called Strands, near 
 Marple. 
 
 The JUDGE : — MTiat is that ? 
 
 I Mr. WORTLEY : — He stated in answer to 
 i Mr. O’Connor, that there was another resolution 
 I passed, of which he took no note, which resolu- 
 tion w’as to give leave to Mr. Robinson to work 
 out the goods which were in the sours. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It will be absolutely neces- 
 sary when I come to sum up, to take the evi- 
 dence in the way it was taken in Stafford. There 
 were several parties there, and after Chief Justice 
 Tindal summed up from his notes, he then put 
 it to the Jury, as to each person that was on his 
 trial, whether he was guilty, or not guilty, and 
 they wrote down their verdict privately, as to 
 each particular prisoner ; (here it will be as to 
 each defendant), and it has occurred to me to- 
 day, that I cannot possibly do justice to the 
 parties without doing so. Therefore, I wish to 
 say to the jury, that they will not have to decide 
 en masse, 
 
 A JUROR : — In the first place we must say, 
 whether they are comparatively guilty ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — They must all be guilty of the 
 same offence. You cannot say that one man is 
 guilty of one offence, and another of another ; all 
 you find guilty you must find guilty of the same 
 offence. I have stopped for the purpose that you 
 may collect yourselves. [The J udge then handed 
 the jury a list of the defendants] . Now, by look- 
 ing through that list, you will find that when I 
 come to sum up, I shall show what evidence ap- 
 plies to each particular defendant, and you will 
 be thus greatly relieved from perplexity in giving 
 your verdict. . 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY: — They may possibly be 
 found guilty on several counts. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You cannot lump a great num- 
 ber of defendants together, because one may be 
 guilty of one misdemeanour and another of 
 another. They must be aU guilty of the same 
 offence. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY :— It is quite obvious that the 
 course your Lordship points out is the right one, 
 inasmuch as I and my learned friends appear for 
 defendants, who will be very differently affected 
 by the evidence, and therefore we sever our de- 
 fence, and confine each case to particular 
 counsel. 
 
 Examination resumed by Mr WORTLEY : — 
 Before that resolution was passed, did you hear 
 of any resolution put to the meeting, giving leave 
 to Mr. Robinson to finish what work he had in 
 
53 
 
 liand ? One of Mr. RoMnson’s managers asked 
 permission of the meeting, to work his cloth out 
 of the sours with safety. Mr. Robinson's print- 
 works had been stopped, and he did not wish to 
 have the property damaged. You heard him 
 apply for that purpose, did you ? Yes ; I believe 
 if the cloth lay in the sours for a certain time, 
 they would be destroyed. Well, to whom did he 
 apply then } To the chairman. What was done 
 on that ? Christopher Doyle said he allowed them 
 to work in other places in a similar way and he 
 proposed that Mr. Robinson’s men should also be 
 allowed to work. A resolution was then passed 
 giving permission to do so. You were asked by 
 Mr. O'Connor, whether there was any violence at 
 the time the boats were stopped ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— No, I did not: I asked 
 whether there was any violent language used at 
 the meeting. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY: — Mr. O’Connor asked first, 
 whether the meeting was peaceable, and then he, 
 (the witness), went on and said “ They told the 
 boatmen.” — 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR: — I said I did not ask 
 him about the boatmen, but about the meeting. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are perfectly right, Mr. 
 O’Connor, you said “I do not ask you about 
 that — I am talking of the meeting at Marples.” 
 If you now wish any question to be asked, I will 
 ask it for you. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — You heard that the dele- 
 gates were to go to a public house in Manches- 
 ter.^ Did you know the name of the public 
 house ? No. You heard Muirhouse say, that all 
 the donations were to go to the shopkeepers 
 committee ; where was that meeting held } In 
 Marples. Was that on the same day the violent 
 language was uttered ? It was after they had been 
 in a shop for bread and cheese, and in a public 
 house for beer : they held the meeting in a public 
 house. ^ 
 
 The JUDGE :— Did they go to the shops ? 
 Yes, they went into a shop, and took the loaves 
 off the counter. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — You say they went with 
 the mob to Clayton's and Shepley’s ; w^as that 
 before or after the 10th ? It was the same day, 
 while making their speeches, a man w’hispered 
 to Muirhouse that Clayton and Shepley were 
 going to commence again. Muirhouse imme- 
 diately dissolved the meeting and said “ follow 
 me, and, if they dare to start their mills again, 
 they will be pulled dowm from top to bottom.” 
 Was there any person that you knew but Muir- 
 house ? No. After that, where did they go ? 
 He [Muirhouse] led them down to Clayton’s 
 mill. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — If your Lordship asks that 
 
 question I will be obliged. 
 
 The JUDGE :— What is it ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Merely what he heard the 
 mob saying to the boatmen. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What did you hear the mob 
 saying to the boatmen ? Witness : — They told 
 the boatman if they attempted to move the boats 
 any farther, they would sink them. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — I wish you to ask whether 
 or no Doyle, when he proposed the resolution 
 not reported, was not acting as a mediator for 
 Mr. Robinson. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is hardly necessary to ask 
 it, for it is obvious. He says, some one came 
 down and mentioned it ; and, in consequence of 
 that communication, Doyle proposed, that, as in- 
 jury was likely to happen to Mr. Robinson by 
 not working out that wdiich was in course of 
 manufacture, he must be at liberty to do so. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — We heard a general phrase 
 as to going into shops, and robbing them. Now, 
 I want to fix that definitively, whether they 
 went into any shops, except for food and drink I 
 Was there any other robbing besides that of 
 bread and beer ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was there any other robbing, 
 besides that of bread and beer } Only drink. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Would your Lordship ask 
 this witness, what time the disturbances began 
 to cease ? 
 
 WITNESS : — We had no particular disturb- 
 ance in Marple after the 20th. 
 
 ABRAHAM LONGSON, examined by Sir 
 GREGORY’^ LEWIN : — What are you ? I am one 
 of the Stockport police. On the 15th of August, 
 was there a meeting ? Yes. Where ? On the Wa- 
 terloo road. Was it a large meeting? It was 
 attended by 5,000 or 6,000 people. Was there 
 a chairman ? Yes. What was his name? John 
 Wright. Were you there ? Yes. Did you con- 
 tinue there during the whole time ? I did. Did 
 you make any notes, immediately after, of what 
 passed ? Immediately after the meeting broko 
 up, I went and made some. Who was the first 
 speaker ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— Are these the notes, ray 
 friend ? A person of the name of Sawyer. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Are these the 
 notes ? I did not v/rite myself — a person v/ho 
 was with me wrote, and I dictated. Did you 
 dictate this immediately after the meeting had 
 taken place ? I did. Did you read them over 
 immediately after they were taken down ? I did. 
 Were they correct? Yes. You said the first 
 person that spoke was a person named Joseph 
 Sawyer ? Y'es. Did you know the person named 
 
64 
 
 Pilling? Yes. Was he present at that meeting ? 
 Yes. What did Sawyer do ? He proposed that 
 John Wright should take the chair. After him 
 who was the next speaker ? A person named 
 John Newton. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Is he a defendant ? 
 
 Was that all that Browm said ? Yes. Who fol- 
 lowed Brown ? Rd. Pilling, What did Pilling say? 
 “ Fellow'-towmsmen, for I may so call you, having 
 lived amongst you so long, and having been at so 
 many meetings, by thousands, and have been in 
 prison. I do not know whether it would be 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — No, he is not. j safe for me to own it or not; but I may avow 
 WITNESS : — After Wright had taken the that I have the honour to be father of this 
 chair, he proposed, “ that whoever introduced movement, and the sole cause of your being 
 any subject not connected with that of wages j ladies and gentlemen at the present time ; for 
 should be put down ; he told them they must | the masters of Ashton had thought proper to 
 get their wages, and if they could not, they must j offer a reduction of 25 per cent, upon their 
 
 ask their masters why they could not give it 
 them ; and if they told them it was through the 
 * top shop,’ (the government,) they must ask 
 their masters to go with them as commanders 
 and sergeants, and find them with bread and 
 cheese on the road. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Before you go on allow' me 
 to look at your paper ? [Witness hands the 
 notes to Mr. Dundas.] Had you such good pen 
 and ink as to write it out thus at the meeting ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Not at the meeting, but im- 
 mediately after the meeting was over. 
 
 WITNESS continued “And to go to the 
 Duke of Wdlington ; and if that would not do 
 to go to Buckingham Palace, and the House of 
 Commons, and the House of Lords, or whatever 
 they have a mind to call it, and demand from 
 them to take all restriction off.” 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Was that all that 
 Newton then said ? Yes, that I can remember. 
 Who spoke next ? The Chairman. What did 
 he say ? He said he would not go to London. 
 They must take the responsibility upon them- 
 selves, for he would not go to Loudon. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Who said this ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN -.—The Chairman, 
 John Wright, 
 
 WITNESS : — James Allinson then got up, and | 
 
 wages. I then caused the bellman to go round 
 and call the meeting, swearing by the God of 
 heaven, that, if the reduction took place, we 
 w'ould annihilate the system, and cause the day 
 of reckoning. I then addressed a meeting of 
 12,000. I then went to Stalybridge, and address- 
 ed a meeting of 10,000. I then addressed a 
 meeting at Hyde of 10,000, and at Dukinfield 
 of 5,000. At every meeting they came to a re- 
 solution to work no more till they got the same 
 wages as they had in February, 1840.” He then 
 said, he addressed a meeting at Royton, who 
 came to the same resolution. He said he then 
 called a meeting at Oldham. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He said so ? Yes, my Lord. 
 But there they were taken by surprise, “ and I 
 had to come back, with five other of the speakers 
 against me. In consequence of that, the people of 
 Oldham were not out, but I was determined next 
 morning to go and drub them out.’ 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — Is it dmb or dmm ? 
 Witness : — Drub. I went accordingly, and met 
 them at eight o’clock, where one of them at- 
 tacked me, and I gave him a floorer, and they 
 all lay prostrated at my feet. All thair masters 
 were then willing tp giv« them their prices but 
 one of the Anti-corn-law League, of the name 
 of Bayley, of Stalybridge. In the course of the 
 
 moved that the question be left open, and let the | last three weeks, I have addressed upwards of 
 
 meeting decide whether or not, their wages. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Whether or not their wages ! 
 —Was that all he said? 
 wages or the Charter. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR 0 no ! 
 
 The JUDGE Was that allhe«aid? 
 ness : — I don’t know, my Lord. 
 
 300,000 in different parts of Lancashire and 
 Cheshire. We then went to Droylsden and Man- 
 Witness : — Their | Chester, and the people of Droylsden swore by 
 the God of heaven they would not work any 
 I more until they had got their price of 1840. 
 Wit- ' They then came to Stockport, and caused all 
 I the mills to be stopped. You did not turn out 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Who spoke next ? ; as my friend here stated.’ 
 
 A person 
 
 named Brown. What did he say ? j Sir GREGORY LEWIN Is it and or a#— 
 
 He advised them to stick out till they had their just read that again, if you please. 
 
 wages and their rights ; and abide by the ques- j The JUDGE : — [To Sir Gregory Lewin]— • 
 
 tion, and not meddle with any other subject, for Have you got a copy of this ? 
 
 if the did they would lose all their support.! Mr. DUNDAS: — My Lord, let me suggest to 
 
the witness to read over what he has, and then 
 to hand it to yonr Lordship. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 do not wish to hand any paper to your lordship 
 of which the defendant has not a copy. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — The shortest way will be 
 for your lordship to take it down in the end. 
 
 WITNESS proceeded “ It was the Ashton 
 lads that turned you out ; and mind one thing, if you 
 do go in, they will come over and give you a d— d 
 good hiding. They then went to the bastile ; but 
 I did not consider that right ; but this winter we 
 may all become thieves, and then the soldiers and 
 police will have to look after us ; and that will eat 
 up the system, as there are more ways than one 
 of eating up the system ; but, if the Ashton lads 
 had not been there, they would not have known 
 that there had been such a place. The magis- 
 trates ought to have looked over such a trifling 
 thing as that, and not have committed some to 
 Chester.” He said he had been in all parts of 
 South Lancashire, and at Burnley, Chorley, Bol- 
 ton, Preston, Colne, Padiham, Clitheroe, Tod- 
 morden, Blackburn. The two Tory members of 
 Blackburn was a-yate of working patent looms at 
 l^d. per cut less than any other masters were 
 giving in that neighbourhood, and stopped 9d. per 
 week for every loom. He then went toTodmor- 
 den, and the woithy member for Oldham w'as ac- 
 tually giving more wages for some kinds of work 
 than what they were turned out for ; and w'hen the 
 authorities and soldiers went to him to protect his 
 factory, he told them he could do without them, 
 as the arms of the people were his protection ; and 
 when that ceased, he hoped he should cease to 
 live. He then said, “ There’s that d — d rascal of 
 a Marshall-” 
 
 The JUDGE Of a Marshall?— Is that the 
 name? Yes, my lord. There is a manufacturer 
 ofthatnameat Stockport—” and that d—d blood- 
 hound of a thief of a Jem Bradshaw ; they are 
 both particular friends of mine, and I love them 
 well, and they know it. But you must be sure 
 and stick out, and not go to your work ; for, if 
 you do, the masters will crush you down, you 
 may depend upon it, and then the Ashton lads 
 will come over again, and give you a d — d good 
 hiding ; and don’t you deserve it ?” The crowd 
 said, “Yes.” He said, “ But you will not get off 
 as you did before. Now that is intimidation ; but 
 1 know the law of conspiracy, and there never yet 
 W'as a good thing got, but some one had to suffer 
 for it. But they may put me in prison, for I don’t 
 care a d — n for being within the prison of the 
 walls — ” 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Or walls of the 
 pnson, which ? 
 
 . WITNESS ;-^-He said prison of the walls then. 
 
 He made a mistake. He finished liy exhorting 
 them to stick out. He said he had a child who 
 was dead a short time since. I believe he said a 
 child, my lord, or one of the members of his fa- 
 mily, I am not certain. When he concluded, did 
 any one else follow' ? I am not aw'are there did, 
 sir. Well, you remained there ? No, sir. Was 
 the meeting dispersed ? They went peaceably off. 
 Was it adjourned, or how ? I rather think it was 
 adjourned till next morning at five o’clock. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Y^ou did not hear that ? No, 
 my lord. Who addressed • the meeting on the 
 16th ? I cannot say who. You cannot say wdio ? 
 No, sir. What took place at that meeting ? — 
 YVho was in the chair ? I believe it w'as a person 
 named Joseph Harrison — I cannot say now. Was 
 Wright there ? Y^es. Well, tell us w'hat took 
 place in the meeting of the 16th ? — Was there any- 
 body appointed to anything ? There w'ere a cer- 
 tain number of delegates appointed. Did you 
 know the names of any of the persons Vt^ho were 
 appointed delegates ? I believe there were several 
 meetings up and down the town to appoint the 
 delegates. I am asking where you were — not 
 where you were not. When you were present at 
 these meetings, did any appointment of delegates 
 take place ? Yes, they appointed John Wright. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Were you present ? Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEVf IN ;— Where was that 
 At the meeting of the 16th. What was he ap- 
 pointed delegate to ? To the conference at Man- 
 chester. Where was that? I am not certain. 
 When were your notes taken ? Immediately after 
 the meeting. By whom ? By a person named 
 Robert Swan. Were they taken in your pre- 
 sence ? Yes. Were they dictated by you ? Yes. 
 Were they read over to you afterwards? Yes. 
 Were they correct ? Yes. Have you any notes 
 of what took place on the 16th? No. Wright 
 was elected a delegate ? I believe he was. Have 
 you any doubt about it? I have not. Well, on 
 the 17th another meeting took place ? Yes. Can 
 you tell me what took place at the other meeting ? 
 Here is a note of it. Can you read it ? Yes. Well, 
 tell me what took place on the 17th ? Wm. Wil- 
 liamson was in the chair. He addressed the meet- 
 ing, and said those delegates that had been at 
 Manchester would come forward, and state what 
 had been done. Did they come forward any of 
 them? Yes, sir. Who came forward? John 
 Wright. Well, when John Wright came forward, 
 what did John Wright say ? “Meeting of dele- 
 gates, chairman, and fellow -sufferers, I am come 
 back quite different — 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — It might be Messrs, dele- 
 gates, I think. [Witness hesitated, and appeared 
 unable to read the notes.] 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN: — He addresses 
 them in tliose terms, “ Delegates, chairman, and 
 
56 
 
 fellow. sufferers, I am come back quite different ” 
 — Go ou. If you cannot read it let somebody else 
 read it. 
 
 Mr. PART then took the notes from witness 
 and read them: — John Wright addressed the 
 meeting: — Delegates, chairman, and fellow-suf- 
 ferer.s, I am come back quite different to that I 
 expected I should have come back, but I have 
 not received any information. But we were put 
 down by the authorities. I went to Tib Street 
 for to find the delegates, but I could not. I went 
 to Avery Street to look for them ; and went to 
 several other streets to look for them, but could 
 not find them. At last we found them, and saw 
 from the placards -on the wall that it was dan- 
 gerous for them to meet. We were admitted into 
 the room. Thera were the work-people as we 
 call them. There were seventeen delegates to 
 support wages, but the moment we entered the 
 room the meeting adjourned until to-morrow ; 
 
 ‘ And I could not tell 
 My Lord God from Tom Bell ; ’ 
 but there was no delegate there for your benefit." 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — This is refreshing the wit- 
 ness's memory all the time. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— He stated that it 
 was read over to him, and that it was correct. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — He w^as looking round and 
 not attending. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Can you swear that that was 
 what was done at the meeting ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I %vant the witness to attend 
 while the notes are reading, in order that the 
 operations of his mind may be on the evidence. 
 
 WITNESS : — I can swear, my Lord, that it 
 is what took place. 
 
 Mr. PART proceeds; — “But the delegates 
 deceived them : but we waited upon them. But 
 go — get the Charter ; go to the devil and do what 
 you will. But go to your work and get your 
 wages. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is wdiat John Wright 
 said ? 
 
 WITNESS Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. PART : — “ The meetings in Manchester 
 are called illegal, and this meeting is illegal ; but 
 when you get your wages go to your work. But 
 in Manchester they will not go to their work 
 until they get the Charter. But I did not come 
 here to deceive you. But I believe there is a 
 ^reat many that will go and creep under the gates 
 before this day month. We went for the wages 
 wf came out for. For I don’t care for no man, 
 w net her he be fool or Dick. Mr. President, I 
 hope that no man will go from this meeting under 
 any mistake. But I will not deceive you, for I 
 have not voted this day. But the meeting was 
 concluded for wages and the Charter, and both 
 bad gone together. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Is this all that Wright said ? 
 
 WITNESS : — Yes, my Lord, that is what was 
 said by Wright 
 
 Mr. PART continues : — “ I should have been 
 one of the first when Sawyer and me went up 
 stairs. They dissolved their meeting until to- 
 morrow, but we must look strict after them." 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — Did you see any 
 placard of this meeting on the 17th ? I saw a large 
 placard. Did it say anything about gold ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I object to that question. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Have you got a 
 note about it } I have. If you have, look at it ! 
 I believe I have. Was that made in the same 
 manner as the last.^ Yes. A placard was read, 
 headed — “ Run for gold." Who read it ? A per- 
 son named Joseph Carter. Did you attend a 
 meeting after the 17th of August.’ Yes, other 
 meetings. Who did you see there John Allin- 
 son was at one of them. I believe after that 
 some of the hands returned to work Yes. Do 
 you remember a meeting on the 15th of Decem- 
 ber, at the Hall of Science? Yes, and another 
 on Bamber’s Brow, on the 16th. Was John 
 Allinson at these meetings? He 'was. Was 
 Allinson a speaker ? -He was. Do you re- 
 member the language he used? Yes. State it. 
 Witness then read from his notes — “ Fellow suf- 
 ferers, this meeting is now at an end ; and I would 
 advise you, who can, to go to your w'ork. It is 
 useless for a few of you to be sacrificed, for I 
 know that some of you have better situations 
 than others ? Did Allinson advise them to go to 
 their work ? Yes. Did Carter and Clarke speak ? 
 Yes. Did they advise them to go to their work ? 
 Clark advised them to go to their work. Did 
 Carter ? — Will you let me see the paper, where 
 you say Allinson advised them to go to their 
 work ? [Witness hands the paper from which he 
 was reading to Mr. Part.] Is that, which Allin- 
 son said, correctly stated there ? Yes. Very 
 well, then we w'ill see. Carter was the first 
 speaker after the chair was taken. He said, that 
 they never would obtain their rights until the 
 Charter became the law of the land. He had 
 a brother sacrificed, who would have been 
 living now, if he had had a fair day’s wages 
 for a fair day’s work. What signified if a few 
 lives were lost, if they got their rights ? The peo- 
 ple of Switzerland would rise for their rights, 
 and the people here ought to contend for the 
 Charter, if they had to fight for it. — [The Judge 
 said, if he had to take down all the speeches, 
 there would be no end of it.] It was then agreed, 
 that Mr. Part, should read the remainder of 
 Allinson’s speech, which he did as follows; — “We, 
 up to the last night, left the Charter ; and it was 
 was a wages question altogether ; but, as that has 
 failed, we must now go back to these principles, 
 
67 
 
 which alone can save us from ruin and degrada- 
 tion, by using every means in our power to obtain 
 the people’s Charter. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The substance of that is, that 
 the struggle is now over ; he advises them to re- 
 sume their work, but, still to struggle for the 
 Charter. I infer that he went for the wages 
 question, rather than for the Charter. He says 
 he has gone to endure great privations in the 
 cause ; advises them to resume work, and to use 
 every means in their power to get the Charter. — 
 [The examination of the witness was then 
 resumed :] — You say you heard a placard read ; 
 was it like that ? [Handing it to witness.] Yes, 
 it was similar to this. The placard, of which the 
 following is a copy, was then read “ Run for 
 gold ! Labour is suspended ; public credit is 
 shaken ; paper is worthless ; run for gold ! 
 Every sovereign is now worth 30s. Paper can- 
 not be cashed. Run, middle-class-men, trades, 
 odd-fellows, sick clubs, money clubs, to the sav- 
 ings’ banks, and all banks for gold, gold, gold ! !!” 
 Was there any other placard read at that meet- 
 ing ? There was. — Look at that. — (The Executive 
 placard). Was it like that ? I believe it was simi- 
 lar to that. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! merely 
 now prove, my Lord, that the executive address 
 was used at that meeting. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS How 
 long have you been in the police ? Seven years, 
 on the 12th of August next. Who is your friend 
 Robert Wright ? Robert Wright, sir ! Yes, is 
 not he the man that wrote for you ? — Who wrote 
 for you ? Ben Norfolk, wrote at first. Have you 
 got him here with you ? No. Have you got the 
 second, and who his he } Robert Swan. And 
 the third? Yes. Well, you have not brought 
 him with you ? I have not, sir. Are they all 
 happy at home ? I believe they are very'’ well. 
 Can you w-rite yourself, or can you only read 
 Swan’s hand-writing? O, I can both read and 
 write, sir. Anything written with a swan’s 
 quill, I suppose ? Yes, something wdth a pen. 
 But you are a bad craftsman ; yet you have a 
 monstrous good memory, Abraham. Well, I 
 have a good memory. How long did it take you 
 to dictate those notes to Ben ? Well, I should 
 say we were three-quarters of an hour, or an 
 hour. A tidy memory that, Abraham. Can you 
 carry a speech in your head so as to dictate it 
 again? I can. How long do you carry before 
 you deliver ? That depends on convenience. 
 Do you always keep it in your head as long as 
 that ? I have some other things to think of, 
 sometimes. Do you presume to say, that, what 
 you told to Ben, was exactly what passed ? It 
 was, but it was not all there. But it took three- 
 quarters of an hour to tell it. — How loixg was the 
 
 man speaking ? — How long for instance was Pil- 
 ling speaking? I did not take notes. O, but 
 you can tell us — that you need not take 
 down. — Can’t you tell us ? I cannot exactly* 
 I did not ask you to tell us exactly. It might be 
 half an hour. I think he was speaking about that 
 
 time. And did you dictate that to Ben 
 
 what Pilling said ? I did afterwards. Have you 
 been in the habit of carrying things in your head 
 this way? O, I have attended several meetings 
 and given them to Swan and others. You can 
 do that at a fetch ? — How long a speech could you 
 carry in your mind ? — Suppose you heard a speech 
 for half an hour, could you carry it ? Some part 
 of it. Twice as much as that of Pilling’ s ? That 
 depends on the subject. Suppose it was all about 
 wages and the Charter, could you carry it if it 
 occupied an hour in the delivery ? I think I could, 
 sir. What is this Robert Swan? He is a sheriff’s 
 officer. What aged man is he ? I should think 
 he is about forty-five or forty. What has he to 
 do with you ? He was employed as special con- 
 stable during the disturbances. That was the 
 only thing he had to do with you ? It was. When 
 he had wu-itten down speeches 'before for you, was 
 he employed as special constable ? He never did 
 write a speech till the late outbreak. Then, 
 before last year, you never did write speeches ? 
 Yes. Then who wrote those for you? Our own 
 officers. Before this year (1842) ? Yes. O, I 
 beg pardon, I thought you had him. Can you 
 tell me whether John Allinsou was a turn-out ? 
 I cannot. What was he to trade ? A weaver. 
 And what was this man Wright that you have 
 been telling us of ? He formerly was a spinner^ 
 but he was out then, and was working on th' 
 road under the relief committee. He was not ii 
 any business of his own ? He was not ; he w'as 
 employed as a pauper. Were the people, gene- 
 rally, who attended the meeting, “ turn-outs” 
 
 I should say they were. When you went to the 
 meeting did you expect to find it a turn-ou^ 
 meeting ? 
 
 The JUDGE What meeting ? My Lord, on 
 the 15th there was a great meeting, consisting of. 
 5000 or GOOO people. [To witness.] When you 
 went there you expected to .find a meeting of 
 “ turn-outs ” ? I did, sir. And was there much 
 said about wages ? There was. Did the peopl:"- 
 listen attentively when anything was said abor^ 
 wages ? I took more notice of the speakers tha'i 
 the people. Ay, but you would observe as well ? 
 
 I was thinking of what was said. Did you look 
 up, or to the mob ? I looked at the speakers V 
 Could not you observe whether the peopL;, 
 were attentive? I took very little notice eXi^ 
 cept of the speakers. Very well, have you told 
 us now of all the persons you know who attend- 
 ed that meeting? I have. Can you tei us anv 
 
58 
 
 more of the speakers — of tlie turn-out people that 
 were there ? You can’t ? Yes, I can. A person 
 named Beattie was there for instance. Was he a 
 working man? He was a steam-loom weaver, 
 and out of work at the time. A person named 
 Heywood, and a man named Webb, were there. 
 Were many of the mills in that neighbourhood 
 stopped ? They were all stopped on the 16th, sir. 
 Did this great meeting of uOOO or 6000 persons 
 disperse quietly ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — The meeting on the 15th. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Yes, my Lord. (To Wit- 
 ness) — Did the meeting on the 16th disperse 
 quietly ? Yes, it did, sir. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — I don’t ask you anything. 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY : — I want to see an example 
 of this most extraordinary memory of yours — 
 you say you can remember a speech of half an 
 hour’s length ? A part of it. 0, I thought you 
 could remember it so as to dictate it again ? I said 
 a great deal would depend on the subject. Just 
 try if you can remember what is written down 
 here ; see if you can repeat what my learned 
 friend said ? lie has been asking me if a meet- 
 ing would disperse quietly. As to the first thing 
 he said ? He wanted to know if I took notes 
 at the time. Well, did not you? No; I dic- 
 tated to Ben. Norfolk, who wrote them down. 
 Ay, but can you repeat the first question put to 
 you ? That was the first. What was the next ? 
 If it was the original, and whether I had ano- 
 ther, and about whether he had got pens, ink, 
 and paper, and so on. Do you swear that these 
 are the questions he put to you ? Y’es. Are 
 these the very wmrds ? Well, it is the question 
 he asked. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Well, 
 1 have a few questions to ask you, but I w’iil not 
 test your memory so far as my learned friend. 
 I am sure you could remember Mr. Filling’s 
 sp^'ech ? Not all. Not what is down in your 
 notes ! Could you give us wmrd for word as it 
 is down in your notes ? I believe I could. Have 
 you travelled far ? No. Well, you followed 
 Pilling through a very long tour — through South 
 Lancashire — through twenty-five, thirty, or forty 
 towns ? Not so many. Are you a politician ? 
 Not much of a one. You do not read the news- 
 papers ? 0, I do. Do you read the Manchester 
 
 Guardian ? Occasionally. Do you think there 
 is any striking similarity between the speech 
 you reported for Pilling, and the speech of Pilling 
 as reported in the Manchester Guardian? I 
 never read Filling’s speech in the Guardian. 
 
 j Upon your oath ? Upon my oacn. Now, when 
 I dictating to Robert, did he refresh your memory 
 at all ? He did, occasionally. Then these were 
 your notes, and Robert’s together ? Yes. And 
 I where is Robert ? He is not here. And why 
 is he not here ? I cannot answer that. Don't 
 you think he ought to be here as well as your- 
 self ? — They are your joint notes. Now, W'hen 
 
 Pilling heard at the meeting on, the 16th that 
 
 they had been at the workhouse Witness : 
 
 That is the 15th, sir. Did not Pilling reprimand 
 1 the work-people for that act ? He said it was 
 very wrong. I think you said Wright took the 
 chair on the 15th of August, and that Newton 
 w’as the first man who addressed the meeting 
 after Wright opened it. Newton told them that 
 they should go to the Duke of Wellington’s, 
 Buckingham Palace, the Lords, and the Com- 
 mons, or the top shop ? Yes. Did he say (on 
 your oath) that if the Corn-laws were not re- 
 j pealed he would turn London upside down ? He 
 j said a number of tilings that I cannot recollect. 
 ; Did he say that, or words to that effect ? I can- 
 : not say. Did the meeting hiss Newton when 
 he said he would go to London ? Yes. What 
 j is Newton ? A stonemason. Is he a master ? 
 j Y'es. Has he three, four, five, six, seven, or 
 eight men employed occasionally? Yes, or a 
 dozen, if he has a job. I believe he sometimes 
 employs twenty ? I cannot answer that. Have 
 you ever known him to employ twenty men ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Mr. O’Connor, I cannot take 
 down the questions, in consequence of your ra- 
 pidity. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I asked him, my Lord, if 
 he were a master stonemason, and, occasionally, 
 in the habit of employing twenty men ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — A master stonemason ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Y'es, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — And sometimes employs a 
 number of men ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Yes, my Lord. (To the 
 witness)— How soon did you give information 
 of this meeting to the magistrates? After the 
 meeting was over, the notes were v/ritten, and I 
 gave them immediately after to the magistrates, 
 and to the superintendant. The same notes that 
 were produced to- Jay ? Yes. Did you appear 
 as a witness before the magistrates, when Pilling 
 was committed ? No. Did you appear at any 
 time before the magistrates ? Yes. Was Newton 
 brought before the magistrates? No. Was he 
 ever arrested for that meeting ? Not that I am 
 av/are of. Are you not aware that he was not ■* 
 
59 
 
 was not. Did the chairman tell Newton, 
 when he talked of sacking London, that he (the 
 chairman) would not go to London ? — Did he 
 advise the people not to go ? He did. 
 
 The JUDGE You say, “when he told 
 them to go and sack London,” — He did not say 
 that. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR = — It is pretty much the 
 same thing, my Lord: — to fight the Duke of 
 Wellington, &c. (To the witness) Wright was 
 a turn-out ? He was under the relief committee, 
 working on the roads. 
 
 The JUDGE: — What is the relief committee ? 
 A fund sent down to the manufacturing dis- 
 tricts for the purpose of giving employment to 
 certain old men who were out of work, at nine 
 shillings a week ; and the relief committee had 
 the management of the fund. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Some private fund ? Yes, my 
 Lord. A number of private gentlemen were 
 appointed as a committee to have the manage- 
 ment of it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Besides these marks of 
 disapprobation when Newton recommended them 
 to go to London, did the meeting charge him 
 with being a tool in the hands of the Anti-corn- 
 law League ? I recollect one or two individuals 
 shouted out, “ Newton, you are a tool in the 
 hands of the Anti-corn-law League,” or some- 
 thing that way. That was when he was recom- 
 mending them to go to London. Did the meet- 
 ing charge him with being sent there by the 
 masters to create the disturbance ? — Now, on 
 your oath, is that the case, or not ? I believe it 
 is. Is that in your journal ? Sir. Have you 
 written that down in your notes ? No. What 
 then did you collect evidence for ? Of what I 
 could think at the time. To lay before the magis- 
 trates ? To go to the superintendant. Do you 
 think it was a part of your duty to put the magis- 
 trates in possession of the acts of men creating 
 an outbreak ? I was sent there to make a faithful 
 report of the meeting. You can recollect now 
 what Newton said, and why not put it down at 
 the time ? — Was not that an important feature ? 
 But I did not think at the time that it was im- 
 portant. You did not think it important for a 
 man to be sent among thousands of irritated 
 individuals to create a disturbance ? — When did 
 you see that placard about running for gold ? I 
 believe it was on the 17th ; I will not be certain. 
 Now, sir, did you attend a meeting of any party 
 about the 15th or 16th, where the following 
 resolution was passed : — “ That this meeting 
 
 I being cpnvinced that the government has no in- 
 tention of affording effectual relief for tlie ac- 
 knowledged distresses of the people, hereby 
 avow the solemn determination never again to 
 pass, or to retain for twenty -four hours without 
 exchanging for gold any Bank of England note^ 
 until, by the total and immediate repeal of thi 
 corn laws. Parliament shews its willingness tf 
 commence a real redress of our grievances ?” 1 
 never saw it in print, nor placarded on the walls. 
 Did you see a placard for weeks on the walls of 
 Stockport, headed “ Murder, murder, murder !” ? 
 I did, I believe. Do you remember the printer’s 
 name ? No. Did you read it? — Is it your duty 
 to collect such information through placards, 
 and lay it before the magistrates ? Yes, occasion- 
 ally. What do you mean by occasionally laying 
 it before the magistrates ? — Did you look at the 
 name of the printer of any of those placards ? 
 Yes. Who printed them ? I do not remember. 
 Would you remember if your memory was re- 
 freshed ? — Would you ? — Did you see Gadsby’s 
 name to any of them ? Upon your oath ! Upon 
 my oath I do not remember that I did. You do 
 not remember hearing that resolution passed ? No. 
 Now, on the 15th of September, Allinson recom- 
 mended the people, the struggle having ceased 
 to return to their work, but to look forward to 
 the Charter; w'as not that wbat he said? It 
 was, sir. Now, did not Allinson recommend the 
 people to have recourse to all peaceable, legal, 
 and constitutional means to acquire the Charter? 
 — on your oath ! I cannot remember whether 
 he did so legally or constitutionally. Did he so 
 peaceably ? I believe he did so peaceably. You 
 remember when Pilling complained that he had 
 lost a child within a fortnight, that he said thc^ 
 should return to their work because Bayley’s 
 men had disappointed them ? — You remember 
 he told them there was no use in holding out 
 any longer ? No, sir, I do not. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He did not say so. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — One of the speakers said 
 
 he did not care a farthing for “ fool or Dick” 
 
 Now, did you hear any drums or fifes during the 
 
 disturbances ? Are not meetings often called 
 
 in Stockport and Oldham by drums and fifes ? I 
 know nothingabout Oldham. Don’t you know that 
 meetings are often called at Oldham by drum 
 and fife — Pilling, for instance, said he would 
 go to Oldham and drum them ? I am certain 
 that Pilling used the word “drub” and not 
 “drum,” when he talked of going to Oldham. 
 Now, instead oifool or Bick^ was it not “Hook” 
 
or “ rKck/' he said, alluding to Holland Hoole 
 and Richard Cohden ? 
 
 The JUDGE Hoole or Dick ? 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR Yes, my Lord ; thereby 
 meaning Holland Hoole, a magistrate, and 
 Richard Cohden, Yirho is generally known by the 
 name ** Dick" at those public meetings. 
 
 WITNESS:— I don't know. Now, sir, all t» 
 tiis long narrative of yours, through whicY* you 
 jfave followed Pilling up to the 16th of August, the 
 question was a wages question. He was speak- 
 ing of his distresses, and complaining that he was 
 turned out, and in a state of starvation. I do 
 not remember that Pilling said he was in dis- 
 tress. Do not your notes say so ? Not of his 
 being in distress. Does he not say that he was 
 ihe cause of calling the meeting, because he was 
 burned out ? No. Are you not aware that he 
 ▼as turned out of Platt’s mill ? No. On the 16th 
 and 1 7th, Stockport was much excited ? It was. 
 At what time did the excitement begin to sub- 
 «de ? About the latter end of August. And it 
 began to get quieter every day after that till the 
 men returned to their work ? There were meet- 
 ings every day. But unattended with violence ? 
 Yes. Now, did not you know of more excited 
 meetings in ^tockport than in any other town 
 in the neighbourhood ? — Had there not been very 
 angry discussions there between the people called 
 Chartists and the Anti-corn-law League ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — In public? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — Are you not aware from 
 your own knowledge that, when a discussion is 
 announced to take place, the Chartists send to 
 various parts of the country for their best lec- 
 turers ? I remember a meeting of the Bible 
 Society which the Chartists came and opposed. 
 Did you ever hear of the Chartists upsetting a 
 meeting of the Anti-corn-law League ? I have 
 not been at such meetings. Were you at 
 the Bible Society meeting ? Yes. Did you help 
 to upset it ? No. You set it up, I suppose. Have 
 you not seen invitations to parties to take part 
 in these discussions ? I have seen Doyle invited 
 to a discussion. Are you not aware that a bad 
 feeling exists among these parties ? It seems you 
 only attended those meetings on the 15th and 
 16th of August ? I was sent to them. And did you 
 hear Pilling say that it was a sad thing, that, in 
 consequence of his distressed state, and being 
 turned out of work, he had nothing to bury his 
 child with ? I don’t remember that. Now, sir, 
 you saw placards on the wall ; did you ever see 
 in Stockport a printed paper purporting to be a 
 
 recommendation of the Mayor of Stockport to 
 the people, to go and help themselves if the 
 government did not give them any remedy for 
 their distresses ? I don’t know. You have been 
 seven years in Stockport, and I ask you, did you, 
 or did you not hear it ? I never read a placard 
 to that effect on the walls. Did you see it in a 
 paper, or small hand-bill ? No. Are you sure 
 of that ? I am, that I never saw it on a paper. 
 Are you sure you never did? I am not certain.That 
 is right, I thought you would not be certain. You 
 are sure you did not, but you are not certain whe- 
 ther you did or not ? I am not certain whether I 
 did or not. When Wright returned he told the 
 meeting of those who appointed him a delegate 
 that the delegates were dispersed and sent about 
 their business by the authorities of Manchester ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — My Lord, Pilling has re- 
 quested me to ask, whether or not, in the whole 
 course of their discussions he had not recom- 
 mended the wage question ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I do not know if Pilling is 
 aware that he may ask questions himself ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Certainly. Do you wish to 
 ask the witness whether you ever recommended 
 anything else ? 
 
 PILLING : — My Lord, the constable and I 
 have been together on a committee for years for 
 the ten hours' bill ; we are chums. (Laughter.) 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did Pilling, at these meet- 
 ings, ever speak about anything else but wages ? 
 0 yes, he was one of those that were sent fo. 
 trial at Chester. 
 
 The JUDGE : — We don’t want to hear that. 
 Did he ever speak about anything but the wages 
 question ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY ; — I should wish him to be 
 asked, whether this man. Pilling, was not a 
 chum of his ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not like to say I won’t 
 ask it ; but one does not see where a question 
 of this sort may tend. The question about the 
 ten hours’ bill, how can that affect the one 
 before us ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — The imputation is, that this 
 man. Pilling, was at those meetings, for the 
 purpose of promoting disaffection on the Chartist 
 question. Now, Pilling, by the testimony of the 
 witness, was a person who exhorted them to 
 consider the wage question only. If, in addition 
 to that, it would appear that he was always busy 
 on the wage question, it would give a favourable 
 impression to the jury. 
 
01 
 
 The JUDGE:— Was Pilling long anxious JOHN ROBINSON SCOTT examined by Mr. 
 about the ^ age question ? 1 am not aware of HILDYARD Did you attend a meeting at 
 
 that; but, in 1839, he was agitating for the Royton, on Saturday evening, the 13th of 
 Charter very much, my Lord. He says he was I August ? Yes. Was there a person of the name 
 a chum of yours when endeavouring to get a ' of Augustus Frederick Taylor there ? Yes. Did 
 bill before Parliament for ten hours’ work ? I j the meeting choose a chairman ? Yes. Was 
 do not know that ever I sat on committee wdth j any question raised as to what should be the ob- 
 him during my life. Were you a chum with ' ject of the meeting ? Thomas Radcliffe got into 
 
 him ? Never, my Lord. Explain yourself a 
 little more — What do you mean by a chum ? — 
 Where is Pilling ? 
 
 PILLING Here, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says he never w^as a chum 
 with you. 
 
 PILLING: — My Lord, I was anxious to get 
 a ten hours’ bill ; a committee was appointed ; 
 I was one of that committee, and we chose him 
 as another. 
 
 WITNESS : — With regard to that, my Lord, 
 I was working at a mill some years ago, and I 
 took, twdee, some money from the rest of the 
 men to the committee, but I did not stop, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You were subscribing money 
 to carry out the object of the ten hours’ bill ? — 
 When was that ? It would be about 1834, or 
 1835, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— My Lord, I 
 may here state, that I have undertaken to call 
 a witness named Wilcox, and it has been inti- 
 mated to me by Mr. O’Connor, that, if he be 
 called, there will be no occasion to trouble Sir 
 James Graham further. I state this in the hear- 
 ing of all the defendants. 
 
 The JUDGE :— Is there any other defendant, 
 not defended by Counsel, who would wish to 
 examine Sir James Graham ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I believe, my Lord, there 
 is not, and I trust Sir James Graham v/ill find, 
 that it has been with no idle purpose that he 
 has been subpoenaed here to-day. It w'as by no 
 wish to put Sir James Graham to any inconve- 
 nience ; but we have been requiring the attend- 
 ance of another witness, and, as he is to aj)pear, 
 we do not wish to detain the Right Honourable 
 Seeretary. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— That there 
 may be no mistake about it, I state the name of 
 the witness. It is James Wilcox, wliom I under- 
 take to call in proper time. Then, my Lord, it is 
 understood that Sir James Graham may retire. 
 
 The JUDGE :— 0 yes. 
 
 Sir JAMES GRAHAM bowed his acknowledg- 
 ment of the favour, and shortly afterwards left 
 the Court. 
 
 ^ a cart and opposed them. He asked them if 
 that meeting were met to discuss politics, or the 
 wage question ? How' was that question re- 
 ceived by the meeting ? They hissed him. This 
 is a note I took at the meeting at the time. 
 [Producing it.] In w'hose handwriting is that ? 
 In my own. Was there a person named Hoyla 
 there ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he a defendant ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Hoyle is not a defendant, 
 my Loi'd, what he spoke was in the presence ol 
 Taylor, who is a defendant. [To witness.] What 
 did he say ? He said he was proud to see me 
 come forward in my proper clothing ; and that 
 if I came as a spy he would strip me, and send 
 me about my business. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You w^ere in your police dress 
 then ? Y^es, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Did Taylor address the 
 meeting ? He did. Can you state what the cir- 
 cumstances of that address was ? He addressed 
 the meeting first about the government in a very 
 savage manner, and he damned the viUainous 
 system. He said, “ If I was the principal in this 
 undertaking I would never rest till I was at the 
 top of the tree, and would scale the w’alls of that 
 damned infernal place before this day six week’s.” 
 Was that meeting adjourned till the Monday 
 following ? It was, sir. A meeting assembled on 
 the Monday following at Royton. About what 
 hour ? Half-past six in the morning. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— What day 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD :-'Monday the 15th. [To 
 witness.] Did the same person (Radcliflfe), who, 
 on Saturday evening, raised the question as to the 
 object of the meeting, raise the question again 
 on Monday morning ? He did. Tell us shortly 
 v^hat he said ? He said we would never gain the 
 Charter. (Taylor also was present.) They had 
 better do without their meetings ; the proclama- 
 tion had come out that morning, and they were 
 acting on dangerous principles. The placard had 
 appeared that morning oh the walls of Royton. 
 Did Taylor reply to Radcliffe when he made that 
 remark ? He did. What did Taylor say ? He 
 hoped the meetings would not be done away with, 
 for they might be got up with the consent of the 
 authorities and constables. Was it proposed at 
 that meeting to send delegates to Manchester ? 
 
62 
 
 It WHS ? Who was proposed to be sent as a 
 delegate ? Taylor w’as proposed and elected. After 
 that was carried, w as any motion put to the meet- 
 ing respecting the Charter? Yes. It was moved 
 for the Charter, and nothing but the Charter, by 
 a man named Ogden. Was Taylor then present? 
 Yes. Did you and Taylor attend the meeting on 
 the 16th of August ? Yes. AtRoyton? Yes. Did 
 Taylor make any communication to the meeting ? 
 Yes. What was it ? He said, “ My friends, I can 
 give you no satisfaction this morning, as nothing 
 w as done in Manchester yesterday.” He thought 
 something would be done that day (the 16th), and 
 it was for them to consider whether they would 
 send a delegate to Manchester or not. Upon 
 that, w^as the account of the funds of the committee 
 read to the meeting? Yes, sir. After that had 
 been done, was any motion made ? Y"es. Now% 
 w'hat was the motion ? Ogden moved that Taylor 
 should go to Manchester as a delegate, and they 
 entered into a collection on the ground. Do you 
 know what money was raised ? Five shillings were 
 collected in a hat, and the sum was announced to 
 the meeting. What was done wdth the money re- 
 ceived in the hat ? It was handed over to Booth, 
 the secretary. Was that meeting adjourned to the 
 following morning? Yes. Did you attend a meeting 
 on the 17th ? Yes. Was Taylor again present ? He 
 was. This is Augustus Frederick Taylor, of whom 
 you are speaking ? Yes. Now, upon the morning 
 of the 17th, was anything said as to what should 
 be done by those persons who had money in clubs, 
 or savings’ banks ? They advised them to draw it 
 out immediately. Who advised them to do that? 
 William Booth. He said he did not know how 
 things were standing, but he hoped they were 
 standing for the Charter. Hoyle said, that, at 
 Manchester yesterday, there was a majority of 
 200 delegates for the Charter, and 50 against it. 
 He explained different points of the Charter, and 
 said what a benefit they would receive if they could 
 l epresent Frederick Taylor, and send him as a 
 member to Parliament. Did he make mention of 
 what occurred at Huddersfield ? Yes. He said the 
 magistrates of Huddersfield had made the soldiers 
 drunk ; sent them out after the mob to fire upon 
 them and butcher them up. Did Taylor address 
 the meeting ? Yes. What did he say ? He said 
 “ Ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived at one 
 of the most important subjects ever brought out 
 to the public. There waz a resolution passed in 
 Manchester, on Monday last, for the Charter to 
 become the law of the land; and no doubt but 
 something serious will take place before long. 
 He understood that the magistrates were sitting 
 all day at ihc New Bailey Court House (Salford) ; 
 and, about four o’clock in the afternoon, Mr, 
 Beswick, one of the Manchester police, and a 
 
 magistrate, entered the room (Carpenters’ Hall), 
 and told us our meeting was illegal , on account 
 of the out-door pressure ; and our chairman re- 
 fused to break up the meeting. They instantly 
 left the room ; they allowed us 10 minutes to dis- 
 perse, and no decision was come to at that time ; 
 for, first — one nibbled, then another, but none 
 would take hold. But I fearlessly tell you, that 
 I took hold of the grand question, to stand 
 for the Charter, which met with loud applause.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — Received with loud applause at 
 the meeting of delegates ? 
 
 Mr HILDYARD : — Yes. Witness proceeds : — 
 “We had then only five minutes to disperse, and 
 w e have a considerable portion of the work to be 
 done to-day ; and I consider that y ou have no 
 time to lose.” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Who said this ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Taylor said this at the 
 meeting of delegates at Manchester. 
 
 WITNESS proceeds: — ‘‘ There is a considera- 
 ble portion of the work to be done to-day, and if 
 you wish to have a hand in this undertaking, you 
 must say something this morning; you have not a 
 moment to lose , for the men must use the sw'ord, 
 and the wmmen will know where to direct them.” 
 Did he say what a delegate from Birmingham had 
 done after the delegates had come to that resolu- 
 tion ? Yes ; “ As soon as the delegate from Bir- 
 mingham had got the decision, away he runs to 
 the train to take the new's, and, doubtless, they 
 w'ould come forward in thousands to join our 
 ranks, and before this day w'eek there will not be 
 one trade at work ; but I fearlessly tell you that 
 I was the man that grappled the Charter at Man- 
 chester yesterday, and I would like to witness a 
 bloodyrevolution,”or resolution, I knownot which 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — A bloody revolution! 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD After that was it moved 
 that Taylor should go again, asa delegate, to Man- 
 chester, to attend a meeting ? Y"es. On the morn- 
 ing of the 18th, was there another meeting ? Yes. 
 Was Taylor at that meeting ? Yes. Did he make 
 any announcement ? Yes. What did he tell them ? 
 He w^as sorry to inform them that Turner 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If your Lord- 
 ship will allow me to suggest, this is the “ Exe- 
 cutive Address.” There is another address W’hich 
 shall be produced. I do not wish your Lordship 
 to be astray by-and-by. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD (To the Witness) Go on 
 to the conclusion. “ He stated that Turner, of 
 Manchester, was taken; bis press and all his 
 furniture ; and whatever may be the event of 
 this undertaking be couid not tell ; but if you 
 think we have the slightest chance we will go 
 forward. But it aj^jeared to me that some of 
 the people were tired, and wished to return to 
 
63 
 
 their lalwur. lint if you do you will leave me 
 in a most dangerous position. But I know I 
 can only have imprisonment ; there is already a 
 great many taken, and if I be taken, I shall he 
 only one among the rest." After he concluded 
 speaking, was it again moved that he be sent a 
 delegate to Manchester ? It was. That was on 
 the 18th ? It was. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O'CONNOR : — Taylor 
 was elected on the 15th to go to Manchester on 
 the 16ih. Yes. And he returned on the 16th, 
 and told them that the meeting w^as dispersed 
 by the magistrates ? Yes. On the 18th, he told 
 them he was a delegate again to Manchester; 
 and on tliat occasion he learned that the people 
 were tired out, and wished to return to work. 
 Tliat was the report of his delegation of the 
 17th? — He learned that the people were tired 
 out, and wished to return to work ? I did not 
 take it in that light ; I took it that the Royton 
 people were tired. Was not he giving an account 
 of his mission ? — Did you not say that that was 
 w’hat he learned in Manchester ? He said the 
 people were tired, and if you go to work you 
 will leave me in a most dangerous position. Did 
 not he say that on the IGth the delegates divided, 
 and that there was a majority of 200 for the 
 Charter, and 50 against it ? — You have read a 
 great deal out of that paper — will you let me 
 see it ? 
 
 The .lUDGE ; — He is not speaking about de- 
 legates, but about the peojile. “ Some wish to 
 go back ; hut if yon do, you will leave me in a 
 most dangerous position." 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — He was telling them, my 
 Lord, what he had learned as a delegate, and 
 that if the people of Royton left him, they 
 would leave him in a dangerous position. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A letter has been handed to 
 me from somebody of the name of Philips, re- 
 questing permission to remain in Court. He 
 says he is brought here as a witness, and asks 
 leave to remain in Court on the ground that he 
 is a reporter. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— He speaks 
 to facts beyond his report, my Lord, and there- 
 fore must submit to the rule. 
 
 SILVESTER FAllADAY, examined by Mr. 
 POLLOCK: — What are you? A constable. 
 Were you at Bacup on the 12th of August ? I 
 was. Do you remember seeing people coming 
 into the town ? YcS. What time did they come ? 
 Between nine and ten o’clock in the morning. 
 How many were there ? About two thousand. 
 
 How were they w alking ? They came in a body. 
 Were they walking in any order or not ? In 
 about eight or ten a-breast. Had they anything 
 with them in their hands ? They had. What ? 
 Sticks of various sizes, large and small. In 
 w hat direction were they coming ? They entered 
 Bacup on the Rochdale-road. Did you follow 
 those persons to Bacup, so as to see what they 
 did. I did, sir. What did they do? They 
 proceeded to different mills, and stopped them. 
 Did you see the hands come out of anywhere ? 
 I saw some of them. What was said among the 
 mob of people when they came to a mill ? I 
 did not exactly hear. Was there any cry among 
 them ? Y"es ; that they should stop the mills. 
 They always say that in a perfeelly still tone of 
 voice ? No, sir, in a rather menacing way. 
 
 The JUDGE : — They called out to the per- 
 sons in the mill, in a menacing way, that they 
 should come out ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did they make any use of 
 their sticks ? No, but they brandished, them as 
 they passed through the town. How many 
 mills did you see stop that day ? Three or four. 
 Do you know all the mills in Bacup were stopped 
 that day? They were all stopped; — about 
 twenty in number. How long was it after the 
 mob entered the town that the mills w'ere 
 stopped ? About half an hour afterwards. After 
 the mills w^ere stopped what did the mob do ? 
 They divided into small parties of from three 
 to twenty. What did these parties of people 
 do ? They went in different directions demand- 
 ing provisions, and entered all houses they 
 found open, and took them (the provisions) from 
 the inmates. Did , you see them get anything, 
 anywhere yourself? — Just do mention what you 
 saw in any one instance ? There was a grocer 
 named Carter, and the mob got about his doors 
 and tried to force themselves in ; and bread and 
 cheese, and other things were thrown out to 
 them. How many people were there about Car- 
 ter’s ? About fifty. Was their conduct violent ? 
 No, Did they use any threats ? I heard none. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did they ask for the provisions? 
 
 I did not hear them. Why did you say they 
 went about demanding provisions ? I saw them 
 going to doors that were locked, and heard them 
 threatening to break them open if provisions 
 were not given (hem. At Carter's, I heard no 
 threats. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — What was the general 
 state of the town at Bacup during the rest of 
 the day? It was very much excited. 
 
6-1 
 
 The JUDGE : — The whole of the town ? The 
 whole, ray Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did ever you see a placard 
 like that [handing witness the Executive placard] 
 posted up in Bacup ? I did. When ? On Satur- 
 day, the 20th of August. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS : — Now, 
 policeman, did you see the mob demand any- 
 thing, or get anything but provisions ; — bread 
 and cheese ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. McOUBREY : — Did 
 you read that placard that was shewn to you ? 
 Not all through : it is the same. How much 
 of it did you read ? I satisfied myself that it was 
 the same. How much of it did you read ? One 
 or two lines. And you swear, from reading one 
 or two lines besides the heading, that you are 
 sure it is the same ? Yes. j 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — You 
 saw three or four mills stopped, yourself ; and 
 twenty were stopped altogether. Are all the 
 ro?isters that owned these mills dead ? No, they 
 are still alive. And is there none of them to 
 come and speak of the stoppage of their mills 
 but yourself ? No. At any of those mills that 
 were stopped, did you see any one shewnng the 
 men how to take the plugs out ? No. Then, in 
 fact, you do not know' any person that stopped 
 them ? Not individually. You do not know 
 
 one, and the masters are all dead ? 
 Cross-examined by WILLIAM BEESLEY : — 
 
 1 would ask him, my Lord, in w'hat part of 
 Bacup he saw the placard published ? At the 
 corner of St. James’s Street, corner of New 
 Church Road. You said you saw and heard the 
 people go round demanding provisions of the 
 shopkeepers; now', did you find any of these 
 provisions on any of the people who were there ? 
 No. Was there any found in the police station.^ 
 No. Did you hear tell of a load of meal, which 
 was taken from a grocer, being found at the 
 police ofiice ? No, not then. Did you hear of it 
 afterwards ? Yes, I will explain if I am allowed. 
 The JUDGE : — No, you must not explain. 
 WILLIAM BEESLEY I want an answer 
 to the question. 
 
 WITNESS : — It occurred before. I was not 
 in Bacup then. You are not one of the parties 
 that broke into the house for that purpose ? No, 
 
 I know nothing of it. 
 
 WILLIAM BENTLEY examined by Mr. 
 POLLOCK ; — What are you ? I am one of the 
 county police. Do you come from Rochdale ? I 
 do; sir Look at this ; [handing witness the 
 
 Executive placard] did you tee that posted in 
 Rochdale .> Yes, I saw it posted on the 1/th. 
 When did the hands turn out.> On the 11th. 
 Do you remember the Queen’s proclamation 
 being posted in Rochdale ? I do, sir. What day 
 did that appear? On Monday the 15th. Just 
 ! tell me how far is Manchester from Rochdale ? 
 
 ; Twelve miles. 
 
 1 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR -.—About 
 I what time did the people begin to return to 
 i their w'ork ? or, how long, in other words, did 
 I they remain out ? They returned in the middle 
 I of the following week, about the 20th. 
 j JAMES BUCKLEY examined by the AT 
 I TORNEY-GENERAL:— Where do you live 
 In Stalybridge. Did you live there in Augus 
 last ? Yes. Were you at a meeting on the 7tk 
 of August, last year ? Yes. Where did it take 
 place? On Wedensough Green. Is that the 
 place they sometimes call Mottram Moor ? Yes 
 What time did you get there ? A little after twd 
 o’clock. About how many people do you thinh 
 you found there ? 3000 or 4000. Was there 
 any place for the people to speak to the meetini; 
 from i* — A platform, waggon, cart, or anything 
 of that sort ? There w'as either a cart or a wag- 
 gon. What w'ere they doing when you wen 
 first there ? They were singing. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— This was 
 Sunday, the 7th of August, my Lord. (To wit- 
 ness.) Who was in the Chair ? Wm. Muirhouse 
 Do you recollect anything he said to the meeting . 
 He said he had a resolution. What was the re- 
 solution ? That the people of England were to 
 give over work till such time as they got a fair 
 day’s wages for a fair day’s work, and the Charter 
 became the law of the land. Did he introduce 
 anybody to the meeting ? Yes. Who ? He in- 
 troduced Leach. Do you know him ? I never saw 
 him till that day. Have you seen him since? 
 Yes. I have only seen him twice. Do you see 
 him in Court now? — O, I understand he is not 
 here. I do not know whether he is here or not. 
 Was his Christian name mentioned? Y'es : John 
 Leach. Was it said where he came from ? From 
 Hyde. Did he speak for some time ? Yes. Do 
 you remember another man who spoke? Yes; 
 there was a man of the name of Crossley speak- 
 ing. Do you remember his Christian name ? 
 John Crossley. Do you remember Stephenson ? 
 Yes. What was his Christian name ? Wm. 
 Stephenson. Did he speak ? Yes. Did you know 
 either Crossley or Stephenson before ? No. I 
 saw them often since. You know that the per 
 sons who spoke there bore the names of Stephen 
 son and Crossley? Yes. Do you know whii 
 
66 
 
 they live? Yes, in Stalybridgei What part did 
 thev take in the discussion or speaking ?— Did 
 they speak for the resolution or against it ; or 
 about something else ? Why Leach began, and 
 
 the church bell was ringing I don’t want a 
 
 long story about what he said— tell me, generally, 
 whether they supported or passed the resolution ? 
 They supported the resolution. 
 
 The JUDGE: — All three? — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL:— Do you 
 know a person named John Wilde i* — No, Robert 
 Wilde? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he a defendant ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— He is not 
 here now, my Lord, he is in confinement. On 
 the next day, the 8th of August, on Monday 
 morning, was there a meeting ? I did not attend 
 any meeting then. Did you see any nuoiber of 
 persons collected in the streets ? Yes, a great 
 many. In Stalybridge? Yes. Had they any- 
 thing in their hands generally ? Sticks, a good 
 many of them. Were there more with sticks or 
 without, or the other way ? There were more 
 without sticks. Very good. Now, did you follow 
 them to any particular place or mill ? I went 
 down to Mr. Harrison’s with them. About how 
 many do you suppose M^ent there ? There was not 
 so many when I got there, but when the whole 
 mob came there were many a thousand. This 
 was on the eighth. Did you hear any noise ? Yes, 
 a cry of “ turn them out— tm-n them out.” And 
 what was the effect of that ? Why they did turn 
 them out. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did the mob go on ? Yes. 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— And what 
 else ? The mob ordered the mill to be stopped, 
 and the hands to be turned out. Now, did they 
 afterwards go to Messrs. Lees’s ? Yes, they went 
 to Mr. Lees’s after that. How far is Lees’s from 
 Harrison’s ? Not twenty yards ; just at the en- 
 trance of the gates. Were you at Lees’s your- 
 self? Yes. What did the mob do there ? They 
 demanded admittance, but they could not get in. 
 Were the gates open or shut ? They were shut, 
 but they broke them open. They broke a plank 
 off the gate from the top to the bottom, and then 
 they got in ; and they turned the hands out at 
 another door. Where did they go after this ? 
 To Duckinfield. On their way did they interfere 
 with any other mills? They stopped all the 
 mills that they came near. Now, did you 
 follow them to Duckinfield? Yes. How 
 far is Duckinfield from the place where you 
 started ? Why it is short of a mile. Where did 
 they go from Duckinfield? To Ashton. On 
 their way from Duckinfield to Ashton did they 
 stop any more mills ? They stopped all the mills 
 they came ’"ear. But were tliere any mills 
 
 between Duckinfield and Ashton? Yes, there are 
 several mills on the road-side. Did they stop 
 them all? Yes. Did they create any alarm? 
 Yes, they ran from place to place shouting and 
 brandishing their sticks. What I want to know 
 is, was their appearance such as to create alarm ? 
 Yes. Where did they go to from Ashton ? They 
 went up to Hurst. How far is that from Ash- 
 ton ? About a mile. Is it a portion of Ashton ? 
 It is adjoining it Did they stop any mills there ? 
 Yes. Now, can you give me any notion how 
 many mills you saw stopped in the course of 
 that day by the mob going about in this manner ? 
 How many I saw ? Ay. Well, I did not see them 
 stop any mills in Ashton or Duckinfield. They 
 were stopped before I got up to them. Did you 
 go with the mob, or did you follow after them ? 
 I went with the mob sometimes, and sometimes 
 they went before me. How many mills were 
 stopped in the course of that day ? They were 
 all stopped. Would there be five, ten, fifteen, or 
 twenty, do you think ? There were about twenty. 
 Do you remember about 2 o’clock, that mob 
 being joined by any other persons coming from 
 different parts ? Yes ; they thought of having a 
 meeting in the market-place at Ashton. You 
 
 say ‘‘they thought” ? Yes, but it was ordered 
 
 to have it at the back of Thacker’s foundry. Is 
 that in Ashton ? Yes. Now, did you see any of the 
 people youhave mentioned before, at that meeting? 
 
 The JUDGE : — There was a meeting at 
 Thacker’s foundry ? Yes. At what o’clock ? A 
 little after 2 o’clock. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Did you see 
 there, any of the persons whose names have been 
 mentioned by you ? Yes : I saw Crossley there. 
 Where ? In the market-place. What was he 
 doing ? He got into a cart, at the market-place, 
 and went to address the meeting, but it was 
 afterwards adjourned to Thacker’s foundry. Did 
 Crossley make a speech ? He said, at the market- 
 place, — I don’t want you to go through a long, 
 speech — No, no — Do you know William Aitkin ? 
 Yes. Where did you see him ? At the back of 
 Thacker’s foundry. I believe, Aitkin censured 
 some people for their violence ? He blackguarded 
 them terribly for going on in the manner they 
 had done. Did you see Pilling there ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — They had him at Thacker’s 
 foundry ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-QENERAL :— Was an-* 
 proposal made as to what should be done ? He 
 proposed 
 
 The JUDGE Who proposed ? Pilling pro- 
 
66 
 
 posed that the people of Ashton shotild go to 
 Oldham, and the people of Staly bridge to 
 Hyde. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL What were 
 they to do ? To stop the mills. You say that Pil- 
 ling proposed — Yes. Well, was that agreed to ? 
 Yes. Are you able to say whether the meeting 
 divided itself at all ? Yes, it divided itself. Just 
 tell us what was done ? — Speak up, that the jury 
 may hear you. The Stalybridge people passed 
 through Hooley Hill and Denton to Hyde. 
 What did the Ashton folk do ? I don’t know : 
 they went somewhere else. Did you go along 
 with the Stalybridge people through Hooley Hill 
 and Denton to Hyde ? Yes. Now, are there 
 many hatters about there ? Yes. Is that very 
 much the trade in that part of the country ? Yes ; 
 it is mostly their business in that part of the 
 country. What did the mob do with the hatters ? 
 Why they stopped them from working, as they 
 came to the hat shops. Did you hear any of 
 them say anything to the hatters ? They said 
 they must give over working, till such time as 
 they got a fair day's wages for a fair day’s work, 
 and the Charter became the law of the land. 
 Now, at Denton, did you see Crossley ? Yes. 
 What was he doing there ? There were some lads 
 attempting to break the doors open, and he w’ent 
 to stop them from doing damage. Was he along 
 with the mob ? Yes. Was he taking a leading part, 
 or obeying others ? He was amongst the mob 
 there. Did anybody take any leading part in the 
 mob ? — Who acted as a leader ? I could not see 
 any leader there. I only saw him stopping at 
 that place. I only saw him at Ashton before. 
 But did he go along with the mob from Ashton 
 to Denton, through Hooley Hill ? I saw him 
 there. When the hatters were turned out, what 
 became of him ? — When the hatters were turned 
 out what became of them ? They were ordered 
 to proceed along with the mob. Did the 
 hatters do so ? Some of them did. Now, 
 when tbe men were turned out at other 
 places, did you see what became of them ?— Did 
 they join the mob?- Yes. Was any direction 
 given to them about it ? Why, when they got to 
 Hyde, they ordered the people to fall into ranks, 
 and proceed along with them. Well, now, from 
 Denton where did the mob go next ? To Hyde. 
 That was the way they resolved to go to the meet- 
 ing. Now, I believe, there is a mill at Kingston ? 
 Yes. How far is that from Hyde ? A mile. Did 
 they stop there? They did; and they told the 
 hands that turned out there, to fall 'into their 
 ranks, and proceed along with them. Was there 
 any shouting, or calling out of any expression 
 whatever ? Yes, they shouted, “ Fall in, fall in.” 
 Now, what became of them when they got to 
 Hyde ? — Did they remain together, or were they 
 
 divided ? They divided into lots, and some went 
 to one factory, and some to another. Which way 
 did you go ? I went with them to Thomas Ash- 
 ton’s factory. What did they do there ? They 
 ordered the master to stop the mill. Did he do 
 so ? Yes. Did they turn the hands out ? Yes. 
 And what became of the men that they turned 
 out ? They were ordered to go up to Hyde along 
 with the mob. Now, did you go along with them, 
 or did you go in another direction afterwards ? I 
 went in another direction. What direction was 
 that ? I went to Newton Moor. In what direc- 
 tion is Newton Moor ? It lies between Stalybridge 
 and Hyde. What did they do there ? They went 
 to Mr. Ashton’s factory, and turned the hands 
 out. Was there any sort of notice to be given of 
 a meeting ? Yes, they said there was to be a meet- 
 ing in Hyde that night. Did you go to that meet- 
 ing ? Yes. Were you at any meeting on Wed- 
 nesday, the 10th of August ? Yes. How early in 
 the morning ? About six o’clock. Where ? At 
 Stalybridge. Now, at that meeting, was there a 
 person of the name of Fenton ? Yes. Do you 
 know his Christian name ? Yes, James. You 
 know him well ? Yes. He is not in the indict- 
 ment, my Lord.— [To the witness] — ^You had 
 seen him before ? Y es. Was he one of the speak- 
 ers ? Yes. Do not mention the others, as they 
 are not in the indictment. — Was there anything 
 said about going to Glossop ? Yes ; they were to 
 go to Glossop to stop the hands from working 
 there. Was it arranged before they broke up, 
 that any other meeting should be held? Yes. 
 What! that morning? Yes. Where did they go 
 to ? Tney went to Glossop. Did you go with 
 them ? No, I went home, and they went in the 
 direction towards Glossop. In what manner did 
 they go ? — In any regularity, or order, or how ? 
 They formed themselves into a procession, three 
 or four abreast. The following morning early, 
 were you at another meeting ? I was. Where was 
 that, and when ? It was on the 11th, and at the 
 Haigh. Was Fenton there? Yes. Was that 
 meeting like the others that you attended ? Yes. 
 Was anything said about wages? Yes. And 
 what else ? They advised them to stand out for 
 their wages. They were about dropping the Char- 
 ter at Stalybridge at that time. Did Crossley 
 speak at that time ? Yes. Did Fenton speak ? 
 Yes. Did you know a man of the name of Thomaa 
 Mahon? Yes. Did they all three speak ? I don’t 
 know whether Mahon spoke or not that morning. 
 Was he there ? I don’t know. Do you know the 
 man ? Yes. Did you see him, either at the meet- 
 ing before, or on that day ? I saw him at the 
 meeting the day following. Well, now, on this 
 day (the 11th) what did they do ? Why, they 
 agreed to go to Saddleworth,buthe said he would 
 not tell them where they must go they behaved 
 
67 
 
 themselves sb badly the day before. Now, who 
 was it said that ? Crossley. 
 
 The JUDGE: — That was on the 11th. He 
 said he would not tell them where they were to 
 go, but they were to follow him ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you see 
 them go towards Saddleworth ? Yes. How many 
 ^vere there ? About 700 or 800. Did Crossley 
 go with them ? He went with them out of Staly- 
 bridge towards Saddleworth ; as I did not follow 
 them, I don’t know anything about them. They 
 were to meet again at night. Were you at that 
 meeting at night ? Yes. Where did the meeting 
 take plaee ? On the Haigh. At what o’cloek } 
 It was far for six o’elock, it might be later at 
 night. Who were there at that meeting at night ? 
 
 I don’t reeolleet anybody. Was there any meet- 
 ing next morning — on the 12t.h ? Yes, at the 
 same place. At what hour in the morning? 
 About seven o’clock. Who was the chairman 
 of that meeting ? I don’t know who the chair- 
 man was. Did you see any of the parties there j 
 you mentioned ? There was Crossley and Wool- 
 fenden. Did you know him well ? Yes. Did 
 Wilcox speak ? Yes. What was said by them ? 
 Crossley and Fenton supported the wage ques- 
 tion, but Woolfenden advised them to stick to 
 the Charter. Do you recollect what Woolfenden 
 said ? Why, he spoke very much against shop- 
 keepers, and cotton masters, and the govern- 
 ment. Did he say anything about what had 
 been done in Manchester ? Yes, he said there 
 were two or three policemen killed, and they 
 (the workpeople) had been all stopped at Shef- 
 field. This W'as on the morning of the 12th. 
 Did Woolfenden give them any advice ? He ad- 
 vised them to strike for the Charter. Did you 
 go with them anywhere that day ? No, but in 
 the evening there W'as another meeting in the 
 same place. At what o’clock ? It was late in 
 the evening. Do you remember anybody that 
 was there ? Thomas Mahon was chairman that 
 night. Was Stephenson there ? I heard so, but 
 I do not know'. Was there any other meeting ? 
 There was a meeting the following morning at 
 the Haigh. Whom did you see there ? Crossley, 
 Fenton, John Durham, and Evison. The last 
 one is not in the indictment, my Lord. [To the 
 witness.] Was any statement made about a 
 meeting to be had of other people to discuss the 
 question ? They said there was to be a meeting 
 at Hyde that morning, and the speakers were to 
 go from Stalybridge to address it, on the wage 
 question. ^Vas there anything said about coming 
 to any decision ^ They agreed to go to Hyde to 
 
 address a meeting there. Was it said what they 
 were to address them about ? About the wages. 
 Were you at atfy meeting the same day at Hyde ? 
 Yes, afterwards. 
 
 The JUDGE After that ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL What passed 
 then ?— Were any of those people there ? Yes, 
 there wasWilliam Stephenson andCrossley. What 
 did they say ? They wanted the people of Hyde to 
 give up having anything to do with the Charter. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Was Durham any of those 
 parties ? No, he was not there that morning. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Who wanted 
 them to give up the Charter? Crossley and 
 Stephenson. Was Fenton there? Fenton was 
 not there. What did the people of Hyde say ? 
 They blackguarded them for coming with such 
 a tale as that. Who represented the Hyde 
 people, do you remember ? A man of the name of 
 Booth. Anybody else ? No ; not that morning. 
 
 The JUDGE : — We have two of the name 
 of Booth mentioned. One is a defendant and 
 the other is not. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The person 
 to whom the five shillings was handed over is 
 not a defendant. At what time did the meeting 
 break up that evening ? I went back again to 
 Stalybridge. The people went from Stalybridge 
 to Hyde and talked of wages and the Charter. 
 There were meetings at the same time in both 
 places, and they wanted them to have nothing 
 to do with the Charter, but to get their wages. 
 What did you find them doing at Stalybridge 
 when you got there ? — ^Why they W'ere coming in 
 from Glossop to have a meeting ? Yes. Where 
 were they to have the meeting ? At Stalybridge. 
 Well, did you remain long at that meeting ? At 
 this meeting it was discussed whether it were to 
 be a wage question or a Chartist question. It 
 was what they called “ a great meeting.” This 
 was on the 13th. — Did they come to any reso- 
 lution ? Yes. What was it ? They came to this 
 resolution that the Stalybridge people must not 
 vote. They were not to have any vote in it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The Stalj bridge meeting came 
 to a resolution that the Stalybridge people were 
 to have no voting ? Yes : they were to have no 
 vote in the new Constitution. But the meeting 
 was at Stalybridge ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL How many 
 people were at that meeting ? Witness ; — Seve- 
 ral thousands from all quarters. And the Staly- 
 bridge people were to have no vote ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — No vote in the new Consti- 
 tution. 
 
68 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL They disfran- 
 chised them. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — They put them in Schedule 
 A.— (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Stalybridge should go with 
 Sudbury. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My friend 
 Dundas says they put them in Schedule A. 
 [To the witness.] How did that meeting end 
 after they determined that the Stalybridge peo- 
 ple should not vote ? It was agreed to turn out 
 for the Cliarter. Having disfranchised the 
 Stalybridge people, they agreed to stand out for 
 the Charter. What became of the meeting 
 then } It broke up and separated. 
 
 JOHN WILDE, one of the defendants, said 
 he wished to ask a question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — By-and-bye, we will recollect 
 you. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you see 
 Wilde at any of these meetings ? I saw him on 
 the 13th, at Stalybridge. Was he a Stalybridge 
 man ? More a Stalybridge man than an Ashton 
 man, but he lives at Ashton at present. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was he at the meeting at 
 which it was resolved that the Stalybridge peo- 
 ple should have no vote ? Yes ; he was chair- 
 
 an at that meeting. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Was it put 
 to the vote that the Stalybridge people should 
 have no vote ? Yes. And carried ? Yes. While 
 he was in the chair } Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He put that vote to the 
 meeting, I suppose ? Yes. It was said by the 
 speakers, that the Stalybridge people should 
 have nothing to do with it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Where did 
 John Wilde live at that time ? At Ashton. Do 
 you remember if, while addressing the meeting, 
 he told what the meeting was about ? Well, 
 there were several ealled upon to take the chair, 
 but they objected to have anything to do with 
 it. At last they called on John Wilde, and he 
 said he did not like to have “ nought to do wi’ it;” 
 but he said as he had been called on he would 
 do his duty as far as it lay in his power, and 
 would give every person a fair and candid hearing. 
 Did you hear him say what the object of the 
 .meeting was ? It was to decide whether it was 
 to be a w'age question or a Chartist question. 
 He read a resolution, you know — What resolution 
 was it that he read ? 'VMiat resolution ? why, 
 whether it would be a wage question, or a 
 Chartist question ; he read that from a paper. 
 
 Did Fenton speak ? Yes. What did he say ? 
 He said something about wages. Did he say 
 anything about the Charter? No. Do you 
 remember anything being said by MaJj^n ? No. 
 Or Leach ? Yes. Well, what did Leach say ? 
 John Leach supported the Charter. What did 
 Wilde do ? — ^Was there another Wilde besides 
 the one in the chair? Yes. Did Woolfenden 
 speak ? — Who was he in favour of ? In favour 
 of the Charter. Do you know a man they call 
 General Lee ? Yes. What is his name ? I 
 don’t know him by any other name except 
 General Lee. Do you know a man of the name 
 of Booth, from Newton Heath ? Yes, I should 
 know him if I saw him. Did he ^ke any part 
 in the discussion? Yes. Which part did he 
 take ? — Do you know another man of the name 
 of Booth, from Leigh ? No ; I don’t. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Booth took a part, did he, 
 for the Charter ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Did not some 
 one from Stalybridge take part in the meeting ? 
 Yes. Who? Samuel Radcliife, Fenton, and 
 several others spoke for the wage question. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — For what ? For the wage 
 question. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Then, at last, 
 was there a show of hands ? Tes. And how 
 was it carried ? All hands were up, only two 
 against it. How many persons were assembled 
 at this meeting ? Eight thousand or ten thou- 
 sand. Coming from all parts of the country, 
 I presume ? Yes. Was it the last meeting you 
 attended? Yes. Pray, did you ever see a 
 placard from the Executive ? I don’t know. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS: — Well, 
 Buckley, did you hold up your hand at this 
 meeting ? No. You did not hold up your 
 hand. It appears you had a good deal of idle 
 time on your hands ; where did you live in the 
 idle time of August — those days you have been 
 telling us about ? In Stalybridge. Are you a 
 married man ? Yes. And have a family ? Yes. 
 Where were your family living on the 7th of 
 August ? In Saddleworth. Why were they not 
 
 living in Stalybridge, with you, sir ? Why ? 
 
 Yes, “ why” — clear your throat, and speak out 
 like a man ! Because I was out of work. And 
 wh«re were they ? Why, they were at home. 
 Where was that ?— You were living at Staly- 
 bridge, you tell me, and they were at home. 
 They were at the workhouse. Your children ! 
 — Are they at the workhouse still ? No. Where 
 are they now ? At Stalybridge. How have they 
 
69 
 
 got out ? Because I have gotten work. What 
 work ? I am working at a mill. Whose mill ? 
 Mr. Kirk’s, When did you go to work there ? 
 Five or six weeks ago. When did your family 
 come home from Saddleworth to Stalybridge ^ 
 I don’t know, I am sure. You don’t know, you 
 are sure ? Not exactly — Three or four months 
 
 since. This month is March Do you say 
 
 they came home in November? Were they 
 
 home in November ? I don’t know. Three or 
 four months since did not you say ? — Were you 
 
 in work then ? Were you in work then? I 
 
 don't know ; I was doing something. I w^ant 
 to know whether you were at work three or four 
 months ago ? Well, when my family came home 
 I was a special constable. Why did not you 
 answer that before ? Well, perhaps you would 
 not call that working. That is your meaning. 
 Did you get pay for being a special constable ? 
 I did. When were you apiminted a special con- 
 stable ? On the 12th of September. How long 
 did you continue ? I don’t know. Try, and 
 don’t put me oft' ; wmen did you leave off being 
 a special constable ? Well, I was, I think, on 
 about six weeks. How much money, in all, did 
 you get as a special constable ? They allowed 
 us three shillings a-day. When did you leave 
 it? In six weeks. Where were you acting as 
 special constable ? In Stalybridge. Why did 
 you leave it ? Because they had no business 
 for me. Do you mean to say you were not dis- 
 charged — turned off — that is the word ? I have 
 been working since then. Were you not turned 
 off from being a policeman ? Police has no- 
 thing to do with being a special constable. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Answer the question; were 
 you not turned off from being a policeman ? I 
 was not a policeman. 
 
 Mr. DUN DAS : — What, then, were you turned 
 off for ? How came you to leave ? I was not 
 “ shot” — I had not regular work to stand. You 
 say you had three shillings a day for being a 
 special constable — after that wdiat were you at ? 
 I was watching under the police. What did 
 you get for that ? sixteen shillings a week. Well, 
 now I want to know, whether you were not dis- 
 charged from the Commissioners of police ? I 
 say, I could not be discharged, for I never was 
 engaged as a regular man. Regular or not, were 
 you not discharged ? Well, I was ordered to go 
 ovp.ry but I shall explain that. You shall explain it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Let him ex- 
 plain it. 
 
 Mr. Dl’NDAS : — He will be let explain. 
 
 j Well, explain now. Witness : — Well, I will ex- 
 I plain it — Don’t fly into such a passion ! Explain ! 
 
 1 explain ! I will explain. Will you ? I will ex- 
 j plain. Don’t be in such a hurry ! If I ask the man 
 j to go on, he rises up. 
 
 ! The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He shall not 
 ' suppress the answer. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I have nothing to suppress. 
 [ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Then hear 
 , the explanation. 
 
 ! Mr. DUNDAS : — I shall be delighted to hear 
 I it, if he goes on. Witness : — There was a watch- 
 I man short in the Stalybridge police, four or five 
 : months ago. My brother-in-law^ is a constable 
 in Stalybridge; his name is George Bowers. He 
 and Gatley said, I might watch for two or three 
 weeks. The Commissioners had a meeting, and 
 I applied to know, whether I might have the 
 situation regular or not, and the Commissioners 
 of Stalybridge, said, they thought if they kept 
 me on as a w'atchman, that the people of Staly- 
 bridge, would not pay the police rate , because I 
 had sworn against the Chartists. So, now, I 
 have given you ray reason. Well, then, I will 
 ask you a question upon that ; upon your oath, 
 w^ere you not discharged by the Commissioners 
 upon another account, and not upon that? Well, 
 I cannot say which way I could be discharged, 
 for I never was engaged. Upon your oath, were 
 you not discharged by the Commissioners of 
 Stalybridge from whatever employment, regular 
 or irregular, on some other account ? The Com- 
 missioners of police are Mr. James Kay and Mr. 
 Otley ; are not these their names ? Yes, Well, 
 now having mentioned their names, do you still 
 stick to it, that you were not discharged on some 
 other account ? Yes. Are you in work now ? 
 Yes. What do you get ? Fourteen shillings a 
 week. At that time you were out of w'ork ? 
 Yes. What took you about to those different 
 meetings ? I think I had as much right to go 
 with them as any body else. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You must give another answer 
 — ^What made you go ? — How came you to go to 
 those meetings ? Well, I went there, because I 
 thought I would go. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — And nobody desired you 
 to go ? No matter whether they desired me or 
 not ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — ^Were you desired by anybody 
 to go ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — ^Then why not say so, when 
 I asked you, on your oath before ? I have given 
 you an answer ; I said yes. Why did you not 
 give me the answer “ yes” before, when I asked 
 
70 
 
 you, as a true man upon your oath ?— Can you 
 give an answer to that?— Can you explain that? 
 Vrhat “ maun’' I explain? Don't you under- 
 stand what I asked you to explain ? I asked you 
 before why you went to those meetings, and your 
 answer was, “ I had as much right to go as any- 
 body else and now you tell me quite another 
 thing. I want to know why you told me not 
 that at first, but another thing ?— Are you 
 ashamed of having been asked to go? — Surely 
 you did not go as a spy, man ; did you ? Did 
 you go as a spy ? [No answer.] Did you get 
 anything for going. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Come, answer the question. 
 Did you get anything for going to those meetings ? 
 Yes. Were you promised that you should get 
 something if you went as a spy to those meet- 
 ings, before you went to them ? No, sir, not 
 before. Who told you to go there before ? I am 
 not going to tell you. Well, if you do not tell 
 me whoever it was that told you, w'ere you not 
 told it w'ould be worth your while to go, or some- 
 thing to that effect ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Answer that question, sir. 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — What have they given you 
 for going ? I cannot tell you what they have given 
 me. How much ? Five shillings. Who gave you 
 that, and will you swear upon your oath that, 
 that is all -you got for spying ? How much have 
 you got ? Answer like an honest man upon your 
 oath ? I cannot answer — about £4 or £5 at dif- 
 ferent times. Have you had the promise of any 
 more ? No. Did you expect any more for your 
 services on these occaions — for going about to 
 spy and report ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — At 
 what time did you first give information about 
 these meetings ? It might be about a fortnight 
 after the commencement of the turn-outs. 
 
 The JUDGE:— The first information you 
 gave. Yes, my Lord, about a fortnight after the 
 commencement of the turn-out. About a fort- 
 night after the meeting of the 7th ? Yes. Now, 
 before you gave this information, had you not 
 seen a proclamation offering a reward of £50. 
 No, I had not seen the proclamation then. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:-! think it 
 was not out. That proclamation came out on 
 the 15th. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — But you did, at some 
 time or other, see a proclamation offering a re- 
 ward of 50/. to which you now refer ; now, can 
 you tell us when you saw that proclamation? 
 At the first ? Yes, the first time you saw it. 
 Sometime in September. Was it before you were 
 examined by the magistrates at Ashton that you 
 saw this proclamation ? I believe it was — I am not 
 certain. Your wife’s mother’s name is Susan 
 
 Green, is it not ? Not your wife. O, you have 
 two wives, have you ? Yes. Are they both living? 
 No, only one. Do you recollect about the time 
 of the turn-out, calling on Susan Green, the mo- 
 ther of your first wife, and telling her that you 
 had been watching the turn-out,— that you saw the 
 lads break Lees’s mill-door, and might as well 
 have 50/. as any one else ? I have. Do you re- 
 collect Susan Green then asking you whether 
 you would go and swear against your neighbours ? 
 Yes. And you answered “ 50/.” is that so ? I 
 don’t know what soit of a reply I made to the old 
 woman. Now, do you recollect going afterwards 
 to Susan Green, and telling her that Boyers had 
 been trying you as to the speeches of the turn- 
 outs, and you said, that, if it had not been for the 
 speakers, there would be more disturbances ? Yes. 
 How long had your family been in the workhouse 
 before the 7 th of August? About a year and u 
 half. And had you been out of work all that 
 time ? No : I have been off and on different 
 times. Now, at this time, (the 7th of August.) 
 were you not a turn-out yourself? No, I had no 
 work. You had nothing to turn out from ? No. 
 How long before that had you been in work ? I 
 don’t know. That is your answer. I don’t 
 know that I had any regular work. What was 
 your employment ? Labour and out-work. You 
 were not a spinner ? No. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You were not a spinner ? I 
 used to be a rover, which is something in the 
 same way as spinning. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON I understood you to say, 
 that never before the 7 th of August were you in 
 regular employment ? Yes. Your first employ- 
 ment as special constable began shortly after you 
 gave the information? I gave some little infor- 
 mation before they appointed me a special con- 
 stable. But, after this information you were ap- 
 pointed? Yes. You continued special constable 
 sometime, and were then appointed a watchman. 
 What did you do after the revolution in Staly- 
 bridge caused you to be a watchman ? I did no- 
 thing until about three weeks ago. Now tell us 
 how y^ou managed to live during these three 
 weeks? I cannot tell you. You received no 
 wages, and still how you lived you don’t know ? 
 No. No ? Why there is hardly telling how people 
 does live now-a-days. Did you live on bread ? 
 Why they had bread. And meat ? Not so much 
 meat. Do you know where you got your bread 
 from ? Well ; I got flour from the shop. Whose 
 shop ? James Boyers. Did you pay for it ? No. 
 You are still owing for it? Yes. 'Then, I suppose, 
 you lived on credit ? Ay. I suppose, when you 
 went about the country with these people, and 
 saw them turning out the hands, you did not at- 
 tempt to persuade them not to turn out ? — ^When 
 they shouted you did not shout No ? No. You 
 
71 
 
 can write, can you? Yes, Did you take any 
 notes? I did. When? I don’t know. Have 
 you ever, on any other occasion, made use of any 
 notes which you took of what you had heard ? No. 
 Have you ever looked at those papers containing 
 the notes, on former occasions ? Yes. You have 
 looked at those papers on former occasions'? Yes. 
 When you were giving evidence before ? No. You 
 said to-day that you were present at a meeting on 
 the 12th of August ? Yes. You recollect being 
 examined before the magistrates in Septem- 
 ber ? Yes. Do you recollect being present at 
 the meeting of the 12th ? Yes. You told the ma- 
 gistrates that ? Yes. Are you sure of it ? Yes, 
 You say you were present at the meeting on the 
 12th of August, and that Crossley was there? 
 Yes, I don’t know whether he was there on the 
 13th or not, but he was at the great meeting. You 
 recollect a meeting of the 11th of August ; you say 
 Fenton was there; are you quite sure of that? 
 Yes. Were you sure of that when examined be- 
 fore the magistrates ? No, I was not sure on that 
 occasion. You were not ? Not that day. In 
 September last, you were not sure that Fenton 
 was present, but you are now. How did you 
 happen to become certain of that fact ? Because 
 I had it written down at that time. And you 
 were not sure, when before the magistrates at 
 Ashton, but since then you examined it, and 
 found it to be correct ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Examined what ? 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON: — The paper. [To the wit- 
 ness.] J ust now tell us something about that pa- 
 per, Tell us when you wrote it. Well, perhaps, 
 I wrote it on a day or two after the 11th. Now, 
 tell us w’hen you destroyed it ? I can’t tell you 
 to a week, but it is near two months since I de- 
 stroyed it. About two months ago ? Yes. Now, 
 will you tell us why you destroyed it ? Why, I 
 thought it would never be wanted no more. 
 Were you at Chester ? Yes- To give evidence ? 
 Yes. Was the paper then produced? Yes. 
 Now, did not you know two months before you 
 destroyed that paper that you would be wanting at 
 this Assizes ? I tliought I could keep it in my head. 
 
 I did not know whether I should be wanting or 
 not, because people thought there would be no 
 trial. But did not you think you would have to 
 give evidence ? I did not know that ever they 
 would be wanting any more. Were you before 
 the grand jury in October, at Liverpool ? Yes. 
 And you were that day examined about those 
 matters you were speaking to ? Yes. And it 
 was after that you destroyed those papers ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Me OUBREY : How 
 came your family to be in the workhouse, and 
 you abroad ? Well, about fourteen months ago, 
 there was me and three more that was in the 
 workhouse. We asked leave to go out and work 
 
 on the railway that they were cutting in Oldham, 
 and the Governor and Guardian of the poor 
 agreed that we should not go. We then left tlie 
 workhouse of our own accord, and we did not 
 get work for three or four weeks. The Gover- 
 nor sent us word that we had no need to go 
 any more to the workhouse. He said he would 
 not admit us. But did he admit your family ? 
 The family was there. And do you mean to say 
 you left your family in the workhouse? Yes. 
 And they remained there for fourteen months ? 
 Yes ; I am saying that, it is about fourteen months 
 since I went out. It is fourteen months since you 
 went out, and you left your family in there ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR Now, 
 Buckley, let us see if we can get into good hu- 
 mour. Can you recollect when you got the first 
 instalment of money ? — The date when you got 
 the first instalment ? — When was the first pay- 
 ment made to you? — Now, think ; I don’t want to 
 puzzle you ? Why, it might be about the 16th or 
 17th of August, Might it happen to be a fort- 
 night before that ? — Are you speaking of a 
 fortnight before that ? — About? — Might it be so ? 
 No. Did you get any money before the 10th ? 
 Not as wages. I borrowedf -some from my bro- 
 ther-in-law. Did not you say that you got 4/. or 
 57. altogether ? — Might it be 61. ? No. Are you 
 certain you did not get more? I am. While 
 your family and you were in the workhouse, what 
 is the longest period that you were at a steady 
 job ? Why, I think it was somewhere about fivo 
 weeks that I was a special constable. Was that 
 the only job you had for fourteen months ? No. 
 Since you came out of the workhouse your family 
 remained there ; how long a period during that 
 time were you in steady work ? Why, I was in 
 Yorkshire seven months, on and oft’. And ah 
 that time your family were in the workhouse ?— < 
 Did you bring your family home when you got 
 the Zs. a day as special constable ? Yes. Now, 
 on your oath, did you give the 3s. a day to your 
 family ? Yes. Upon your oath did you give any 
 portion of it to them ? Yes. How much ? I 
 always gave my wife what I got. As special 
 constable ? Yes. Every farthing ? I will not say 
 eveiy farthing. Was your wife receiving support 
 from any other quarter than from your wages .> 
 [No answer] . Now you have been asked before 
 how it happened that you followed those meet- 
 ngs about — were not those meetings riotous, and 
 did they not create great alarm in the neighbour - 
 hood ? Yes. Yet you followed them ! Did they 
 alarm you? They^did. Did they alarm you 
 much ? Sometimes. How did it happen that 
 you followed them so much when you were so 
 much alarmed ? I did not follow them— I only 
 attended the meetings. Have fJH not swom to 
 
72 
 
 the several transactions which took place ? Only 
 to those which took place on Monday. Is that 
 t^he only day you followed them ? Yes. Did not you 
 follow them when Crossley stopped the boys from 
 breaking the hatter’s doors? That was on the Mon- 
 day. Is that the only day you followed them? Yes. 
 Were you not at a meeting on Sunday ? Yes. 
 They were singing when you got there ? Yes. 
 They did not frighten you ? No. It was the 
 singing frightened you. — But, on your oath, when 
 Crossley went with them, did not he say, “ I will 
 go with you, if you allow me to prevent you from 
 doing harm, or if you will follow my advice to 
 abstain from violence ?” I never heard him say 
 anything of the sort. Did you, when examined 
 before the magistrates, tell all that you knew ? 
 No, I did not tell all. You have sworn here to- 
 day, that Leach was one of the principal speakers 
 of the 13th. Did you swear to Leach being at 
 that meeting of the 13th ? I don’t know. Now, 
 after your examination before the magistrates, were 
 you bound over to appear to give evidence ? Not 
 against Leach. Were you against any party ? Yes. 
 You were. Did you use your papers when before 
 the magistrates ? No. You swear to that ? — You 
 had your papers then, and did not use them — you 
 swear you did not use them ? Yes. And you are 
 bound over to appear again on the trial, and, in 
 the meantime, you destroy them ? — Were you ex- 
 amined at Chester? Yes. Were the men you 
 swore against convicted or acquitted ? They were 
 convicted and acquitted. How many were ac- 
 quitted ? One was convicted, and two were ac- 
 quitted. Now, did you get anything for that job ? 
 Not much. How much ? Fifty shillings. What 
 are you to get for this job ? I don’t know. 
 Now, come, as a moderate man, what have you 
 been led to expect ? — Has any one told you ? No. 
 No one has told you what you are to expect ? No. 
 Were you told by any one that you would get the 
 whole 50?. if you convicted the parties ? Nobody 
 ever has told me that. Did you say it yourself ? 
 No, never. No, I never said I should have 50?. if 
 they were convicted. What did you say you 
 would have the 50?. for ? I mean to say that I 
 never said I would have 50?. for those persons. 
 No, but it was for the general conviction ? It was 
 for that job at Chester I said I should have the 
 fifty. Now, why did you tell me that you never 
 said you would have the 50? ? You were making 
 it more than I said. I said fifty shillings. 
 Now, sir, upon your oath, did you shew your 
 papers to any one before you burned them ? — On 
 your oath. — Now, answer that. — On yopr oath 
 did any one ever tell you to destroy them ? 
 Never. Did you read them to any one ? Never. 
 You never shewed them, nor read them to any 
 one ? No. What did you get for going to Liver- 
 pool ? Fifty shillings. And fifty shillings for 
 
 Chester, and the hope of 50?. Now, upon your 
 oath, have you told the whole truth here to-day ? 
 i have, to the best of my knowledge. The 
 whole truth, without a single variation ? Yes. 
 Boyers was the man you bought bread from ? 
 Yes. He trusted you ? Yes. Hov.- long were 
 you living there without work? [No answer.] Did 
 you give Boyers anything out of the fifty shil- 
 ling or the five pounds ? — Did you never pay him, 
 although, when you were a “ Rover,” you got 
 that on credit, that you would pay him when you 
 got into work again ? Yes. Do you recollect 
 what you swore to, before the magistrates in 
 September last ? — Do you ? Wh^t about ? I 
 don’t know, that is what I want to know. Do you 
 remember what you swore to before the magis- 
 trates ? Ask me some instances ? Was what you 
 swore to before the magistrates shewn to you 
 in writing before you swore to it ? — Were the de- 
 positions you made before the magistrates read 
 to you, or given to be read to you since you 
 swore to them ? Well, they were read up to me a 
 time or two. What a memory for a man to re- 
 collect, in March, all that happened since the 
 7th of August last ? — Where were they read up to 
 you ? They were read in Manchester. By 
 whom ? I don’t know. Do you see him in 
 Court ? No. It is not Wilde, the chairman ? 
 No. When were they read to you again ? — When 
 were they last read to you ? — Now, come, sir, — 
 we must have an answer ; upon your oath, when 
 were they last read to you ? [Witness hesitated, 
 and appeared altogether unwilling to answer the 
 question.] 
 
 The JUDGE : — Come, answer the question ; 
 when was the last time the depositions were read 
 over to you? They were read to me to day. 
 [Great sensation in Court.] 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Go down, sir. 
 
 JOHN WILDE, one of the defendants: — In 
 speaking of the meetings of the 13th of August, the 
 witness said I was the chairman ; now, I am here 
 alone, and have not the means of procuring coun- 
 sel to defend myself, and I wish to know when 
 my trial will come on, so that I may be prepared 
 to defend myself to the best of my ability. 
 
 The JUDGE :— Your trial is going on now— 
 (laughter.) 
 
 JOHN WILDE :— Well, then, I think it is 
 my time to ask a few questions. 
 
 The JUDGE: — No doubt, you are quite 
 right. Ask him as many questions as you 
 wish. 
 
 WILDE : — In what manner was that meet- 
 ing conducted ? 
 
 The JUDGE :— You are speaking of the 
 second meeting now — the large meeting ? 
 
WILDE This is what he calls the large 
 meeting. 
 
 The JUDGE -.—Yes, the great meeting. 
 
 WITNESS Why, the people were very 
 rough, and the speakers were very rough, one 
 against another, respecting the wages question, 
 and the Chartist question. Was it on account 
 of the wage question, and the Chartist question ? 
 Yes. Were there not persons there who ob- 
 jected to the Charter being carried out ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Wilde objected to its being a 
 Chartist question ? Yes. 
 
 WILDE : — Were there not two individuals 
 who left the cart on account of the difference 
 that arose? — How many left the cart? — Did 
 not Woolfendeu, Woodroffe, Johnson, Radcliffe, 
 and Aitkin, leave the cart because the meeting 
 were making it a Chartist question ? Woolfendeu 
 made a speech there, but whether he left the 
 cart or not I do not know. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He made a speech in favour of 
 the wage question ? No, in favour of the Chartists. 
 
 WILDE He left the Chartist on the wage 
 question. 
 
 The JUDGE Did he leave the cart ? Yes. 
 Did he leave it in consequence of their putting 
 up the Chartist question ? No. 
 
 WILDE : — Was not the resolution put into 
 my hand to put to the meeting, and did I not 
 tell them that I would not put that resolution 
 in the shape it was framed ? They requested me 
 to stay in the chair, and carry out the meeting, 
 and I did so on condition of seeing it terminating 
 peaceably. I said I would try to have the un- 
 derstanding of the meeting, whether it would be 
 a wage question, or a Charter question, and I 
 I-'ut the resolution verbally, objecting to the 
 terms in which it was drawn up. After that 
 was done there was very little said, but the 
 meeting broke up and we all dispersed. Is not 
 that so ? Yes, they broke up peaceably, — they 
 broke up very peaceably at last. You said you 
 ])ut them notes down ; whether did you put 
 them down that day, or the morning following ? 
 
 I put them down the same day, or the same 
 night at all events. As you have Deen at a great 
 many meetings, and followed various processions, 
 and led them up on many occasions, did you 
 ever see me with themJ No, except at that 
 meeting. 
 
 Ke-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 
 — You never saw him except at that meeting ? 
 No. And have you given a correct account of 
 what passed at that meeting ? Yes. Do you 
 recollect seeing \\'ilde there, and the other peoj)le 
 
 that I have mentioned ? Yes. You gave evidence 
 at Chester ? Yes. And you received some money 
 for it? Yes. For your expenses? Yes. How much? 
 fifty shillings. There were other witnesses at 
 Chester, do you know^ how much they received ? 
 There were witnesses who received more thau 
 me, a good bit. Did you receive the common 
 allowance of witnesses ? Why, my money at 
 Chester, was fifty shillings, and fifty shillings 
 again at Liverpool. Did you go from Staly- 
 bridge ? Yes. How many miles had you to go 
 to Chester? Forty-two. How long did you 
 stay at Chester ? I was nine days away. Did 
 the fifty shillings pay all your expenses those 
 nine day’s, or did you get any thing more ? It 
 cost me three pounds altogether. Did you get 
 the fifty shillings to pay for your keep while you 
 were there, and nothing else ? I got nothing but 
 the fifty shillings altogether. 
 
 The JUDGE : — But you say it cost you three 
 pounds. Fifty shillings for Liveriwol, and fifty 
 shillings for Chester, and the expenses of 
 these places amounted to three pounds ? Y"es. 
 Then, you got out of it forty shillings. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL And you 
 were only before the Grand Jury at Liverpool ? 
 Yes. When did you come here ? On Tuesday. 
 In the morning, or in the middle of the day ? 
 It was near night when I got here on Tuesday. 
 
 JOSEPH OLIVER, examined by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY : — Are you employed as overlooker in Mr. 
 Samuel Robinson’s mill, at Duckinfield ? I am^ 
 M^ere you at a meeting on Hall Green, on the se- 
 cond or third of August? Yes. Name who w'asin 
 the chair ? I believe a person named W'ilde was 
 in the chair, but I will not swear to it. Who 
 spoke on that occasion ? A good many persons 
 spoke. Challenger au d Pilling spoke. Was any 
 resolution passed ? There was a resolution 
 passed to that etfect. To what etFect ? That, if 
 the masters persisted in the abatement, the 
 people should turn out, and stop out, till they 
 got a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work, and 
 until the Charter became the law of the land. 
 
 The JUDGE : — And carried, was it ? Wliy, 
 sir, they had a particular way of doing their 
 business ; it was put off to some particular time, 
 
 I reckon. “ If the masters persisted in their 
 abatements,” what then ? Why, that they (the 
 work-people) should stop out till tliq- got a fair 
 day’s wages for a fair day’s work, and until the 
 Charter became the law of the land. And thev 
 stopped out ? Yes, sure. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Can you tell who proiMised 
 
74 
 
 <W(1 seconded that resolution ? Not exactly. 
 Challenger or Pilling either proposed .r seconded 
 it ; I cannot say which. Do you ’nean that the 
 one proposed it, and that the othe! seconded it } 
 Well, I cannot say so. What was done with the 
 resolution ? It was not put to the vote, to the 
 best of my knowledge. Were you at another 
 meeting afterwards ? I have been at many a 
 one. Were you at a meeting at Thacker’s foun- 
 dry ? Yes. Did you see Pilling there .? Yes. 
 Did he speak ? Yes. Did he say anything 
 about Oldham ? Ay, he said he had been at 
 Oldham the Saturday before the turn-out (the 
 6th of August), and said he would advise the 
 people of Oldham to go to a meeting that would 
 take place on Mottram Moor, on Sunday. Who 
 said tliat ? Pilling. What more did he say 
 about Oldham ? Why, he said he met with 
 some opposition at Oldham. Did he say what 
 he had done > Why, he said he went there, 
 and advised them to turn out at Oldham. lie 
 said there had been some of his lads there on 
 Monday, and they raked some fires out, and 
 knocked some plugs from the boilers. What 
 did you understand him to mean by his lads ? 
 I understood him to mean his mob. Is that all 
 he said about Oldham ? No ; there were two 
 men to come to Ashton, to let him know whe- 
 ther they w'ere to turn out or not. Did he let 
 them know when they were to come ? That 
 morning. 
 
 The JUDGE: — This was on the 10th? Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — And when they had come, 
 what was to be done ? V/hy, he said, if they 
 did not turn out quietly, he doubted his lads 
 would break some of their heads. Did he say 
 anything about being anywhere else besides at 
 Oldham ? Why, he said he was to go round as 
 a delegate to different parts of the country, to 
 get the hands out. Were you present at another 
 meeting in Duckinfield, on the 15th of August ? 
 Yes. Who WHS in the chair that day ? James 
 Thorpe. Did you see Challenger there ? Yes. 
 Did he speak ? He did. Was there a person 
 of the name of Platt there? Yes; James Platt. 
 What did he say ? He said he understood they 
 were not turned out for the Charter, but for the 
 wages. What did Challenger say to that ? He 
 referred to the meeting which took place on 
 Hall Green, the 2nd or 3rd of August. He said 
 he was there, and drew up a resolution for it. 
 Ibis resolution was to the effect, that if the 
 iiasters persisted in the abatements, they (the 
 
 work-people) would turn out, and stop out till 
 they got a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s 
 work, and the Charter became the law of the 
 land. Did he refer to any other meeting ? Yes, 
 to a meeting which took place at Chaidestowu, 
 where he said, they made him secretary. Did 
 he say secretary to what ? It was the weavers 
 that were turning out, and I understood that 
 they made him secretary to the weavers. It was 
 the Messrs. Keyner’s, of Ashton, who had 
 given notice of a reduction of the wages 
 of these weavers. Did he say anything 
 about being at Preston ? He did. He said there 
 wa.s no use in turning out for wages ; but if the 
 people of this neighbourhood would go for the 
 Charter, they, (the Preston people,) would go for 
 the Charter, and fight for the Charter. Did he 
 say anything of the state of Preston ? He said 
 the streets were barricaded, and not a soldier or 
 green-bottle was to be seen at Preston ; and, if it 
 went on as he left it, he had no doubt but it would 
 be in a blaze before this. Did he say anything 
 about Manchester ? Y'es, he said he had been at 
 Manchester, and the people of Manchester were 
 for the Charter. It was not for the people of 
 Ashton, Duckinfield, or Stalybridge, to gay whe- 
 ther they would go for wages or the Charter or 
 not ; it was to be decided at the great delegate 
 meeting at Manchester. Less than these turn- 
 outs had brought on revolutions, and referred to 
 a great emperor ravishing a woman, and to the 
 case in England of Wat Tyler. He believed the 
 time was very near when a Cromwell, an Emmett, 
 or a Fairfax would be found amongst the people ; 
 and advised the people to look up to Feargus 
 O’Connor, Bronterre O’Brien, andDr.M‘Douall, 
 It was at Duckinfield that passed. Did you see 
 Challenger that evening ? Stop yet ; I am not 
 done yet. I saw him at Ashton, at another meet- 
 ing. He spoke there. There was a great bother : 
 people W'ere running backward and forward, losing 
 their shoes, shawls, and bonnets; and he said 
 there was a dog-battle. What did Challenger 
 say about the dog-battle? He said, if they in- 
 tended to go through with the Charter, they must 
 not run aw'ay looking at two little whelps fight- 
 ing. 
 
 The JUDGE: — They must not have their 
 attention diverted by two dogs fighting — that is 
 what is meant ? Just as you please. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — You 
 say, that on the turn-out of some mills that Chal- 
 lenger was appointed secretary to the weavers ? 
 No, I did not say so. Yes, you did. I said 
 nought about hands turning out. You said, that 
 w’hen the masters gave notice of an abatement 
 then Challenger w'as appointed secretary to the 
 weavers ? Ay, very true. Y’ou are an overlooker, 
 
ave you not ? I am employed in a cotton-mill. 
 Do you mean to say you are an operative ? — 
 You are not an overlooker or manager ? No. 
 Well, it is not usual for a person to be employed 
 by his own craft to go and inform himself of what 
 is going on ? It is sometimes done in our neigh- 
 bourhood, I know. Yes, it is sometimes done 
 in your neighbourhood; — that a man goes about 
 to inform himself. — Every one must regret to see 
 a fellow-creature afflicted with any malady. — Have 
 you ever been afflicted with any malady ? No. 
 Is your memory affected? No. Has anything 
 been the matter with you ? Wl;y, I have had a 
 fever which plagued me for two days, but I am 
 nothing the worse for it. Then your constitution 
 is strong ? Ay, I think it rather better since I 
 had the fever. Then the fever has served your 
 memory ? Ay, sir. You say, that when Challenger 
 came from Preston, he said if it were as he left 
 it, it would be in flames ? Yes. Were you ex- 
 amined before the magistrates in Septemljcr, in 
 Manchester ? Yes. Did you mention that about 
 Challenger ? No. Did you mention his name ? 
 
 Buckingham Palace. Did you take any notes 
 of what you swore before the magistrates ? I 
 have taken notes, and had them taken for me. 
 Have you had any conversation as to what you 
 were to say at this trial ? Well, there was a 
 person came to me, and I gave him my evidence. 
 Who was the person ? I don’t know his name. 
 You don’t know his name. — Did he write down 
 your name? — Were you introduced to him ? Yes, 
 I was introduced into a room. Where ? At the 
 Commercial Inn, in Ashton. Don’t be angry 
 with me. Well, don’t cry out so bluff. When 
 did you see what was written down last ? To- 
 day. Where ? Up-stairs. Who read it over to 
 you ? I read it over myself. Who sent it to 
 you ? I don’t know who sent it to me. Who 
 gave it to you ? — Was it read out to you — On 
 your oath was it given to you, what you were to 
 sw'ear here, in the presence of other witnesses 
 up-stairs. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Not what he was to swear. 
 
 I did ; but I did not tell what passed, as I heard , w^^at he has sworn to. What he lias been 
 he had gone to America. Did you tell other | examined to. 
 
 things that Challenger had said? I said he was I Mr. O’CONNOR : — What was taken down at 
 at those meetings. Did you mention what he | Ashton, at your dictation, was it shewm to you 
 said at those meetings ? No. No, not a word? in the presence of other witnesses up-stairs? 
 Not to ray knowledge. Do you recollect, now, j Not in my presence. Did you see any other 
 whether you did mention it, or not ? I do not. ' persons reading any other scraps ? — Answ'er the 
 You are sure of that now ? Not a w^ord to my question. Ay, I will, man ! [striking the wit- 
 knowledge. I believe you were averse to com- ; ness-box] that is the reason I came here 
 ing here ? Well, as to that, my friends were ‘ (Laughter). Well, upon your oath, while you 
 opposed to my coming here. Who sent for you were reading your owm depositions, were there 
 
 to come here? A person came over to Ashton, 
 and sent for me. Who was it ? Do you know 
 his name ? I don’t know" his name. A stranger 
 came to you. Your friends w'ere opposed to your 
 coming here, and a mere stranger came to you ? 
 Yes ; he came to me for me to give my evidence. 
 Did you ever see him before ? Not that man I 
 did not. Do you know his name ? I cannot 
 swear that I do. Did you ever see him before ? 
 Not to my knowledge. Then, of course, you 
 don’t know his name; and, although you re- 
 fused the advice and solicitations of your friends. 
 
 others reading theirs at the same time ? Not 
 at the same time. Well, were they reading 
 them at different times ? Well, I believe there 
 were other persons who read their depositions 
 over besides me. Did you hear any depositions 
 besides your owm read over? No, Who gave 
 you your depositions ? I don’t know. Was it 
 one of the witnesses in the room ? No, Did 
 the person who gave them to you deliver depo- 
 sitions to others also, at the same timei* — Come 
 now, I know' you will speak the truth. — Don’t 
 look about now : look at the Judge, and give 
 
 who wanted you not to come, at the bare soli- your ear to me, and your eye to the jury. — Upon 
 citation of a stranger, whom you never saw ; your oath, did this person, at the same time, 
 before, you did come ? I thought it was my give depositions to the other witnesses ? I believe 
 duty. Did you know' a man of the name of j he gave them something ; I don’t know what 
 
 Newton ? Yes. Did he go to you ? No. Did 
 he send to you about anything concerning this 
 trial? Newton told me to prepare myself. That 
 
 it was. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Don’t call 
 them depositions — he does not know' what they 
 
 is the Robert Newton, I believe, that said he i were. 
 
 was going to Loiulon to iTicct the Duke of Wei- 1 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Yes, Mr. Attorney-Gene- 
 lington, and attack the Houac of Lords and | ral, he docs. [To witness] Were the papers 
 
76 
 
 made np, and sewn in the same way as yours ? 
 Yes, they were. I came here telling the truth. 
 I know you did — I would not ask the last w itness 
 a question of the kind. I know you will tell the 
 whole truth, but vou are so angry I am obliged 
 to raise my voice. Well, don't bring things out 
 so bluff. This is a dry job ; I’d like to have a 
 glass with you ; I am getting very dry. (Laugh- 
 ter) Will you have a glass of wine ? Did you ever 
 tell the magistrates anything about looking up 
 to Feargus O’Connor, Bronterre O’Brien, and Dr. 
 JDDouall ? No. Now', tell me, on your oath, did 
 any one suggest anything to you that you were 
 to sw’ear? I have sworn. It is on your oath, 
 ilid any one suggest anything to you that it 
 would be well to swear ? Who mentioned that 
 fact relative to O’Connor, O’Brien, and M'Douall? 
 — When W’as that first mentioned by you ? Well, 
 it was after Challenger was taken up. When 
 was that ? — Tims eve ? — Do come to dates. 0, 
 but I will na come to dates — I w'ill tell no lies. 
 When did you first mention it ? — How long ago ? 
 Well, I think it is about tw'O months ago. Who 
 did you mention it to ? To Robert Newton. But 
 you never mentioned that of Preston being in a 
 blaze ? 0 no, I am green in business. Yes, but 
 you are determined not to be long green. No, 
 
 I am learning it. I came here to learn a little 
 but 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — He said there was no use 
 in mentioning it to the magistrates, as Challenger j 
 went to America. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Burning tow'ns, and as- j 
 suming the character of Cromwell, Fairfax, and ^ 
 Emmett, and breaking heads, are all important 
 transactions. You speak here to-day about Pil- | 
 ling saying that he sent over his lads to Oldham, 
 and that if the workpeople there employed did not j 
 turn out, his lads would be cracking their heads. ! 
 Did you mention that to the magistrates ? No. | 
 Here then we have the burning of cities, and the 
 cracking of heads, and not a w ord of that said be- j 
 fore the magistrates. Now, is what you dictated 
 to the gentleman in the Commercial Inn, in Ash- | 
 ton — is that in that examination } Yes, word for , 
 word ; I examined it this morning, and find it 
 correct. — (Laughter.) ! 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. WORTLEY : — Have you ' 
 come here on a suhpeena ? Y"es. Was that gentle- j 
 man, who gave you the subpoena, a stranger whom j 
 you don’t know? — Who gave you the subpoena ? ^ 
 One of the Ashton police. How came you to go 
 to the gentleman to whom you were introduced ? ; 
 — Who told you to go up to him ? Robert New- 
 ton, the constable of Ashton. He told you to go 
 op to the Inn, to Newton ? Yes. Is not Newton 
 
 a stone-mason at Stockport ? No, he has been a 
 constable in Ashton for many years. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Your Robert Newton is not 
 the stone-mason of that name? No, not that I 
 know of — not the Robert Newton that I know. 
 No, sir, no. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Was the examination 
 shewn to you to-day in writing ? Yes. Was that 
 examination as taken at Ashton, a true statement 
 of facts ? It was what I stated, to the best of ray 
 knowledge, and I believe it was “rceL” Y’'ou 
 w'ere examined before the magistrates ? Y^es. 
 W’hen was that ? Sometime in September. You 
 W'ere never examined against Challenger before 
 the magistrates ? No. But you mentioned that 
 he was at that meeting ? Yes. He was not under 
 charge before the magistrates ? No ; he was off ; 
 he went to America, and 1 thought it was no use 
 saying ought about him. I told Robert Newton 
 that I should never hesitate for a moment to go 
 before Challenger. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Would it be inconvenient 
 to your Lordship to adjourn ? 
 
 The JUDGE :— It w'oidd be extremely agree- 
 able, but I am afraid I cannot do so till seven 
 o’clock — say another hour. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I have to apply to your 
 Lordship that the last witness may not leave. 
 Orders to that effect were given by the Judge. 
 
 SAMUEL BANNISTER was then called and 
 sworn. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Have you been in Court 
 yesterday ? I was in a few minutes looking after 
 a party of thieves, who, I heard, were in Court. 
 
 Examined by Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — 
 What are you ? I am chief constable of Preston. 
 Is there a Chartist meeting-room there? Yes. 
 Do you attend there ? Yes, occasionallv. Were 
 you there prior to the 12th of August last, at a 
 meeting ? Y’es. What did you hear stated on 
 that occasion ? It was announced that there would 
 be a meeting on the evening of the 12th of Au- 
 gust, and that Aitkin and Challenger w ould be 
 there. 
 
 Mr.DUNDAS : — I object to that ; there is no 
 person present. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— They are in the 
 indictment. On the evening of the 12th of August 
 was there a meeting? Witness: — There was. 
 Who spoke at that meeting ? Two persons an- 
 nounced by the chairman as Aitkin and Challen- 
 ger, came forward and spoke. Was any resolution 
 moved by either of them ? I don’t recollect, but 
 each of them spoke in support of the resolutions. 
 Do you remember the nature of the resolutions ? 
 — I do not w'ant to have them word for word. One 
 of the resolutions was, that the people of Preston 
 were not to go to work till the Charter became 
 the law of the land. 
 
77 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — I object to this evidence, 
 inasraueh as Challenger is not identified. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Who do you appear for, Mr. 
 Atlierton ? 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — I appear for Stephenson 
 and Fenton ; but your lordship is aware that, in 
 a charge of this kind, the evidence is material to 
 each of the defendants. 1 am aware that your 
 lordship has already ruled a case of a similar 
 description, but there is a marked difference be- 
 tween it and this particular case. In that case 
 the man announced as John Leach stated that 
 he had been at Stockport, had a conversation 
 with the mayor, &c. ; but on the present occa- 
 sion there is no evidence of identity at all. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN The last witness 
 proved that Challenger had been at Ashton, and 
 that he said there, “ If Preston is going on as I 
 left it, I have no doubt but it will be in a blaze 
 before this.” 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — This indictment charges 
 Challenger, and this witness is called, for the 
 purpose of affecting Stephenson, as far as my 
 argument is concerned, to state something which 
 the defendant Challenger said at Preston. Now, 
 I submit, my Lord, that the only evidence af- 
 forded is not such evidence as would w'arrant 
 your lordship to allow this conversation to be 
 detailed for the purpose of fixing the Challenger 
 of this indictment, as the Challenger who was 
 at Preston. Your lordship decided a cimilar case 
 in the Court of Exchequer (which case was not 
 a criminal case like this, where the evidence is 
 more strict than in civil actions), as to whether, 
 in endence of the similarity and identity of a 
 deed, the name was sufficient to prove that the 
 defendant on the record made the promissory 
 note ; and your lordship knows that the Court 
 of Exchequer held that the mere circumstance 
 of identity of name was not sufficient. Now, I 
 submit, that there is not sufficient evidence to 
 connect the Challenger of wffiich this witness 
 speaks, with the Challenger on the record ; this 
 identity of name is not in itself sufficient. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL This is evi- 
 dence to go to a jury ; and it is for them to ex- 
 ercise their judgment upon it, and determine 
 whether such evidence is sufficient. The last 
 witness distinctly stated that Challenger, on the 
 15th, at Duckinfield, said, “ I have been at 
 Preston ; all the streets are barricaded.” He 
 then spoke of the condition of the town, and 
 said, “ If Preston is in the same state that I left 
 it, it will be in a blaze. The men at Preston 
 
 are all for the Charter : there is no use in turn- 
 ing out for wages.” Now that is evidence re- 
 specting Challenger, the defendant. He had 
 been at Preston shortly before, and that which 
 we now propose to show is, that he was at a 
 meeting connected with the Charter, three days 
 before, at the Chartist meeting-room. 
 
 The JUDGE : The man of Preston said “ there 
 is no use in turning out for wagas, but if the 
 people of this neighbourhood would go for the 
 Charter, they (the Preston people) v/ould go for 
 the Charter, and fight for the Charter. The 
 streets were barricaded, and not a soldier to be 
 seen, and if Preston were as he left it, he had 
 no doubt but it would be in a blaze before this.” 
 1 think it is quite clear. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That shows 
 that he was there. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think it is quite clear. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Now, Mr. Ban- 
 nister. 
 
 The JUDGE : — One resolution was, that the 
 Preston people were not to go to work till the 
 Charter became the law of the land. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Was that the se- 
 cond day? Yes. Was the question put? Y'es, 
 and carried. There was some discussion before 
 that, whether it should be a question of w^ages 
 or of the Charter, and they decided that it should 
 be a question of the Charter only. What was 
 the second resolution ? I do not exactly recollect, 
 but there were several resolutions passed. Of 
 what nature were the resolutions ? Give us the 
 substance of them. One of the speakers spoke 
 at great length to induce them not to go to work. 
 Another proposed that they would go to the 
 present place of meeting every morning, as the 
 factory operatives were going to work, and pre- 
 vent those who were disposed to go to work, 
 from doing so. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Repeat that again. The reso- 
 lution was to this effect, that they should meet 
 at the place they w^ere then meeting on (this 
 was on a large space of ground called the 
 Orchard) at an early hour in the morning, and, 
 at noon, to prevent such persons as were dis- 
 posed to go to work, from doing so. They were 
 to meet twice a day for that purpose. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN I think you say 
 there were other resolutions ? Yes, there were 
 other resolutions. They were all extremely 
 violent, but I cannot recollect them distinctly 
 and specifically. You say those two persons 
 called Aitkin and Challenger made speeches 
 
7 ^ 
 
 do you recollect any particular passages in the 
 speeches of either ? I do. Challenger said, that 
 Uie masters of Preston, or the cotton lords of 
 Preston, were the greatest tyrants in the countr 5 \ 
 It vas well known that they ground their work- 
 men down more than any other persons ; getting 
 their work done cheaper, and therefore they 
 could undersell their neighbours. He used a 
 great deal of vulgar language, calling the mas- 
 ters many vulgar names. You are speaking 
 now of Challenger ? Yes. Well, with regard to 
 Aitkin ? Aitkin boasted of having suffered in the 
 cause of the people, and said, he had already 
 been imprisoned ; but he would do anything 
 more he could to assist them. He used 
 much violent language. Anything more ? I don’t 
 recollect anything more in particular. I believe 
 there were great disturbances on the following 
 day ? Yes. About five o’clock the next morning, 
 I attended at the Orchard myself, and found 
 some persons, perhaps a hundred, assembled. 
 
 The JUDGE Why is that called the Or- 
 chard ? It is not really an orchard, 1 suppose ? 
 No, it is a large space of ground ; I suppose it 
 was formerly an orchard. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Y'ou found about 
 100 people there at the time ? Yes. I saw they 
 were accumulating. Their numbei'S were in- 
 creasing. I then went back to the station, leaving 
 some constables to watch the proceedings of the 
 mob, and sent a report to the mayor of the 
 borough. I then returned towards the Orchard ; 
 and was met by one of my men, who said, that the 
 mob had moved towards a factory. I sent ano- 
 ther message to the mayor, with a view to calling 
 out the military, as the police force was then only 
 fifteen or sixteen men. I was engaged with the 
 mayor, endeavouring to get the soldiers together, 
 and I heard from time to time that the mob was 
 going round the town ; the soldiers were called 
 out, about thirty of the 72d Highlanders, and I 
 then proceeded with the soldiers and magistrates 
 down Fishergate ; and a short distance before we 
 came to Lune-street, we met an immense mob of 
 persons. The force we had then was walking in 
 a very narrow’ compass, and the mob was likely to 
 pass, so we were ordered to halt and form a w’ider 
 rank. We ultimately stopped the mob from 
 coming up that street. We then proceeded dow’n 
 Fishergate and Lune-street round a large factory 
 (Paley’s) ; and, on our return, up Lune-street, 
 immense showers of stones were thrown at us by 
 the mob. We there halted, and faced about with 
 a view of dispersing the mob, and made a great 
 many efforts to do so ; Captain Woodford, chief- 
 constable of the county constabulary, and myself, 
 going on opposite sides of the street, for the pur - 
 
 pose of informing them that the riot act would be 
 read. One of the mob cried out, “ Read and be 
 damned ! ” A stone was thrown, which knocked 
 the riot act out of the mayor’s hand. By that 
 time a portion of the mob had gone to our rear ; 
 we were also flanked by the mob, and the showers 
 of stones were tremendous, as they were coming 
 upon us from all sides. The riot act was then 
 read, the stones still flying. I then went with 
 Captain Woodford to tell the mob that the riot 
 act had been read. There was at this time a 
 considerable portion of the mob in our rear, and 
 also in two streets by which w’e were flanked, 
 as well as in our front. One of those streets 
 is called Chapel Walks. Showers of stones came 
 from them over the houses. There is a place at 
 the low'er part of Lune-street, where a great 
 number of stones are deposited, and we could 
 distinctly see the women bringing stones in 
 their brats and aprons, and laying them down 
 in the street for the use of the mob. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN To form a depot ? 
 Yes, sir. Having made several efforts to disperse 
 
 the mob, or get through them without effect 
 
 What sort of efforts do you mean } Why, going 
 down in a body with the constables, and the 
 military in the rear, and charging them. What 
 had the constables in their hands ? Nothing 
 more than ordinary staffs ; none of them had 
 cutlasses. At length, the Mayor ordered the 
 soldiers to fire. I did not hear what was the 
 word of command ; but they did fire. What 
 was the consequence of the firing ? I saw seve- 
 ral of the foremost of the mob drop in the 
 street. How many soldiers were present ? 
 Thirty. How many rounds did they fire ? I 
 don’t know the exact number ; they did not fire 
 in a body, but by platoons. The mob stood 
 mute ; they did not attempt to run ; they stood 
 for some minutes, as if thunder-struck. How 
 long did they stand ? About two or three mi- 
 nutes ; but I was then in such a state of agita- 
 tion, I could not take particular notice of the 
 time. They then retired, and we were ordered 
 to retire up Fishergate-street. I believe some 
 were killed ? Yes. How many ? Four died 
 ultimately ; and a fifth man, who was wounded, 
 had his leg taken off. We halted a short time 
 in Fishergate-street, at- the end of Lune-street; 
 aud, having prevailed on the mob to retire, we 
 went to our stations aud quarters. Did the mob 
 disperse after that? They did, sir. Is there 
 anything further in relation to the transactions 
 of that day ? 1 don’t recollect anything else 
 
 material. Did you, afterwards, visit any of the 
 mills where the mobs had been ? 1 did. Mhat 
 
70 
 
 had they done at those mills ? I did not per- 
 ceive that they done any particular mischief at 
 the mills. The fact was, as soon as the mills 
 were desired to stop, they did so. On the fol- 
 lowing day was every place quiet, and did tlie 
 mills resume their work ? They did. On what 
 day of the week was the 13th of August ? 
 Saturday. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O'CONNOR: — I will 
 just ask him a word — You and Captain Wood- 
 ford went one on each side of the street, to dis- 
 suade them from continuing their movement, 
 and the rnoh proceeded on } No, the mob were 
 at a halt then. I understood you to say, that 
 the constables then in front of the military went 
 down and charged the mob ? After considerable 
 hesitation they did so. Now. did the constables 
 give way } — And did the military shew them- 
 selves, and charge the mob before the order for 
 “ fire ?” 
 
 The JUDGE : — The military did not charge 
 them before they fired. 
 
 WITNESS : — I have before stated, that the 
 constables were between the military and the 
 people. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR ; — At the time the people 
 were standing, and the constables were between 
 the soldiers and the people, were the constables 
 laying about them with their sticks ? Some of 
 them were, sir. And the people were standing.’ 
 Yes. And the constables were laying about 
 them ? Some of them were. How long did 
 the firing continue altogether ? I should think 
 not more than two or three minutes. That 
 is a long time. They fired in single platoons. 
 Single firing ! And the people did not stir ? — 
 After the first shot they appeared motionless, 
 you say ? Yes, from the distance in which I 
 was. Was the firing kept up for two or three 
 minutes ? Yes, but in the most deliberate w'ay. 
 1 dare say it was. Pop— Pop — pop! — Was 
 there a pop each second ? More than a second. 
 I should think there w'ere three seconds between 
 each. There are sixty in a minute. Was there 
 pop — pop — pop! about tw^enty in a minute ; and 
 did this continue for several minutes after the 
 people were motionless ? [No answer.] Now, 
 did you hear that the mayor w'as rash in ordering 
 the military to fire? No, but on the contrary, I 
 heard him praised in all quarters, for firing on 
 them. After the military had retired you went 
 among them? I did not. I understood you to say, 
 in answer to Sir Gregory Lewdn, that you weni 
 among them yourself? I did, but the soldiers 
 
 were close at hand. And then the pectplc di.?- 
 persed quietly ? After a short time. Now, 1 wimt 
 to know how it happens, that the resolution being 
 the most important thing that occurred, you can- 
 not give ns an account of what it was ? — Did you 
 take notes of the speeches ? No. I took notes of 
 the inflammatory speeches. Did you take notes 
 of anything that w'as not inflammatory ? — What 
 was the second resolution ? I would not under- 
 take to say what the words of it were. You 
 would not undertake to say more about it than 
 that the word “ Resolved" w'as in it ? — Upon your 
 oath, were you aware that the strike was occa- 
 sioned in Preston in consequence of the notice 
 given by Messrs. Ainsworth to reduce the wages 
 of their hands ? No. Was there any notice of a 
 reduction ? I certainly did hear that there had 
 been a dispute between some of the workmen and 
 the Messrs. Ainsworth about a reduction, and 
 that some of the men did turn out in consequence. 
 When did you hear that ? Not till the Monday 
 after the turn-out took place. Do you mean to 
 state, on your oath, that you did not hear a word 
 of the reduction prior to the meeting on the r2th, 
 at which Aitkin and Challenger were present ? 1 
 did not hear it till the Monday. Then how did 
 you hear it ? It was related to me in this way ; 
 persons were drawing comparisons between the 
 different masters, as to who were the most liberal 
 or illiberal, and the Messrs. Ainsworth were then 
 accused of reducing their w ages more than others. 
 Did you see any of the men that were killed ? 
 I saw some of them. Did you go to the inquest? 
 I did. Did you examine the bodies ? I did not. 
 On your oath, did von not see any of them ? Not 
 one. On your oath, did you see two men w'ounded 
 in the back ? No. Did you hear it ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I must ob- 
 ject to this eternally putting to the witness what 
 he has heard. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Well, then, I won’t 
 press it. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY -GENE- 
 RAL : — -You say there were thirty of the regular 
 force there ? Yes, there were not more than eighty 
 persons altogether. How wide was the street in 
 which you were ? It is a street of ordinary width 
 — about thirty feet at the utmost. How many 
 persons were in front of you, can you tell ? Some 
 thousands. And how many persons were at your 
 back ? — I am speaking of the time w^hen the order 
 was given to fire ? There was a dense mob both in 
 our front and rear. I understood you to say, that 
 there w'ere side streets from which the stones 
 were coming over the houses ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not see what relevancy 
 that has at all, one way or the otlicr. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— No, my 
 Lord, but one would endeavour to preserve tbs 
 
80 
 
 character of the soldiers, magistrates, or any one 
 concerned in the preservation of the peace, from 
 all imputation. While you were firing, were 
 stones thrown or not ? I did not perceive. When 
 did the hands first begin to give overwork } Not 
 till Friday morning, the very day before this fir- 
 ing. And when did they resume ? On Monday. 
 Now what I want to know is this, that with the 
 exception of that Friday and Saturday, was there 
 any general interruption ? No. Was there any 
 
 j interruption at all, till Aitkin and Challenger 
 came and attended that meeting ? No. Had there 
 been any general interruption of work ? Yes, on 
 Friday morning the Preston mob turned out. 
 When did you expect Aitkin and Challenger to 
 come ? On Friday night. What was the day of 
 the month on which the firing was ? On Saturday 
 morning, the 13th of August. 
 
 It being now seven o’clock, the Court adjourned 
 to the following morning. 
 
 END OF SECOND DAYS TRIAL. 
 
 
 
TRIAL. OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHEUS. 
 
 THIRD DAY, 
 
 Friday j March 3rd, 1843. 
 
 In consequence of Mr. BARON ROLFE Laving aiTangcd this morning to dis- 
 pose of a charge of murder, the resumption of the evidence, in the prosecution of the 
 Chartists did not take place till nearly twelve o’clock. 
 
 The LEARNED JUDGE took his seat in the Nisi Priiis Court, at twelve 
 o’clock, when the Jury, in the case of The Queen against Feargus O’Connor and 
 Others,” was called over. 
 
 Before the evidence was resumed, — 
 
 The ATFORNEY-GENERAL stated to liis Lordship, that, having carefully 
 looked over the depositions as aflecting John Wilde, one of the defendants, who cross- 
 examined the witness Buckley on the previous day, and it having appeared that he 
 took no part in the Chartist question, he (the Attorney- General) had come to the 
 conclusion, in concurrence with his Learned Friends, not to offer any further evi- 
 dence against Wilde. 
 
 A verdict of Acquittal was acc’ordingly taken. 
 
 The same course was adopted with regard to Thomas Pitt, another of the de- 
 fendants. 
 
 On the application of Mr. O’CONNOR, all witnesses who had arrived since the 
 previous day, except those to character and formal matter, were ordered out of 
 Court. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL made an application to the Court with reference 
 lO the attendance of the Rev. John 'I'aylor, Incumbent of Duckinfield, who wished to 
 offer evidence as to the character of John Crosslcy, one of the defendants. It would 
 be inconvenient for the Rev. Gentleman to be detained in Lancaster over Sunday, 
 and the Learned Gentleman accordingly proposed that the evidence of Mr. Taylor 
 should then be taken. The Rev. Gentleman was sworn, and he gave a very 
 favourable opinion of the character of Crossley, as a peaceable and orderly man. 
 
JOSEPH IIIBBERT, examined by the AT- 
 TORNEY-GENERAL : — Are you clerk to the 
 magistrates at Hyde ? I am, along with Mr. 
 Edward Clarke. How long have you been so ? 
 Fifteen or sixteen years. Have you resided 
 (luring that time, or the greater part of it, at 
 Hyde? All the time. During any part of the 
 month of August, was Hyde in a disturbed state ? 
 It was. At what time did that l)egin ? About 
 the 7th or 8th of August. How long did that 
 continue ? It continued at least six weeks. 
 M'hat sort of a place have you there to put your 
 prisoners in ? M'e have a strong-built “ lock- 
 up,” erected by the county. Were persons 
 confined there during the time of those riots ? 
 No, sir; the magistrates did not consider it safe. 
 Did the magistrates assemble from day to day ? 
 They did. Who is your high constable ? Jo- 
 seph Little is our special high constable. How 
 long has he been so ? Nearly a year. Do you 
 mean that he has now been a year there, or 
 that he had been a year at the time those dis- 
 turbances began ? I am not clear as to the time, 
 but I think it is rather more than a year now. 
 Was it his duty to make reports from time to 
 time, to the magistrates, of what he witnessed 
 taking place? It was : he was expressly ordered 
 so to do. Had he been in the habit of doing 
 that before (liose disturbances began ? He has 
 done it occasionally. Have you been present 
 when he made his reports to the magistrates 
 from time to time, during the riots ? I have. 
 Did you ever see that book before ? [Handing 
 Little’s notes to witness.] I have, sir. What 
 is that book, and when have you seen it before ? 
 [ have seen it laid before the magistrates, in 
 their office. Y'ou have seen it frequently at the 
 office — your office, I think ? Yes, my office, 
 where the magistrates met. I have seen it laid 
 before the magistrates at their meeting. You 
 know the book well ? Yes, I have frequently had 
 it in my hand. Is that the real book which the 
 special high constable used for the purpose of 
 making his reports from day to day, before the 
 magistrates ? Y'es. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Mr. 
 Hibbert, you are clerk to the magistrates at 
 Hyde ? Y'es. And Little is the special high 
 constable of Hyde ? Y"es. He copies notes into 
 that book, and it is his duty to lay the state of 
 the town before the magistrates ? Yes. Do you 
 think him as competent an authority for that 
 purpose as any other ? I do. You do. Do ymu 
 think that he would be likely to come to proper 
 
 conclusions as to about the time the disturb- 
 ances commenced and ceased ? Yes. Do you 
 hink that would be an important part of his 
 duty ? Y’es, I think it would. How long do you 
 think it was from the commencement of tlie 
 disturbances to their conclusion ? About six 
 weeks. What time did you find that Leach was 
 missing from Hyde ? I don't recollect. You 
 must try. The constable tried for several weeks 
 before he got him. Commencing from what 
 period ? I cannot say, sir. Did they look for 
 him on the 12th of August ? I think very likely. 
 Did they on the IGth? I cannot say. Has he 
 been at Hyde since the 20th of August ? I be- 
 lieve not; I have not heard of him. Was Hyde 
 restored to a perfect state of tranquillity after 
 I Leach had absconded ? It was not. It was not 
 perfectly tranquil after Leach left it ? I believe 
 it was not tranquil from the 7th of August till 
 the 21st of September — six weeks. Do you 
 think Little had been in error one month as to 
 the time Hyde was disturbed ? I should think 
 not. At what time did you appear to give evi- 
 dence before the magistrates ? I did not appear 
 at all. I went to Stockport 1 beg your par- 
 
 don. Did you appear at Stockport in your ca- 
 pacity of clerk to the magistrates, at the time 
 Little deposed against the prisoners on their 
 trial ? I don’t know who the prisoners arc. 
 Woolfcndcn, Leach, and Challenger. Are you 
 aware what gave rise in the first instance to the 
 disturbances in the neighbourhood of Hyde ? I 
 know that great bodies of people came from 
 
 other towns about the 7th Have you heard 
 
 that the hands 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 beg Mr. O’Connor v.’ill allow the witness to fi. 
 nish the answer, and not ask what he has heard, 
 unless it is of that species which he considers 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Ido not, Mr. Attorney- 
 General. [To the witness.] Were you aware 
 that the hands of the several mills were then 
 ! under notice to quit work ? No. You were 
 clerk to the magistrates and were present when 
 some of the prisoners were brought up, and 
 never heard on one of those occasions that the 
 hands were under notice ? No. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENEIUL:— My lord, I 
 don’t know when this is to end, if the witness 
 ’\s to be asked what he has heard, not only at 
 the time, but what he afterwards heard as a 
 matter passing before the magistrates. It is not 
 evidence, and I am obliged to gi'.c notice, after 
 
83 
 
 what I heanl yesterday, (when I gave a certain 
 degree of latitude lo Mr. O’Connor, not desiring 
 to shut out what ever might he thought neces- 
 sary) that I must in future object to the ^Yit- 
 ness stating what lie has heard a long time 
 afterwards. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I want the witness to 
 state, not what he heard a long time afterwards, 
 hut what was given in evidence in his presence 
 before the magistrates. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL We cannot 
 have evidence second hand. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He can’t give evidence except 
 as to what he knows of his own knowledge. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR [To witness] : — Then, when 
 did they begin to return to their work } — At what 
 time did the turn out begin to cease, of your 
 own knowledge? About the 21st of September 
 or thereabouts. You don’t keep notes of any- 
 thing that passes ; your business is to act as 
 clerk to the magistrates ? No. Would you say 
 that the evidence of Little, who keeps notes, 
 would be better than yours, as to when the dis- 
 turbances took place ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Your observation may be 
 strong to the jury, but it is a matter of evidence 
 not of observation that one man keeps notes, 
 and another does not. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Here we have two wit- 
 nesses from the same place ; one who kept no 
 notes swears that the disturbanees were con- 
 tinuing to the 21st of September, and the other, 
 who had notes, swears that the disturbances 
 ceasetl about the 20 th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He keeps no notes and Little 
 does. Now, your observation is fitted more to 
 the jury, as to which of the witnesses is more 
 likely to be deserving of credit. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Has any 
 other defendant a wish to ask any questions ? 
 [No answer.] 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : 
 — Now, ITibbert, will you tell me? 
 
 RICHARD OTLEY : — I wish to ask a ques- 
 tion. I merely wish to ask him if he heard of 
 any distress in Hyde, previous to, or at the time 
 of the outbreak ? I heard of no particular dis- 
 tress. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— That was the 
 very question I was about to put, my lord ; you 
 may stand down. 
 
 JOHN BROOKS was next sworn. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — 1 wish to ask this witness 
 if he has been in court to hear the evidence ? 
 No, sir. 
 
 E\'a;nined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
 Are you bookkeeper and manager to Mr. Rlatt 
 Yes. M’here are his premises ? In Stalybridge. 
 Is it a mill or factory, or what ? — Describe what 
 it is. It is a cotton mill. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A cotton mill do you call it ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL On Monday 
 the 8th of August, do you remember any mob 
 coming to the mill ? Yes. At about Avbat time ? 
 A little before 9 o’clock in the morning, on 
 Monday, the 8th of August. Can you give any 
 notion of the number of persons who came to 
 the mill ? I can’t give any number, the street 
 w'as full. Could you say whether there were 
 some hundreds ? 1 should think thousands from 
 the appearance of the crowd. Where w'^ere you 
 at the time the mob was there ? I was in the 
 mill yard, and had an intimation that the mol) 
 w<as there. What did you do ? I, together with 
 the overlooker of the mill, got outside just be- 
 fore they came up to the place ; and the over- 
 looker locked the door. Did you say anything 
 to the people ? I asked them what they wanted. 
 What answer did they give ? They said they 
 wanted the hands. What did you say to that ? 
 I asked what for ? our hands are satisfied with 
 their present wages, and don’t want to come out. 
 Well, what answer did you get to that ? They 
 said “ we will have them out ; they must go 
 AA'ith us to get our rights.” Well, what hap- 
 pened then ? I said, “ If our hands come out 
 they will not go with you ; we will start again 
 to-morrow morning, and go to work. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My Lord, I asked the At- 
 torney-Geneial if he pinned any of the defend- 
 ants to the spot ? and I understood him to say 
 that he could not do so by this witness. I say 
 that this conversation will not be evidence, un- 
 less these defendants were there. The presence 
 of the defendants is necessary to make any par- 
 ticular thing, which may have occurred at that 
 place, evidence ; but this is a transaction with 
 which the defendants had nothing whatever to 
 do. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The counts of the indictment 
 charge the defendants with conspiring with 
 divers other evil-disposed persons, by threats and 
 intimidation, to other peaceably-disposed per- 
 sons to stop the labour employed by divers sub- 
 jects of her Majesty, thereby causing great 
 alarm, &c. The thing to be proved is, that 
 evil-disposed persons did sto|) the engines, &c. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I apprehend that particular 
 conversations, occurring in a ])articular mannei 
 
84 
 
 the defendants on the record not being present, 
 cannot he given in evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The particular act proved here 
 is, the mob said, “ We must have your hands 
 out and the witness replied, “ Our hands are 
 not going out, and they shall start.” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My observation is, that if 
 the mob is doing an act, and that act given in 
 evidence, that act must afterwards be conducted 
 to the knowledge of the defendants in some 
 way. But I understood from the Attorney- 
 General that the defendants were not present at 
 this meeting. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : —That was 
 not my admission, my Lord ; I said I was not 
 in a condition to show that the defendants were 
 present on this occasion, but I justify the evi- 
 dence as referring to an act done, and the 
 expressions used will explain what that act was. 
 
 The JUDGE : — An act is said to be done, 
 and the defendants are not proved to be present 
 Whether an act is done by words, as it often is, 
 or by gestures, is immaterial, “ we shall start 
 the engine to-morrow.” 
 
 Examination resumed. — WITNESS : — “ We 
 shall start the engines to-morrow morning, and 
 our hands will all come to their work.” They 
 replied, “Neither your mills, nor any other 
 mills sha\l work till we get our rights.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— What next 
 passed ? I said, “ it is very wrong in you to 
 attempt to force the hands to leave their erai- 
 ployment, when they themselves are unwilling 
 to leave it, and ai’e satisfied with their w'ages.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — You said it was wrong to stop 
 the people when they were not w'dling to stop ? 
 Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — What did 
 they next do ? They said, “ It is a lie ; we will 
 have them out.” They began to jostle me about, 
 and said they would force me to unlock the 
 door. Well, you w'ere talking about the key, 
 or opening the door? The crowd threatened 
 that if the doors were not opened, and that very 
 soon, and the hands turned out, they wmuld 
 break the windows. Was the door opened ? 
 The door was opened, and a large door be- 
 longing to the yard was opened from the inside. 
 What did the mob then do? They 'rushed 
 into the yard, and by that time a great many of 
 the men came in, and they sent a deputation 
 through the mill, to see if all hands were turned 
 out ; they then left the premises. I would ask 
 you, in point of fact, were ycur weekly people 
 
 receiving the same wages that they had received 
 for sometime ? Yes ; 1 took a note of that fact. 
 They are receiving more wages now than they 
 were twenty-five years ago. What I want to 
 know is this:— Had they at that moment, at 
 Platt’s mill, the same wages that they had re- 
 ceived for some weeks before? The weekly 
 hands were. Probably some gentlemen here 
 may understand what weekly hands mean — I do 
 not ; explain ? Tlve spinners receive weekly 
 wages, and other hands do not ; there was no 
 alteration in the w'ages for some years before, 
 except a trifling advance. And, now, with re- 
 spect to the spinners w ho work by the piece ? 
 In August, 1840, they suffered a reduction of 
 ten per cent. With that reduction of ten per 
 cent., how much could a spinner earn by the 
 day, or by the week ? From thirty-two to' 
 thirty-six shillings ; but the average will be 
 about thirty shillings. You are the book-keeper, 
 and the general manager ? Yes. Was anybody 
 getting less than tw'enty-two shillings a-week at 
 that time ? I don’t remember anything below 
 that ; and if below that, they were not pro- 
 ducing the quantity of work probably that they 
 ought to do. And some of them, you say, had 
 as high as thirty-six shillings a-w'eek, according 
 to the quantity of work they could produce ? 
 Yes ; and according to the size of the mills. 
 How many hands were employed at that mill ? 
 About three hundred in all. I believe you have 
 no weavers ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS : — As I 
 understood you, Platt’s mill is at Stalybridge ? 
 Yes. Do you know Bayley’s mill ? Yes. How 
 far is Platt’s from Bayley’s mill ? Platt’s mill 
 and Bayley’s mill are adjoining each other. 
 Platt’s new mill is about 300 yards from Bayley’s. 
 You have spoken of wdiat w'as going on at 
 Platt’s mill, — very likely you know what was 
 going on at Bayley’s mill? I cannot speak to 
 that pai-ticularly. Do you know' that there w'as 
 a reduction of 25 per cent, on the wages ? No. 
 What is your name ? John Brooks. Well, do 
 you say that yrxi are an overlooker of a mill, 
 and that in a mill within tw'enty-three yards of 
 you, you don’t know whether there was a reduc- 
 tion of 25 per cent, on the wages ? — Have you 
 heard of any reduction ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says he does not know, 
 you cannot ask him as to what he heard. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— My Lord, it has been given 
 in evidence before. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, how can he know what 
 he has not beard ? 
 
80 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS was given in evidence 
 before by ray friend himself. 
 
 The JUDGE Well, there was many a thing 
 said on both sides not quite regular. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — [To Witness] Do you know 
 whether Bayley's mills were then closed ? No. 
 Do you not know for a thing certain, that 
 Bayley’s hands were not working during the 
 greater part of August ? I have nothing to do 
 with Bayley's mills. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I will admit 
 the fact. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I want the fact from this 
 witness. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Well, then, 
 you must have it regularly. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Was the mill stopped during 
 the month of August I have not the least doubt 
 but it was stopped during the month of August, 
 but I cannot be exact as to the precise time, I 
 do not put the question as to the exact time. 
 How long was it stopped ? About a week, at 
 least, after ours. Do you know that it was kept 
 closed for a month ? I cannot speak to that, 
 positively. Was there any damage done to your 
 property ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Did 
 you pay the wages ? Yes. How much did you pay 
 each Saturday night ? Something over 300/. How 
 much over ? Perhaps from 310/. to 320/. People ^ 
 No, pounds. The amount varies from 300/. to 
 320/. We have about 300 hands. Do you pay all 
 the hands ? The spinners pay the piecers. How 
 many piecers to the spinner of the double-decked 
 mule ? On some of them we have eight. How 
 many of these doubled-decked mules may you 
 have ? We have five double-decked mules. Three 
 of them require eight piecers each to serve them, 
 and the two others require seven each. How 
 many single-decked mules have you ? Twenty- 
 seven pair. How many piecers engaged on these 
 twenty-seven pair of single-decked mules ? Four 
 piecers to each. How many spinners have you } 
 Thirty-five. You have 300 hands in all ? About 
 that. And only thirty-five are spinners } There 
 may be one or two over. Then out of the 300 
 hands employed, it was only these thirty-five 
 spinners whose wages averaged from 364r. the 
 highest, to 22s. the lowest ? Yes, that is the net 
 wages. Now, sir, out of the 22s. the minumum, 
 w hat does each spinner pay to his piecers ? No- 
 thing. He has that net after paying his piecers. 
 
 I want to know the gross sum you pay him ? 
 We pay him by the piece, and he has 22i-. clear 
 
 when he has paid his piecers. How much money 
 do you pay the spinners who work a single- 
 decked mule? 
 
 The JUDGE : — That naturally depends on the 
 quantity of the work. Witness : — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — If a man works a fair 
 week’s work, how much will he have ? I can tell 
 you exactly how much he will have in the new 
 mill. A spinner gets for the stated amount of 
 work six guineas in the fortnight. There is ten 
 per cent, off that. Are there any other deduc- 
 tions ? 2s. a week off for gas. That is 4^. in the 
 fortnight — that reduces it to 5/. 10s. 
 
 The JUDGE To 5/. 9^. 6d. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Thank you, my Lord. 
 How much does a man earn who works a fair 
 day’s work at a double-decked mule ? The amount 
 of wages a man employed at a double-decked mule 
 
 should earn in a fortnight is 10/. 13^. W'hat 
 
 deductions are there off that ? But we have differ- 
 ent sized mules. What deductions are made from 
 the 10/. 13^. — say for the average size ? About 
 20 per cent, and 3s. a week for gas, my Lord, from 
 a double- decked mule. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are ratlier fast. Do you 
 say a man at a double-decked mule, working a 
 single week, wdll earn 10/. 13«. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — A fortnight, my Lord. 
 
 WITNESS : — Y^ou ought not to say that ; I 
 told you I was not certain. 
 
 The JUDGE :— Well, you may not be accu- 
 rate. It will be more, my Lord — there are dif- 
 ferent sized mules. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Well, how much ? It will 
 be more than 11/. for a fortnight — it will probably 
 be 13/. Then you pay them by the fortnight ? 
 Yes? Then w'hen you said 310/. you meant by 
 the fortnight ? Yes. And not by the week ? No. 
 Nov.', sir, what deductions are there from the 13/. 
 a spinner earns in a fortnight ? 20 per cent, and 
 3s. a week for gas. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is 20 per cent, and 6^. 
 for gas? Yes. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Are there any other 
 deductions ? There are no other deductions. 
 Are there fines ? None, except for spoiled work. 
 Are there any fines for not being punctual as to 
 time ? No. What is the greatest amount of de- 
 duction you have stopped from any of the hands 
 for spoiled work during the three months any one 
 Saturday — about ? It might be in the teens of 
 shillings from one man. From 12s. to 20s. ? How 
 much from the whole ? I cannot say You pay 
 all in cash, I believe ? Yes. Never in anything 
 else ? No. A double-decked mule takes eight 
 pieces, and you have 300 hands at work, and the 
 amount of wages paid to these is about 155/. per 
 w^eek ? Yes. And thirty-five of these hands earn 
 from 226-. to 36ir. per week — that, I presume, 
 
86 
 
 would leave about 7s. per week, upon an average, 
 for the remaining 2<ir> hands ? 
 
 'I'lie JUDGE: — Taking the average at 30.v. a 
 week for the spinners, it would leave 103/. 10s. 
 for the remainder. whieU is about 7s. a week. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Then 26.5 of the other 
 hands will be only earning 7s. or 7s. Od. per week } 
 That will not be right, for there are a considerable 
 number of small piecers from thirteen to sixteen 
 years of age, but you said hands. Now, do the 
 spinners, who employ the piecers, make any de- 
 ductions from their own hands ? I am not aware 
 of that. Don’t you know it No. Wdl, then, 
 1 won’t press that question. Are you aware that 
 at that period the di.stress at Ashton was great ? 
 Yes. Are you aware that committees were ap- 
 pointed by the shopkeepers to take the distress of 
 the country into their consideration ? That I am 
 aware of. Do you know, to your own knowledge, 
 that several masters had served notice upon their 
 hands, that they should have no more work unless 
 they submitted to a large reduction of their 
 wages ? I cannot speak positively to that ques- 
 tion. You say your old mill adjoins Bayley’.s 
 mill, and your new mill is 300 yards off Bayley’s.’ 
 Yes. Now', in coming to your work in the morn- 
 ing, whose mill do you appear at first ? That is 
 just as it happens to be. Do you remember 
 Friday, the 5th of August } No, I remember no- 
 thing particular about it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, 
 I fixed the question of Bayley’s mills stopping on 
 the 5th of August, and there is no doubt of the 
 fact. It is better not to ask the witness, who has 
 no knowledge of his owm about it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Suppose this man’s busi- 
 ness brought him to the mill adjoining Bay- 
 ley’s, and suppose he found the gates closed 
 against the men, would not that be evidence ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — If we wanted evidence, but 
 that fact is admitted. I take it now, once for all, 
 that Bayley’s mills were stopped on Friday, the 
 5th of August. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — You say that your large 
 gates were opened from the inside, to the turn- 
 outs? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is on the 8th. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Yes, my Lord. That is 
 Platt’s mill, of which Brooks is the book-keeper 
 and manager. [To the wdtness] — Did they force 
 the gates open ? No, they wei e opened by orders 
 from the masters through fear. Not by the mas- 
 ter, but by his orders ? I don’t know, I was out- 
 side. How did you know then by who^se orders 
 they w'ere opened ? I heard my master say so. 
 
 Cross-examined by JAMES LEACH, ofMan- 
 chester, defendant : — I think you stated, that you 
 now pay the same wages yrhich you paid twenty- 
 five years ago — as much, or mo.e ? Yes. To what 
 
 description of hands do you pay the same w ages 
 We had one carder, at that time receiving 17#. a 
 w'eek ; now, tw o carders, 1/. 7.v. a w'eek ; tw'enty- 
 five years ago w'e had a stripper and a grinder, 
 one 12#. and the other 11#. a week ; frame-tenters, 
 8#. Gd. a week. Now w'e have one grinder, 13#. ; 
 five grinders, each 14#. ; strippers, at piece-work, 
 make from 13#. to 17#. per week. First-class 
 frame-tenters, 10#. a w'eek ; second-class, 9#.; 
 third-class, 8#. 6(7. How many hands have you 
 employed ? I don’t know the number exactly. 
 You are the manager of the mill, and yet you 
 don’t know the number of hands employed ; and 
 you pay the w'ages of those hands, and yet you 
 don’t know their exact amount ^ That is very 
 possible. 
 
 The JUDGE :— It may not be material what 
 were the exact wages in former times. I have not 
 taken dowm the prices — is it material ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then give me the wages as 
 they were twenty-five years ago. 
 
 WITNESS : — The description of the workmen 
 to which we paid the same wages as we did twenty- 
 five years ago, are as folio w's :— We had at that 
 time 1 carder, 17#. a week ; a stripper and grinder, 
 one at 12#. and another at 11#., but I don’t know 
 exactly ; one frame-tenterer, 8#. 6(7. We have 
 now one carder at 19#. ; two carders, each 27#. ; 
 one grinder, 13#. ; five grinders, each 14#. ; strip- 
 pers now on piece-w'ork make from 13#. to 17#. ; 
 first-class frame-tenters, 10#. ; .second-class, 9*. ; 
 third-class, 8#. 6(7. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — You stated to the Court, 
 that you are not aware of the number of hands 
 employed. — Are you aware of the number of hands 
 who were employed twenty-five years ago ? I 
 don’t know exactly. I was not in the concern at 
 the time ; but I happened just to take these wages 
 from the books . 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then you don’tknow what the 
 wages were twenty-five years ago at all. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — How long have you been 
 a manager of the mill you are speaking of? Twenty 
 years. How many hands in the warehouse ? 1 
 
 was there twelve years ago only as a warehouse- 
 man. I don’t knowhow many hands there were, 
 and the concern has considerably increased. Do 
 you think there are now as many hands in the 
 card-room doing the same amount of work ? I do 
 not think there are. You have stated that you 
 pay the same wages that you paid twenty-five 
 years ago for the work then done ; now, what are 
 the counts of the twist, or the weft, you may be 
 spinning ? From 80’s to 160’s. What were you 
 paying twenty-five years ago for spinning 80's ? 
 I don’t know. How then do you know that you 
 were paying the same then that you are paying 
 now ? A person is earuiag as much money now 
 
87 
 
 fts he did then, but I do not know how many 
 hands there might have been, or how much each 
 might do. As a paymaster of that mill, I ask you 
 how much you were paying seven years ago ? — 
 What were you paying seven years ago ? For 
 what number ? 80’s. That I do not remember. 
 Well, I don't ask you as to the particular count — 
 What wages were you paying ? I tell you the net 
 amount at -present. Of course you tell us that your 
 spinners now earn S6s . ; but don’t you know that 
 there are spinners in Stalybridge working for I2s. 
 or Ma'. a week? I have nothing to do with other 
 masters. You have spoken about double-decked 
 machines — ^have you any treble-decked machines 
 in your place? No, we have not any. Have you any 
 self-acting machines ? No. What number of spin- 
 dles was one of your spinners spinning ten, twelve, 
 or twenty years ago ? We had spinners ten years 
 ago spinning on 1300 spindles. What were they 
 spinning on twenty years ago? 648. Twenty 
 years ago they were spinning on 648, and ten 
 years ago on 1300. What number are they 
 s])iuning on now ? They try it as low as about 
 1000 ? Well, what height do you go to ? 
 The double-deckers, some of them, run to 
 2000 now, and they were at 600, twenty years 
 ago. Are they getting more money now for 
 working the 2000, then they were receiving 
 twenty years ago for the 600? Yes. How many 
 spinners did you employ twenty years ago ? I 
 don’t remember exactly. . There was a new mill 
 commencing then, and I don’t remember exactly 
 the number. Have you a room in your mill, 
 where four spinners have been at work any time 
 since you became a manager ? No ; we had two 
 in them. I am aware what you are referring to. 
 You know how many spinners you had twenty 
 years ago ? I don’t remember. How many had 
 you ten years ago ? That I don’t know. How 
 many have you now ? Thirty-five. Of course 
 the mills being enlarged, are capable of employ- 
 ing a greater number of spinners. Do you think 
 that three men now are turning out as much work 
 as one did then ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I do not know the object of 
 this examination. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — My object is to shew that 
 the hands are not receiving anything like the 
 wages they originally received. He stated that 
 they are receiving the same wages which they 
 received twenty years ago. I know they are not 
 receiving half the wages for the same amount of 
 work. 
 
 WITNESS : — I maintain it, that they are re- 
 ceiving the same net wages. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is meant is, that they, 
 in fact, produce a greater quantity now than for- 
 merly. 
 
 G 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: —That if 
 
 very likely. 
 
 The JUDGE That may be. 
 
 JAMES LEACH ; — On each of your double- 
 decked machines, you have 2000 spindles to one 
 spinner, and twenty years ago a spinner worked 
 only 648. Did you know that in 1840, spinners 
 were working 68.0 spindles, and in 1843, 2086 
 spindles ? Where ? In some of the mills m Staly- 
 bridge. I told you before, I did not know what 
 they were doing in other mills. Are they doing 
 it in your mill ? There are alterations, but I can’t 
 tell the exact time they took place. Is it not 
 customary for the managers and the masters to 
 consult together as to the wages they shoxdd pay ? 
 It is not so with us. You certainly appear to be 
 a strange exception to the general rule. You 
 don’t know that in the mills in your district, the 
 spinners were working 2600 spindles, and only 
 getting 9^. a week ? I cannot answer that. You 
 state, that your workmen average 36.?. per week, 
 r believe it would be only U. Oa-. Sd. in the fort- 
 night according to what you subsequently stated, 
 that is 10^. id. a week. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Yes, you are right in that ; it 
 would be 10s. id. a week. 
 
 JAMES LEACH ; — Do the hands live in 
 houses belonging to the firm ? Some do, and 
 others do not. Is it not customary when you 
 give employment to individuals, to compel them 
 to live in houses belonging to the firm ? It is ex- 
 pected that the houses will be filled, but we do 
 not compel the hands to do so. What follows if 
 that expectation be not fulfilled ? Why, nothing 
 particular follows. Does anything occur that is 
 not very particular ? We have instances in our 
 mill, where the hands left the houses, and we 
 have houses now standing empty, that are in con- 
 nection with the mills. What description of 
 houses are they? Why, one of them is a large 
 house. But generally, are they double houses 
 with two rooms on the floor ? Yes. What are the 
 rents weekly ? They vary from 3«. 4df. to about 4s. 
 weekly. These rents, I presume, are stopped in 
 the counting-house, when the wages are paid? Yes. 
 The rent is stopped whether the man is receiving 
 the wages or not? In some instances it is not 
 stopped. The fact is,you secure the rent in the first 
 instance ? We did not do so during the turn-out. 
 That is because there was no wages to pay, is 
 it ? We did not secure the rent the first thing 
 after they went in. You got it back by instal- 
 ments ? There was no rent paid-the first week 
 at all Is there any hands in your mill that 3 0U 
 pay 7s. or 8.?. a week to ? Yes. These hands live 
 in those houses ; do they not ? I am not aware. 
 One of them does, I delieve. How many houses 
 have you? Twenty-fi,..’*. You are not awaie 
 
88 
 
 liow many families there are in a house ? I am 
 not aware that there is more than one in any of 
 them. Then you stop 4s. a week, or 3s. 4^?. 
 from the -wages you pay, whatever the wages 
 may be ; but you seem not to know that there 
 are hands working in your mills, working only 
 for 7s. a week, from whom you take that 
 rent } I am not aware that we have one work- 
 ing at that price, and paying that rent. You 
 will swear that you don’t know that to be the 
 case ? I do not. You swear you don’t know, 
 but will you swear that it is not the case ? I 
 believe it is not the case. Y’^ou won’t swear 
 that it is not the case ?— — 
 
 The JUDGE : — He cannot do more, if he 
 does not know it to be the case, than to say he 
 does not believe it to be the case. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — Do you know that there 
 has been a great deal of uneasiness in Staly- 
 bridge, in consequence of the low wages paid to 
 the men ? My business is with our own men. I 
 have nothing to do with others. Of course I 
 don’t expect that you go about meddling in 
 other people’s business : but by way of refresh- 
 ing your memory 
 
 The JUDGE i — Do you know that for some 
 years past there has been great uneasiness in 
 Stalybridge, in consequence of the operatives 
 receiving little pay for their work ? I know there 
 have been complaints among the operatives. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — Did you hear any of 
 those complaints twenty-five years ago ? Yes, 
 there were always complaints — they were always 
 a grumbling set. I don’t want to say of others 
 more than I say of myself. Are not the wages 
 paid now the lowest ? No. Do you know that 
 houses of the same description you were speak- 
 ing of, are now let for from Is 6d. to Is. 9d. a 
 week ? I know that a great many houses are 
 paying under their value. A landlord told me 
 that his houses were not paying what they 
 ought to do. Do you think that houses of the 
 description you were speaking of, are let under 
 their value at Is. 9d. a week ? I do. You think 
 that is not much out of 7s. or 8s. wages ? I 
 have nothing to do with wages, but I know that 
 that is not remuneration for such houses. Do you 
 know whether there are not a great many houses 
 empty in Stalybridge ? Yes. .Those houses do 
 not belong to the manufacturers, I presume? 
 There are many of their houses empty. Are 
 there any of your houses empty ? There is one 
 empty. But there are a great number empty in 
 the village ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought you said you had 
 houses connected with the mill ? Yes. And 
 there is one empty? Yes. It is nearly con- 
 nected with the mill ; it is in family connexion. 
 — (Laughter.) 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — Do you know that when 
 a spinner in that district comes to get work, a 
 key is given to him, and then he has the rent of 
 the house to, pay, whether he lives in it or not ? 
 I don’t know. You don’t know that when a 
 spinnei; comes to get employment at a mill, that 
 he finds the key of a door hung on the machine, 
 and must take that key, no matter whether a 
 married or a single man, and pay the rent of the 
 house ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GBNERAL .—It is time, 
 my Lord, to object to this kind of examination. 
 I would practice the greatest forbearance before 
 I should object to any question of any sort that 
 could, in the remotest degree, affect the case 
 before the jury ; hut this enquiiy may have no 
 end, and it has nothing to do with the question 
 on the record. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — My object was to show 
 that the statement made by the witness, that 
 they were paying the same wages now, which 
 they were paying twenty-five years ago, was not 
 true. 
 
 The JUDGE : — In one sense both of you arc 
 true. The workman may be producing a greater 
 quantity of goods for the same money ; but then 
 it may be with the same quantity of labour and 
 skill that he exercised twenty-five years ago, in 
 earning the same amount of wages. What I 
 understand from the witness is this, that a work- 
 man employing the same quantity of labour and 
 skill that he employed twenty-five years ago, has 
 as much earnings as he had then, but he may 
 give a greater quantity of produce. 
 
 JAMES LEACH ; — Is there not a great deal 
 more labour performed now in bringing forth 
 that produce ? In some instances there is ; in 
 others there is not. Tlicre have been great im- 
 provements in machinery, which make the work 
 easier. Is it easier to work double-decked ma- 
 chines, than machines with six hundred spindles 
 in them ? That depends on the construction of 
 the machines. Under any construction? It 
 depends a great deal on the number of counts 
 that a person is spinning ; the hardness of the 
 work depends, in a great measure, on the num- 
 ber of counts one is spinning. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the number of skeins 
 or hanks to the pound ? Yes. 
 
89 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — I wish to understand 
 from the witness, why it is that whilst these 
 machines have so rapidly increased within the 
 last twenty-five years, the wages have sunk, at 
 least forty-five per cent. ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says, what he means hy 
 wages sinking, they have sunk, if you estimate 
 by the quantity of produce ; but they have not 
 sunk, if you estimate them by the quantity ot 
 labour and skill employed in producing, 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — When your han^s turned 
 out, you did not stop the rent of the houses, 
 you say ; w'hat are you now stopping from those 
 who have only seven shillings or eight shillings 
 a-week ? I told you we had no hands at that 
 wages that we were stopping rent from. Then, 
 they are all the better paid workmen that are 
 in your bouses, and you have not stated tliat the 
 other houses in the neighbourhood are, generally, 
 of low rents, or empty ? I stated that they are 
 empty; that some are under their value, and 
 that the landlords ought to have more for them. 
 
 for one shilling and sixpence a-week, cannot the 
 employer let them at the same rate to the hands 
 in his mill ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — This is quite interminable. — 
 Does any other defendant wish to ask any ques- 
 tions ? [No answer.] 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 
 -—You say that a large gate w^as opened, and the 
 mob w'ent in — What do you mean by a large 
 gate ? They are the large doors belonging to the 
 jnill-yard, at which the carts enter. Are these 
 gates open for persons to go in and out ? No, 
 sir. Is it unusual to open the large gates to let 
 in a crowd of persons ? Why, we don’t open 
 them for the mill hands. I think you said the 
 crowd pressed upon the gates, and threatened ? 
 Yes. In what way did they threaten They 
 threatened to break the windows. Had they 
 done that before the great gate was opened ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Are there 300 men employed 
 who receive this 310/, a fortnight ? Yes. Does 
 that include men, women, and children } It 
 includes the whole. What aged children are 
 employed there ? From 13 years old and upwards 
 — a large proportion of them are 16 years of age. 
 Then, your average of 10s. 4(/. includes women 
 and children ? Yes, 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I wish to ask 
 if many of the skilftd workmen have not their 
 own children employed in the mill ? 
 
 j The JUDGE : — Of course ; if a man is work- 
 ing in the mill with some of his children it does 
 not follow tliat each of them has to pay 3^. or 
 I 4.V. a week for rent. The deduction for the 
 I rent of a house is only from one occupier, and 
 the man living in it may have his wife and 
 children working in the mill. 
 
 JAMES BRADSHAW examined by Mr. 
 IIILDYARD: — What are you.^ I am a mill- 
 owner in Stockport. Were you in Stockport on 
 the 11th of August last? I was. Did a mob 
 enter the town that day ? Yes. What did they 
 do ? The body of the mob approached my mill 
 on that day about half-past twelve o’clock. 
 What number was in the mob — speaking roundly ? 
 Several thousands I should think. Had they 
 anything in their hands ? They had sticks. I 
 believe your mill is situated near St. Peter’s- 
 square ? Yes. Were you there yourself ? 1 was. 
 When the mob approached what did they do ? 
 They came to me to the lodge door where I was 
 standing, and demanded admission for the pur- 
 pose of turning the hands out. Did you refuse 
 to allow them to enter the mill ? I did. Did 
 you give any reason ? I said it was the dinner 
 hour, and refused to admit them, as the men 
 were not there. What reply did they make to 
 that ? They said they should go in and look. 
 What was their conduct when you refused them 
 permission ? They were pushing to come in, and 
 I told them that they had nothing to do with 
 me or my men. Did you lock the door ? J 
 pushed them back and locked the door. On 
 that, did they commence an attack on the mill? 
 Yes, they broke the lodge windows, and made 
 an attack on the gates. They threw' stones and 
 sticks while attempting to force the gates. 
 Were the windows demolished by that ? Yes, 
 entirely, framework and all. Did they at last 
 succeed in forcing the door ? Y^es, they broke it 
 all to pieces. And having done so, of course 
 they entered into the mill-yard ? Y'es. Was any 
 violence offered to yourself? Y'^es, very conside- 
 rable. Just state bow you were dealt with. 1 
 was surrounded by a large portion of the mob, 
 and very severely beaten. w ith .sticks by them, so 
 much so that I was, in consequence, confined to 
 rny bed for several days. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — You 
 resided, Mr. Bradshaw, at Stockport ? 1 did. 
 Do you know' that there was any damage done 
 at any other mill in Stockport? I heard of no 
 violence being done to any other master except 
 me. Y’^ou are speaking now, 1 think, of wha^ 
 
occurred on tbe 11th of August? Yes. Were 
 you much about the to\^Ti on the days imme- ■ 
 diately oefore that ? Yes. Do you happen to 
 know the state of feeling and excitement in 
 which the town then was ? There was very little 
 exeitemeiit in Stockport before that day. Did 
 you happen to see any placards on the walls of 
 Stockport before that day ? I have no recollec- 
 tion of it. There has been, 1 believe, a good 
 deal of angry discussion in Stockport, between 
 those called Chartists, and the Corn-law re- 
 pealers ? Yes, but I don’t know anything of it 
 myself. Y’ou don't belong to the Anti-corn-law 
 League? No, 1 know nothing about it. He is, 
 my Lord, the only person, whose person or pro- 
 perty was damaged. You know that there are 
 a great many others there who have taken a 
 very prominent part in the movements of the 
 Anti-corn-law League ? Yes, there are many 
 there who have taken a very prominent part in 
 the Anti-corn-law question, but I cannot say of 
 my own knowledge, that they belong to the 
 Anti-corn-law League, — I have not seen them 
 taking any part in their meetings, but from con- 
 versation I know them to be favourable to that 
 body. Have you ever been at a public meeting? 
 Yes. Did you see any one of^the League taking 
 part in that meeting ? Y'es. Is he a mill-owner? 
 Yes. 
 
 The Jl'DGE He took part, in favour of 
 Ihe abolition of the corn laws ? Yes, how long 
 ago ? About two years ago. — I never was at a 
 meeting since. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR That is all. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : 
 — You say your mill was attacked on the llth ? 
 It was. Had any other 'mill been attacked the 
 day before that ? Not that I am aware of. Was 
 your mill the first that was attacked? The first 
 attacked in Stockport, because no resistance that 
 I am awaj'c of, was offered by any others. It 
 was not the first that was entered? No, they 
 entered several other mills in Stockport, but this 
 was the only one that resisted. After what 
 occurred at your mill, was there any resistance 
 anywhere ? Not that L am aware of. 
 
 JOE COOPER examined by Mr. WORTLEY: 
 — What are you ? I am a cotton spinner. Do 
 you live in the township of Chisworth ? Yes. 
 Is that near Glossop ? Y'es. What business do 
 you carry on there ? Tlie cotton spinning. Are 
 any of your relations cotton spinners with you ? 
 My father is the owner and proprietor of a mill. 
 Have you a brother also assisting in the mill ? 
 
 Yes. Do you remember a moh coming to your 
 mill ? Yes. When was rhe first time they came ? 
 On the llth of August. Had you been present 
 at any meeting in Glossop before that? No. sir. 
 Well, on the llth of August, what number of 
 persons came ? I cannot speak exactly ; from 
 100 to 150. What did they do? They did no- 
 thing, but said, if we did not turn the hands 
 out, they would rake the fires out. They had 
 sticks in their hands. Were your hands then 
 working* Yes. Whathappened when they said 
 that ? We stopped wmfking. And what became 
 of the hands ? They left the mill and went m 
 various directions. Did the mob tlien go away ? 
 Y'es. Did the mob come on the premises at all? 
 Y"es, they came into the mill-yard. When the 
 hands went out they went away ? Yes. Did the 
 hands come back to work again ? They came 
 part of the way. — We did not want them to 
 start again, as the mob said they would turn 
 back if the men started again. What do you 
 mean by their coming part of the way ? They 
 came down towards the mill. 
 
 The JUDGE: — How long afterwards? Half 
 an hour. Some of the hands came hack ? Y'es. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY': — And you stopped them? 
 Y'es. Why ? Because we thought if they began 
 work again, the mob would stop them, and the 
 mob had said so. Did the hands afterwards 
 come back and begin to work ? Not tbe same 
 day, but they did some days after. We began 
 again on the 24th of August, at the request of 
 the lian'ds. Y’'ou were going to say that the 
 hands came almost every day ? 
 
 The JUDGE: — From the llth to the 24th 
 they came. Almost every day from the llth to 
 the 24th, to see when you were starting, as they 
 wished to begin again ? Y'es. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — During that interval, be- 
 tween the llth and 24th of August, did you 
 attend a meeting at Glossop ? Yes. What day 
 was that ? On the 23rd of August. Where was 
 that meeting held ? At the back of the Town- 
 hall. How many persons were there? A great 
 many hundreds. Do you know a man of the 
 name of Lewis ? Yes. Did you see Lewis at that 
 meeting Yes, I believe I did. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is his Christian name ? 
 John Lewis. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Do you know he was John 
 Lewis, or no ? Y'es. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY :— Did he make a speech ? 
 Yes. Did he say anything about Manchester ? 
 Yes. ^^^lat d'ld he sav ? He said he attended 
 
91 
 
 several meetings at Manchester. What meet- 
 ings? Meetings of delegates. Did he read any 
 papers ? Yes, sir. Did he say what these papers 
 were that he was reading? I understood him to 
 say that they were resolutions ; and one -or two 
 of them were addresses from the workmen. 
 Were they written papers, or printed papers 
 that he read? They were printed, I believe. 
 You say they were printed ? I believe so.- Could 
 you say whether they w'ere printed or not ? Yes, 
 they were like placards. Who was in the chair ? 
 James Coe. Did he make a speech ? Yes. Did 
 he say anything about France ? Yes. What did 
 he say ? He reminded them of the three glorious 
 days of France, when, though the streets flowed 
 with blood, property was respected ; and told 
 them to be so here. He advised them to be 
 peaceable, did not he ? Yes ; that was before he 
 alluded to France, and then he said that. How 
 many days after that was it that the mob came 
 to your premises ? The day after ; the 24th. 
 Were your hands at work then ? Yes, they had 
 come back then. About what number did the 
 mob consist of that came to your works on the 
 24th ? About 300 or 400. Did you recognize 
 in that mob any of the parties you had seen in 
 the meeting of the day before ? Yes, a great 
 number of them. Not any particular individual 
 that you can speak to, but you saw that they 
 were the same men, many of them ? Yes. What 
 did you do then ? My father met them in front 
 of the mill, and asked them what they wanted ; 
 and they said they would have the hands turned 
 out, or they would pull the mill down. 
 
 Mr. DCNDAS Were you there to hear 
 your father ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Were they armed, any of 
 them? Yes, sir. What with? A great many 
 had sticks. Before getting to the mill they 
 shouted very loudly, waved their sticks, and 
 said they would have the hands out, or pull 
 down the mill. What next ? He attempted to 
 reason with them. Your father did ? Yes ; but 
 they began to rush by him, and he then ordered 
 the engineer to stop the engines. Before that, 
 a good many of our hands had fled. What do 
 you mean by that ? They went out of the mill, 
 and went away for fear of being injured. Did 
 the mob get on to the premises ? Yes. What 
 part of them? They went into the yard. How 
 did they get in ? They went round the corner of 
 the mill to the yard ; there is no yard gate. 
 Did they go to the mill at all? No; but they 
 would not leave till two of the mob who had 
 
 been in had searched. They insisted fir^t on alt 
 going in ; but at last they consented to send 
 only two of their number through, for the pur- 
 pose of searching. Were some men taken up 
 at your works, for that proceeding ? Yes. Did 
 you attend before the magistrates to be ex- 
 amined? Yes. Who went t\ith you? My 
 brother Joseph. When did you go before the 
 magistrates against these men ? On Monday, 
 the 29th of August. Who went with you ? 
 My father and my brother Joseph, John Howard, 
 and my uncle James Cooper. M’^ere you ex- 
 amined before the magistrates ? I was not. 
 Who was ? My brother and John Howard. 
 As you were going aw'ay from the place where 
 you were examined before the magistrates what 
 happened ? They were leaving to go home, and 
 the mob came behind us and stopped up the 
 way between us and the inn to which we were 
 proceeding. The magistrates had been sitting 
 at the barracks, and the mob had been surround- 
 ing the barracks, while the trial w^as proceeding. 
 It was from that they came to stop up our way. 
 Tell us shortly what happened ? Why, they 
 began to stone us, and w'e looked to see if we 
 could not get back ; but every avenue was 
 closed, and we could not get to the towm again : 
 we were obliged to go forward. They continued 
 to stone us : we began to run, and they followed, 
 us, stoning us all the way. They bad nearly 
 killed my brother; but before that John Howard 
 had left us. He w'as very much frightened, and 
 ran through the fields in a different way from 
 that in which we went ; we went to Mr. How^- 
 ard’s. You and your father, and brother and 
 uncle ? Yes. You went to your uncle Ilow'ard’s ? 
 No ; to another gentleman of the same name. 
 The mob followed us, and surrounded the house. 
 Did your brother . get to the house? No, sir. 
 How came that ? Mrs. Howard and her daughters 
 w'cre very much frightened, W'as he shut out ? 
 Yes. What happened to him ? I saw him that 
 evening, and he was then insensible. Flow long 
 was he in that state ? I think he was not sen- 
 sible till the day after. How long was it until 
 he recovered ? He was several weeks before his 
 wounds got well. Did not you see him till the 
 time you took refuge in Howard’s ? No. What 
 time did you get into Howard’s ? About half- 
 past two o’clock. How long after that was it 
 that you saw your brother? About half-past 
 six or seven o’clock. Where did you find hira^ 
 
 I found him at home. In the slate you have 
 described ? Yes. Very well. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS: — Wfiere 
 
92 
 
 <li(l you stand at that meeting ? — You told us 
 where John Lewis W'as ; how. near him were you ? 
 About ten yards. Could you hear what was said 
 by him ? Yes. You told my friend, in answer to 
 a question, that Coe advised the meeting to be 
 peaceable ? Yes, Were you near enough to hear 
 what was said when he gave them that advice } 
 Yes. Tell the jury what it was ? lie said he had 
 been summoned as special constable, and was 
 liable to a penalty of ol. if he did not go. He 
 did not know that he was liable before, but he 
 w^ould not molest them. He told the people to be 
 peaceable, and not molest the special constables, 
 because they could not help being sworn in. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr, O’CONNOR: — How 
 many hands do you employ, hlr. Cooper ? Some- 
 w’here near 100. Now, I understood you to say, j 
 though you explained it afterwaials, that when j 
 your hands returned again, you said you did not 
 w'ant them at that time ? That was on the first oc- 
 casion of the turn-out. Yes; after your hands 
 had been turneil out, and went some distance with 
 the mob, they returned and wanted to resume 
 their Avork, and you said, “ No, we don’t Avant 
 you now?” 
 
 The JUDGE: — They did not want them to 
 come back, because the mob Avould turn them out 
 again. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You said you were within 
 ten yards of Lewis when he referred to the three 
 bloody days of France ? I never said so. It was 
 Coe that referred to France, Would you know 
 his exact words ? — Is this what he said : — “ You 
 must wait,” said Sir Robert Peel, “ till February j 
 • — you must wait till March. You must wait till j 
 tlie dog-days of next summer, when, perhaps, you j 
 may have three such days as you have had in 
 Paris ; but we will have hundreds of thousands of 
 troops to mow you down. This, I conceive, to 
 be the policy of the party.” — Was that what you 
 heard ? I don’t think it was. Was it this you 
 heard : — “ He had read the pages of history, and 
 had looked at the bloody scenes that had occurred 
 at the close of the last century upon the soil of j 
 France. He saw that at that time the first cry of i 
 the people was, ‘ Give us bread, and none of your 
 gabble.’ They were led by forms in women'' s j 
 gnise, but of inascvline energy^ and ealled out in j 
 the Court of the Tuilleries ior immediate food ; 
 for that they were dying, and, dying, would not 
 endure it.” — Was it like that?— Was itequalljri 
 as exciting as that ?-:— Is that worse than Coe’s 
 language? Well, I should say it is. 
 
 THOMAS RHODES examined by Mr. POL- I 
 LOCK : — Where do you live ? I live at Brook- j 
 field, near Glossop. What are you ? I am a cot- I 
 ton manufacturer. Are you in business alone, or 
 in partnership? I am in business alone. Was! 
 your mill at work on the 10th of August? Yes. [ 
 
 Do you remember a number of persons (X>mtn'g 
 to you that day ? Yes. What direction did they 
 come from? From the direction of Stalybridge 
 and Hyde. How many of them were there ? The 
 number was not very large, sir. How many do 
 you think ? The main body, that came from Staly- 
 bridge, went in another direction. How many 
 came to your mill ? — Perhaps — about ? — About 
 a couple of hundreds. Is yours a large mill ? The 
 
 concern altogether, I think perhaps it wouhl 
 
 be necessary for me to explain the position — 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, no ; is it large or small ? 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Is it mode- 
 rate. 
 
 WITNESS i — Mr. Shepley is a near relative 
 of mine, and I occupy a portion of his mill, 
 j Where the gates of the mill-yard closed when 
 j these people came ? The mill-door Avas closed. 
 Did the people Avho came say anything? Yes. 
 What was it ? They demaiided that the hands 
 should be turned out. Did they do anything at 
 the gate ? I opened the door, seeing the croAvd of 
 people outside, and they rushed in. What sort 
 of door v,%as it — large or small ? Small. Those 
 that rushed in had they anything m their hands ? 
 They Avere armed with large sticks. Did you 
 say anything to them ? I told them there was no 
 necessity for them to use violence, as we would 
 stop Avithout it. Did they say anything to that } 
 Yes, sir. What was it ? Notwithstanding our 
 having told them this, they rushed into the mill, 
 and di’ove the hands forcibly out. Did you hear 
 anything said after that ? When they saw all the 
 hands cut of the mill, I heard them telling some 
 of them that if they found them doing anything 
 again, they would make them incapable of fol- 
 lowing their employment. Anything else? No, 
 sir. Then your hands went out that morning. 
 I believe after this time, there Avere several meet- 
 ings in your neighbourhood I Yes. , Did you at- 
 tend any of them ? Yes, I attended, on the 11th 
 of August, a meeting on Wedensough Green: 
 another on the 12th, and another on the 17th. 
 Was a man -called Booth at that meeting on 
 the 17 th. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is his Christian name ? 
 
 I don’t know, my Lord, they called him Booth. 
 
 I never saw the man before. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did he make a speech ? 
 Yes. Tell me, shortly, AA'hat he was talking 
 about? He was speaking respecting the Charter 
 and 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON: — My Lord, before the 
 statement of Booth is given, it seems to me that 
 the point should be gone into, whether a simple 
 similarity of surname is to be considered a proof 
 of identity. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I cannot at this moment say 
 to what the examination may lead. They may 
 
93 
 
 be assembled for some lawful purpose; let us 
 hear what they say and wdiat the character of the 
 meeting is. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — The object of this in- 
 dictment is to show, that threats and intimida- 
 tions w'ere used by the defendants for the pur- 
 pose of causing a cessation of work ; and I 
 presume it is now to be shown that some man of 
 the name of Booth did that. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is quite another question 
 whether it wall be brought home to Booth the 
 defendant ; but, you have got it that great bodies 
 of people were going about turning out the work- 
 people, using great violence, and sometimes 
 turning o\it the hands, not using violence, but 
 using threats. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — It is open to the Crown 
 to show that other persons used threats and \'io- 
 lence, but it is not evidence against any o& the 
 defendants, that some man of the name of Booth 
 made a speech. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I cannot tell what it is to be 
 till I hear it. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — As part of the res gesicn 
 I don’t care, but as a mere speech 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did Booth say anything 
 about the royal household ? Yes ; he had a small 
 piece of paper in his hand, and referred to the 
 expenditure of the royal household, and told them 
 what the monarchy cost the country, and of the 
 wine >vhich he was pleased to say the Queen 
 drank ; he told them of all these things, and 
 what exjjense the monarch w^as to the country. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON: — Was anything done 
 after these speeches were made ?— Did they do 
 anything ? They went for the purpose of turning 
 the railway hands off. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Did you see them do that ? 
 I saw them going in that direction, and I after- 
 wards went there. Y'ou did not see them do 
 that 
 
 The JUDGE It is impossible to sever what 
 is said on these occasions from what is done. 
 What is said is part of the thing itself. If they 
 are meeting evei'y day, and sometimes violent 
 speeches are accompanied with acts, we must take 
 it all as one continued series of transactions. I 
 cannot undei’stand the one without having the 
 other. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — I was going to ask what 
 he said about the expenses of the magistrates — 
 did he say anything about them ? Yes ; he said 
 the working classes could not obtain justice be- 
 cause the magistrates w'ere composed chiefly of 
 the middle classes, and the working classes never 
 woidd get justice till the bench was composed 
 of men of their owm class. Did he say anything 
 about the church ? Yes, sir; he referred to the 
 dignitaries of the church, and to the salaries of 
 
 the bishops ; and said if they had so much foi 
 working one day, how much did the working 
 classes deserve for working six ? Before they 
 broke up was it said what they were to do, and 
 where they were to go. A man of the name of 
 Fairhurst stated, that the railway hands had be- 
 gan their work ; and it was mentioned in the 
 meeting that they should be stopped. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was that decided ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — I understood from what 
 you said, that they came to the conclusion to stop 
 the railway hands who had commenced work ? 
 Yes. When they left the ground which direction 
 did they go in ^ In the direction of the railway. 
 How far was this gi-ound from the railway } I 
 think it was a mile and a half in the way they 
 went. There are two roads to it, but they took 
 the longest. When did you begin work*again at 
 your mill ? We began work again on the 26th of 
 August. Had you any difficulty in getting your 
 hands to come to their work again } No, sir ; the 
 major part of them expressed a willingness to 
 j resume work whenever we wished to open the 
 ' mill. 
 
 j Mr. DUNDAS :— I object to your going into 
 j what they said. 
 
 1 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did any people come to 
 
 ' your mill the same day ? Yes. 
 
 I The JUDGE What day ? The 26th. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — About what time of the 
 day.^ About twelve o’clock. How many ? Several 
 hundreds. Was the gate of the mill closed at that 
 time ? I was not at the mill. Go to the time 
 when you were at the mill. We heard a ru- 
 mour — 
 
 The JUDGE: — Never mind the rumour. 
 When you saw the mill tell what happened } I 
 came up on horseback, and the first thing I saw 
 was the men surrounding the door. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — What was the cry among 
 the people outside at that time ? “ Turn them 
 out ! — We will have them out !” And what did 
 you do ? We defended the door. A number of 
 our workpeople had been sworn in as special 
 constables the day before ; and we called them 
 out, and they kept the mob off. How long did 
 the mob continue their attempts to get in ? 
 There were twm attacks ; the first attack might 
 have continued about an hour or more. The attack 
 in some measure abated, though the mob did not 
 entirely move off. Afterwards more persons 
 came and made a second attack. Did you suc- 
 ceed in defending your mill ? Yes, W'C kept them 
 off*. How long did the mill contimie to work 
 after that ? This mob dispersed ; having threat- 
 ened to send a larger force if we continued to 
 work. How long did you continue to work after 
 
94 
 
 the mob dispersed ? We continued to work till 
 Tuesday, tbe 30th of August. You were absent, 
 I believe, on the morning of Tuesday? Yes. 
 Wliat time did you return ? About twelve o’clock. 
 What state did you find the mill in ? I found the 
 windows of the mill demolished— framework and 
 all. The windows of ray father-in-law’s (Mr. 
 Shepley) house were also injured, and also 
 those of my own houses. The military was 
 there. I believe the mill is more commonly 
 known as Mr. Shepley’s mill, than by your 
 name ? Yes : I only occupy a small portion of it. 
 Are you acquainted with the handwriting of 
 Lewis ? I have seen him write. — [A letter, pur- 
 porting to be in the handwriting of Mr. Lewis, 
 was then handed to witness, who carefully ex- 
 amined it.^ 
 
 The JUt)GE : — Have you seen him write ? 
 Yes, my Lord, — once. Does that enable you to 
 say whether you believe that to be his signature, 
 or not ? I believe this to be his signature. I 
 have seen writing frequently that has been re- 
 presented as his, but I have only seen him write 
 his name once. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK:— From the acquaintance, such 
 as it is, which you have of Lewis’s handwriting, 
 do you believe that letter to be in his hand- 
 writing ? I do. Look at the other two [hand- 
 ing them to witness]. I believe these two to be 
 his, but I have not the same confidence in them. 
 
 The ATTOllNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 will not put them in now ; I don’t take them as 
 proved yet. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — Who did you give that 
 letter to ? 1 believe I gave a letter to Mr. Part. 
 
 Y'ou were at a meeting on Mottram Moor, on 
 the 19th or 20th ? Yes ; but whether it was on 
 the 19th or 20th, I am not prepared to say. 
 Did you see a placard produced at that meet- 
 ing? Yes. Would you know it again? I should 
 if 1 read it. [The “ Executive Placard” is 
 handed to witness] I have no doubt but this is 
 the same. 
 
 Cross-examined hy Mr. DUNDAS : — Where 
 did you see this placard ? At the meeting on 
 Mottram Moor. Was it on the wall, or how ? 
 It was on a cart. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did you see it posted on a 
 wall ? I saw it given to the chairman of the 
 meeting. Did he read it ? No, he was not able 
 to read it, but he handed it to a person named 
 France, and he read it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — That is the way you are 
 able to say it is tlic same ? Yes. You know it 
 
 by the hearing of the ear, and not by the seeing 
 of the eye. Did he hold it up that way [dis- 
 playing the placard before the witness] ? No ; it 
 would be a strange thing if he should read the 
 backside. How, then, do you know it, if you 
 did not see it ? I know it by what I heard. I 
 heard the placard read, and consequently I can 
 say that, in substance, that is the same. Did 
 you see tiie face of it ? I cannot see what you 
 are driving at. I only want you to say whether 
 you know it by your ear, or by your eye ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! may save 
 my learned friend some trouble. The placard 
 w’hich was puRed down by Little, I have here, 
 and I mean to produce it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — Very w’ell : “ sufficient for 
 
 the day” My learned friend, the Attorney- 
 
 General, no doubt wuU do what is right. Then, 
 I don’t ask you any more. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON — Mr. 
 Rhodes, how long have you been connected with 
 the cotton trade ? Three or four years. During 
 that time, have the wages of the men fallen, or 
 been stationary ? They have fallen. Has that 
 fall been gradual, or from time to time ? It has, 
 sir. And at this time in August, was it not 
 generally expected among the workmen and 
 masters, that there would be a further reduction 
 in the wages, from the depressed state of trade ? 
 There was an impression that it would lead to 
 that. A general impression ? There was none 
 contemplated in our neighbourhood. I am 
 speaking of the general impression 
 
 The ATTORNEY^-GENERAL:— The an- 
 swer was, “ There was none contemplated in our 
 neighbourhood.” I think that a sufficient an- 
 swer. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON Do you know or not, 
 whether there was a general impression in the 
 neighbourhood, that a further reduction of wages 
 would take place ? I cannot answer that, sir. I 
 believe it was the feeling of the working people. 
 Had any others contemplated that reduction ? As 
 far as I know, there was no general reduction of 
 wages contemplated. No general reduction. Was 
 there any reduction contemplated ? Not on the 
 general prices paid in the neighbourhood. Will 
 you answer the question ?— To your knowledge, 
 was there any reduction in that neighbourhood ? 
 Will you allow me to explain as far as I go ? I 
 was willing myself to give a farthing a cut more 
 than any one in the neighbourhood, and, I ray- 
 self, contemplated reducing them down to the 
 prices paid in the neighbourhood. Then the 
 only contemplated reduction you know of was 
 
he one you name ? Yes. Do you know whether 
 at this time, and in this part of the country, 
 there was not, from some cause or other, con- 
 siderable discontent in the minds of the working 
 men on the subject of wages ? I don't know 
 that there w’as any discontent among those 
 hands employed l)y me, or my father-in-law 
 cither. But did you know that there was any 
 dissatisfaction among the working men gene- 
 rally? They are always anxious to get as much 
 as they can. That is not an answ’er. Was there, 
 or w'as there not, any dissatisfaction among the 
 workmen, generally, on the subject of wages ? 
 I am not aware that there w’as. Now, then, 
 about this placard — You heard this read at a 
 meeting in Mottrara Moor? I did. Have you 
 from that time to this day seen the placard, the 
 ropy of which you believe you have heard read ? 
 lifes, hut not the identical one. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — I think 
 you stated that the number of persons who at- 
 tacked your mill on the 10th of August w^as 
 about 200, as nearly as you could recollect ; and 
 that when they came up, you stated that there 
 was no necessity for violence, because the hands 
 would he turned out ? Because we were willing 
 to stop the' mill without it. On the 26th of 
 August, after your hands returned, another mob 
 visited you— how many were there in it? Seve- 
 ral hundreds. Say to the full extent of your 
 belief* — Say thousands. — What is the breadth of 
 the road ? About ten yards. And they filled it 
 for ten yards up ? Yes. How many might there 
 be on the second attack, when the larger number 
 came ? They were not a thousand ; they were 
 under that number : probably 500 or GOO. On 
 the 26th you twice resisted successfully ? We 
 did. You did.— You attended a meeting on the 
 19th? I did not say the 19th. I said the 18th 
 or 19th. Well, it was one day between the 
 17th and the 20th? Yes. You attended a meet- 
 ing on Mottram Moor on that day ? Yes. Were 
 any speakers there besides those to whom you 
 referred ? I heard no speeches made at that 
 meeting between the 17th and 20th. There 
 were meetings held on the 11th, 12th, and 17th, 
 at which I heard speeches. Did you at any of 
 those meetings, hear speeches made other than 
 those you have read to the Court to-day ? 
 Yes, there was a 
 
 The JUDGE: — What meetings? Meetings 
 which were held on the 11th, 12th, and 17th of 
 August. I heard a person named James Wilde 
 tpeak at those meetings. 1 al:o heard John 
 
 }.5 
 
 Fairhurst, Robert Wilde, Samuel Lees, and a m.TTi 
 whom they called Gibson, speak. Did you hear 
 a Mr. Cheetham, a county magistrate, speak 
 there ? No ; I never saw him at any of those 
 meetings. Now, you have stated to Counsel, 
 that you never heard any complaint as to the 
 wages the working people were then receiving — 
 were there any complaints made at any of those 
 meetings ? It was not made a Avage tjuestion at 
 any of those meetings ; it was distinctly stated 
 by Robert Wilde, one of the speakers, that he 
 was receiving 5s. a week more than he was re- 
 ceiving in 1840. Now, about what period did 
 your hands go back again to be taken to work ? 
 I have not yet finished ray answer to your ques- 
 tion. Fairhurst stated that the block printers 
 were receiving the same wages as they had been 
 receiving for eleven years. The meeting on the 
 11th and 12th, unanimously resolved, that it 
 should not be made a wage question — that it 
 was the Charter they wanted. This was put to 
 t-be vote more than once. Now, what time did 
 your hands first begin to return to you to ask 
 liberty to work ? We held daily converse with 
 some of the hands. About what time was the 
 general application n'lade, and which you as- 
 sented to ? They always gave us an idea that 
 they were willing to work any time, W'hen they 
 could do it without danger. When did you 
 consent to the general return of your men ? We 
 opened our doors on the 26th, and the hands 
 returned. 
 
 Mr. IlIBBERT, Clerk of the Peace to the 
 Magistrates at Hyde, recalled. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Have you 
 got a placard that was given you by the consta- 
 ble Little? Yes. Produce it. [Witness produces 
 the placard.] Did you put your name on it anj'- 
 ■where ? No, sir. Can yon recognise it by any 
 mark ? It has never been out of my possession ; 
 and the words “ Chartist Proclamation” on the 
 hack, which words I wrote recently. When did 
 Little give it you ? About the middle of August 
 — I can’t fix the day, but it was about the 
 middle of August. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — Mr. 
 Hibhert, you say there is some writing of yours 
 On the back of this placard ? Yes. When was 
 that written ? Yesterday. I may observe that I 
 can recognise it perfectly without that. When 
 (lid Little deliver it to you ? About the middle 
 of last August. You say it has not been out of 
 your possession ? No. How, and where did you 
 keep it ? In my pi hate drawer. Was it out of 
 
96 
 
 your possession, or sight from the time he deli- 
 vered it to you till you put it in your drawer ? 
 No, sir. Has it been in yom’ drawer ever since ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE re-called. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL You stated 
 in your cross-examination, that you pulled down 
 a {)lacard from a wall and delivered it to some 
 one ? I ordered my assistant constable to pull it 
 down, and he did so in my presence, and I de- 
 livered it to Ml*. Ilibbert, the magistrates’ clerk. 
 
 The JUDGE : — "Where did you puli ' it down 
 from? From the wall opposite the magistrates’office 
 in Hyde. M'bcn ? Between the 15th and 19th. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — This, my 
 Lord, is what Rhodes says he believes was read 
 at the meeting on the 19th, and perhaps I may 
 now' hand this up to your lordship. It is ex- 
 actly a copy of the same. [Hands bis lordship 
 a copy of the “ Executive Placard.”] 
 
 :Mr. ATHERTON I want to know if yon 
 can fix the day upon which this was pulled 
 down ? 
 
 "WITNESS Between the 15th and 19th. 
 
 The CLERK of the CROWN then read the 
 placard, a portion of w hich has already appeared 
 in the opening speech of the Attorney-General. 
 The follow’ing is a copy : — 
 
 ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COAI- 
 MITTEE OF THE NATIONAL CHAR- 
 TISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
 
 “ TO THE PEOPLE.” 
 
 “ Brother Chartists — The great political truths 
 which have been agitated during the last half-cen- 
 tury have at length aroused the degraded and in- 
 sulted white slaves of England to a sense of their 
 duty to themsplves, their children, and their 
 country. Tens of thousands have flung down their 
 implements of labour. Y’^our taskmasters tremble 
 at your energy, and exjjecting masses eagerly 
 w'atch this the great crisis of our cause. Labour 
 must no longer be the common prey of masters 
 and rulers. Intelligence has beamed upon the 
 mind of the bondsman, and he has been convinced 
 that all wealth, comfort, and produce, every tiling 
 valuable, useful, and elegant, have sprung from 
 the palms of his hands ; he feels that his cottage is 
 empty, his back thinly clad, his children bi’ead- 
 less, himself hopeless, his mind harassed, and his 
 body punished, that undue riches, luxury, and 
 gorgeous plenty might be heaped on the palaces of 
 the taskmasters, and flooded in the granaries of 
 the oppressor. Nature, God, and reason, have 
 condemned this inequality, and in the thunder of 
 a people’s voice it must perish for ever. He knows 
 that labour, the real property of society, the sole 
 origin of accumulated property, the fli'fet cause of 
 all national wealth, and the only supporter, de- 
 fender, and contributor to the greatness of our 
 country, is not possessed of the same legal pro- 
 tection which is given to those lifeless effects, the 
 houses, ships, and machinery, which lalmur have 
 alone ci'eated. He knows that if labour has no 
 
 protection, wages cannot be upheld nor in the 
 slightest degree regulated, until every workman 
 of twenty-one 3 'ears of age, and of sane mind, is 
 on the same political level as the employer. He 
 knows that the Charter would remove by universal 
 will, expressed in universal suffrage, the heavy 
 load of taxes which now' crush the existence of 
 the laboiirer, and cripple the efforts of commerce ; 
 that it would give cheap government as well as 
 cheap food, high wages as well as low taxes, bring 
 I happiness to the hearthstone, plentvto the table, 
 
 I protection to the old, education to the young, 
 permanent prosperity to the country, long-conti- 
 nued protective political jjower to labour, and 
 peace, blessed peace, to exhausted humanity and 
 approving nations; therefore it is that w'e have 
 solemnly sworn, and one and all declared, that the 
 golden opportunity now within our grasp shall not 
 pass away fruitless, that the chance of centuries 
 afforded to us by a wise and all-seeing God, shall 
 not be lost ; but that we now' do universally re- 
 solve never to resume labour until labour’s griev- 
 ances are destroyed, and protection secured for 
 ourselves, our suffering wives, and helpless, chil- 
 dren, by the enactment of the People’s Charter. 
 
 “ Englishmen ! the blood of your brothers red- 
 dens the streets of Preston and Blaekburn, and 
 the murderers thirst for more. Be Arm, be cou- 
 rageous, be men. Peace, law, and order have 
 prevailed on our side — let them be revered until 
 your brethren in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland 
 are informed of your resolution ; and when the 
 universal holiday prevails, which will be the case 
 in eight days, then of w'hat use will bayonets be 
 against public opinion ? What tyrant can then 
 live above the terrible tide of thought and energy, 
 which is now flowing fast, under the guidance of 
 man’s intellect, which is now destined by a 
 Creator to elevate his people above the reach of 
 want, the rancour of despotism, and the penalties 
 of bondage. The trades, a noble, patriotic band, 
 have taken the lead in declaring for the Charter, 
 and drawing their gold from the keeping of ty- 
 rants. Follow their example. Lend no whip to 
 rulers wherewith to scourge you. 
 
 ” Intelligence has reached us of the wide- 
 spreading of the strike, and now, within fifty 
 miles of Manchester, every engine is at rest, and 
 all is still, save the miller’s useful wheels and the 
 friendly sickle in the fields. 
 
 ” Countrymen and brothers, centuries may roll 
 on as they have fleeted past, before such universal 
 action may again be displayed : W'e have made tbe 
 cast for liberty, and we must stand, like men, the 
 hazard of the die. Let none despond. Let all 
 be cool and watchful ; and, like the bridemaidsin 
 the parable, keep your lamps burning ; and let 
 continued resolution be like a beacon to guide 
 those who are now hastening far and wide to 
 follow' your memorable example. 
 
 ” Brethren, we rely upon your firmness; co- 
 w'ardice, treacheiy, or womanly fear w'oidd cast 
 our cause back for half a century. Let no man, 
 w'oman, or child break down the solemn pledge, 
 and if they do, may the curse of the poor and 
 starving pursue them — they deserve slavery who 
 would madly court it. 
 
 Our machinery is all arranged, and your 
 cause will, in three days, be impelled onward by 
 all the intellect w'e can summon to its aid ; there- 
 fore, whilst you ai*e peaceful, be firm ; whilst you 
 are orderly, make all be so likewise ; and w'hilst 
 you look to the law, remember that you had no 
 voice in making it, and are therefore the slaves to 
 the will, the law, and the price of youi' masters. 
 
97 
 
 “ All officers of the associsition are called upon 
 to. aid and assist in the peaceful extension of the 
 luovenient, and to forward all monies for the use 
 nf the delegates who may be eApr,^ssed over the 
 country. Strengtlien our hands at this crisis. 
 8ni)port your leaders. Rally round our sacred 
 cause, and leave the decision ‘ to the God of 
 justice and of battle.’ 
 
 “ Charles Turner, printer. Turner-street, near 
 St. Paul’s Church, Manchester.” 
 
 GEORGE NASMA'TH, examined by Sir 
 GREGORA" LEWIN : — Are you the occupier 
 of works at Patricroft, in the parish of Eccles ? 
 A'es. What description of works are they ? 
 They are called the Bridgewater Foundary. You 
 employ 200 or 300 men ? A"es. Up to the 10th 
 of August, were your workmen in constant and 
 regular employment ? A cs. When did they turn- 
 out ? The morning of the llth. A"ou got up early 
 that morning I believe ? A'es. Was your attention 
 arrested by anything ? AYs, by those passing my 
 liouse. They passed in parties of ten or tv^-elve 
 at a time. 
 
 The JUDGE : — "Where is Eccles ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY:— About four miles from 
 Manchester, towards Liverpool. 
 
 Sir GREGORA' LEW IN A'ou got up early 
 you say ? A"es. In what direction were the mob 
 going Towards Eccles. Did you go there? 
 A'es. W’^hen you got there, did you see these 
 l)ersons do anything ? I did not at that time ; 
 but I saw an assemblage of persons there, and a 
 cart. W^as there any one speaking ? Not at that 
 time. After that? A few minutes after. Did 
 you know any of the speakers ? A'es. Who did 
 you know ? 1 knew the man that took the chair. 
 Vfho is he ? David Morrison. Did he address 
 the multitude ? A'es. He, as the chairman, said 
 a few words, and introduced a person of the name 
 of Bell. Did he address the audience? A'es. 
 Well, will you just tell me the general nature 
 and character of Bell’s address ? I scarcely re- 
 collect it. Did you follow them to any other 
 place ? No. What happened after Bell addressed 
 the meeting? Morrison proposed that a deputa- 
 tion should go to the different mills, and have the 
 hands turned out, but the proposal was not at all 
 agreed to. Was any other plan substituted ? 
 Some person proposed that the whole assembly 
 should go ; w'ho that person w'as I don’t know. 
 How was the second proposition received ? They 
 immediately went tow'ards Bindloss’ and Pres- 
 ton’s mills. Did you go with them ? No. Then 
 what happened at Bindloss’ and Preston’s mills, 
 you of your own knowledge don’t know ? No. 
 Did Morrison go v/ith them ? I am not aware. 
 A’^ou did not see him separate from them? No. 
 Did you afterw’ards see him ? Not that day. On 
 any other day ? I saw him again within a day. 
 Was he alone ? No. Well, just tell us who were 
 with him ? There was a procession passing my 
 
 I house, and Morrison was along with it. Have 
 you any notion of what number of persons that 
 procession consisted ? A'es. Did you count 
 them ? No ; there were several hundreds in it. 
 Had they anything in their hands ? They had 
 , walking sticks, but they were no great size. 
 
 ! Were they walking in any particular order ? 
 They were four or five abreast. Were they linked 
 I arm-in-arm ? I can’t say. In what direction 
 I were they going ? Towards Patricroft. Were 
 j there mills there ? No. Did you follow them ? 
 No, I remained at home. Is that all you saw of 
 them ? A'es, that day. Well, the next day. or 
 the day after that, did you see them again ? No, 
 that was the last day. Did you hear any more 
 speeches ? No, sir, before that I w'as called upon 
 to be sworn in as special constable. Were you 
 at a meeting on the 12th of August? A'es. Was 
 Morrison present then ? No. Did you hear 
 any speeches then ? Yes. From whom ? From 
 some of the men. What n as their general na- 
 ture and character ? They recommended great 
 peace and order, and to continue out till the 
 Charter became the law of the land ; but I really 
 could not distinctly hear it. Was there any 
 banner ? Yes. What sort of a banner ? A small 
 white cloth was used for a banner, with the 
 words “ Peace, law, and order” inscribed on it. 
 What was on the other side ? As far as my 
 memory serves me, it was political equality. Do 
 you know Tetlow’s house ? Yes. Did you see a 
 mob there ? Yes. What is he ? A retired 
 gentleman of fortune. Where is Tetlow’s ? On 
 the side of the canal, near Patricroft. Is that 
 all you have seen of Morrison ? Yes, to the best 
 of my knowledge. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Did 
 Morrison work under you ? Yes. What cha- 
 racter did he bear ? He bore an excellent cha- 
 racter, as far as regarded his conduct in the 
 works. 
 
 NATHAN FRYAR, examined by Mr. IIILD- 
 YARD : — What are you ? I am foreman of the 
 blacksmiths at the Bridgewater-works inWorsley. 
 Do you remember a body of men coming to the 
 works on the llth of August ? Yes, Did their 
 numbers increase ? Yes. Were your men at their 
 breakfast at that time ? The men went to break- 
 fast while they w^ere there. I remember when 
 the bell was rung for reassembling the men after 
 breakfast.Was the defendant Morrison there? A'es. 
 Was he one of the party who assembled at your 
 works ? Yes. Did he speak to anyone ? Yes, he 
 spoke to our Inspector. Mr. Smith and Air. 
 Pearson arc the managers, or superiors, of your 
 
98 
 
 works ? Yes. Did they hold any communication 
 with the mob ? Yes, Mr. Pearson did, and after- 
 wards ordered the mob off the premises, and said 
 he would send the men round to them. Did you, 
 in consequence, direct your men to go, and hear 
 what the mob had to say to them } Yes. Did 
 you attend aud hear what passed ? Yes. Did 
 Morrison address your men. ^ Yes. Tell us shortly 
 what he said ? He was not the tirst speaker on 
 that occasion. But I ask you respecting Morri- 
 son ; what did he say ? He spoke of the distress 
 that existed ; aud said, that although we might 
 think we were well off, yet ultimately the distress 
 would reach us also ; that it was our duty to sym- 
 pathize with them, and that if we did not turn 
 out quietly, they would bring such a force as 
 would compel us. Did a man of the name of 
 Eccles also address the mob } 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Is he one of the defendants ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — No. Now, tell us what 
 Eccles said ? Well, at this length of time, I al- 
 most forget what he said. Was anything said 
 about a clock ? Yes ; he used this e.xpression : — 
 “ We are come like a clock to give warning before 
 we strike, and you may now consider that you 
 have warning.” Did you, in consequence of in- 
 structions you had received from IMr. Pearson, go 
 and tell the mob that the men w’ould cease work- 
 ing ? Yes. On the same afternoon of the IRh, 
 were you at Eccles ? Yes. You remember seeing 
 a mob there ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE This was all at Eccles ? No, 
 my Lord, at Worsley. I thought you said at the 
 Bridgewater Foundry It is called the Bridge- 
 water Foundry, because it is on the banks of the 
 Duke of Bridgewater’s canal. Ours is the Bridge- 
 water Forge. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Did you then see a mob 
 of persons ? A^es. Did it strike you that they 
 wei*e the same mob you had seen in the morning } 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Whei-e was that .> 
 
 WITNESS :-At Eccles. 
 
 Mr. HILDY'ARD : — Was there a cart brought 
 to the mob, to serve as a platform for them ? Y'es. 
 Was the meeting addressed by several persons } 
 Yes. Did a person of the name of M‘Cartney 
 address the meeting.^ Yes. Who w-as the 
 chairman, do you know, on that occasion f 
 I don’t know. Did the chairman introduce 
 M'Cartney to the mob ? Yes. Did M'Cartney 
 address the mob ? He did ; I believe he ad- 
 dressed them at considerable lengt\i. Tell us 
 shortly, will you, the substance of his remarks — 
 as shortly as you can ? His first words were 
 “Fellow-slaves, this is the beginning of the end. 
 This is a struggle between rampant capital and 
 prostrate labour.” Did he speak of a meeting 
 
 j of delegates ? He informed them that at a 
 I meeting of delegates in Manchester, it was re- 
 , solved, that they would not identify themselves 
 ; with any class in a turn-out merely for the ad- 
 ; vance of wages. Was the people’s Charter 
 i mentioned by him ? Yes. What did he say 
 about it .> He said the struggle was strictly 
 political, and that all work should cease till the 
 document known as the People’s Charter had 
 become the law of the land. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Who said this ? 
 
 Mr. HILDY ARD : — M‘Cartney.. Did he men- 
 tion the names of the different places that were 
 united with him in endeavouring to effect that 
 ■ object? Y'es ; he mentioned Staffordshire, 
 Y'orkshire, Ashton, Stalybridge, and many other 
 places. Was Birmingham mentioned? Y"es; 
 “ above all,” said he, “ you have the support of 
 the men of Birmingham, who carried the Re- 
 form Bill.” Now, on Saturday morning, the 13th 
 of August, were you at Eccles ? Y'es. About 
 seven or eight o’clock in the morning, was there 
 a mob assembled there ? Y^es. Was the mob 
 addressed from a cart ? Y’es. Was Morrison 
 present at that meeting? Y’es. Was there an 
 address, purporting to be an address from Mr. 
 Locke, one of the Bridgewater Trustees, read ? 
 Y’es. After that was received, what took place? 
 It was proposed that it should be burned. Did 
 Morrison again address the mob on that oeca- 
 sion ? Yes. Did he address them to the same 
 purport as he had done previously ? Quite in 
 the language of encouragement. When the 
 speakers had ceased to addressed the mob, did 
 the mob nrareh on ? Yes. Had they a flag 
 with them ? Yes. Did the flag go in advance 
 of the meeting. Yes. And how did the mob 
 move ? — Irregularly, or in order ? They formed 
 a procession of four or five deep. 
 
 Mr. YIURPHY : — I don’t ask you anything. 
 
 Cross-examined by BERNARD M'CARTNEY, 
 a defendant : — I am desirous, my Lord, of asking 
 him a question. What dates have you spoken 
 to with regard to the meeting, at w hich you say 
 M‘Cartney was present ? The 11th of August. 
 Did you notice the counsel who examined you, 
 requesting you to state briefly, the whole sub- 
 stance of what you heard M'Cartney say at that 
 meeting ? Y'es. Y’ou have done so ? Yes. You 
 have ! Y’ou don’t remember, then, M'Cartney 
 saying anything more than what you have re- 
 lated ? 0, I may have heard many things more, 
 l)ut a brief statement was what I w^as asked for. 
 Did you heai' M'Cartney urge that meeting to 
 
any particular line of conduct ? You urged them 
 to continue in their present course, and that 
 ultimately tliey would be successful. Did you 
 hear any injunctions given by M'Cartney to the 
 meeting, with regard to the general character of 
 their conduct, in the adoption or following out 
 of that course, which you say he recommended ? 
 
 I left M'Cartney speaking. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the party, is it ? I am 
 quite positive that is the man [alluding to 
 ^1‘Cartney.] 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — Did you hear anything said 
 of the sacrediiess of property ? No. Did you 
 hear me recommend to tliat meeting to abstain 
 from every act which would have a tendency to 
 destroy even one single blade of grass ? I was 
 not there at the time. M'hat might be the I 
 numbers which you estimated that meeting at ? 
 Nearly 200, I think. Did you conceive that 
 meeting to be generally of a peaceful character, 
 or a mere mob ? After our men had been 
 stopped from work by the same men I saw j 
 around me, I could not consider them peaceful. 
 Now, sir, will you just tell me and the jury, 
 what indication of anything that was not peace- 
 ful you saw at that meeting ? 
 
 The JUDGE Turning out the men from! 
 their work. | 
 
 M'CAIITNEY : — My Lord, I am not speak- 
 ing of the conduct of the party or parties ulio 
 were at his works, Irut I am desirous of having 
 his evidence of the general character of the 
 meeting which I addressed. What indication of 
 other than j)eaceableness was there given at that 
 meeting which I addressed ? 
 
 The JUDGE Y'ou saw no actual violence at 
 that meeting ? 
 
 WITNESS : — No actual violence except the 
 presence of people who stopped the mill. Did 
 you see in, or at that meeting, any of the gentle- 
 men of the neighbourhood whom you knew to be 
 magistrates? No, notone. Did you see a gen- 
 tleman on horseback outside the meeting ? I did. 
 Did you know that gentleman to be a magistrate? 
 No. Do you know that he is not? Yes, if he be, 
 the gentleman that I allude to. Did you see a j 
 gentleman in a gig ?• No. You think there w’ere 
 none of the magistrates of that vicinity present at 
 the meeting while I was addressing them ? No. 
 Might there have been ? There might have been 
 a dozen, for aught I know. Have you reason to 
 believe, or disbelieve, that I was present with, or 
 at all mixed up in the party who went to your j 
 works, or in the vicinity of your works ? No, j 
 you were not there. Then why not say that ? 
 Because you did not ask it. When did the meet- 
 
 ing take place ? Thursday, the 11th of August. 
 Did you hear, or do you know of your own 
 knowledge, anything of gentlemen and men of 
 property in that immediate neighbourhood sup- 
 plying with food, money, and other assistance, 
 those who were on strike, or engaged in the turn- 
 out ? I know nothing of the sort, myself. You 
 I say you attended another meeting on Saturday, 
 
 ! the 13th ? Was I present ? No, I did not see you 
 at that meeting at ail. Were there any indications 
 of violence, that came within your own knowledge, 
 either at Worsley or Patricroft ? —Violence to 
 person or property ? No. I think you have sworn 
 in evidence, if my memory serves me, that I re- 
 commended a strictly peaceable course of action ? 
 No, I did not hear you. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He did not hear you out, and 
 therefore you might have said it, though he did 
 not hear it. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — I tliought he said, in answer 
 to counsel, that I recommended peace. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What I have taken down is — 
 M'Cartiiey said, “ Fellow-slaves, this is the be- 
 ginning of the end. This is a struggle between 
 rampant capital and prostrate labour." He in- 
 formed them that at a meeting of delegates held 
 in Manchester, it w'as resolved, that they would 
 not identify themselves with any class that 
 turned out merely for the advance of wages. He 
 said the struggle is strictly political, and that all 
 work should cease till the document known as 
 the People's Charter, became the law of the 
 laud. He mentioned several places that were 
 united in the movement, and “ Above all," said 
 he, “ you have the support of the men of 
 Birmingham, who carried Reform ; — that is 
 what he says. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — You heard me urge nothing 
 of the necessity of those who attended that 
 meeting, respecting even the opinions of those 
 .who differed with them in politics ? No. You 
 had gone then, jou say ?; — You did not hear me 
 urge them to keep the peace ? No. Did you 
 hear me urge them to a contrary tenour of con- 
 duct ? No. Was not the meeting marked by the 
 absence of violence ? Threatening language was 
 used by persons at that meeting towards those 
 who were occupied at our works. 
 
 GEORGE ROWE, examined by Mr. POL- 
 LOCK : — Were you in the month of August last, a 
 coachman in the employ of Mr. Greenwood, an 
 innkeeper at Eccles ? Yes. Are you acquainted 
 with the person of M'Cartney ? I never saw him 
 before that night. Where did you see him first ? I 
 saw him on the 11th of August,in the Bull’s Head, 
 in Eccles. Did you see him addressing a meeting 
 
100 
 
 t)f people in Eccles ? No. Do you remember 
 his engaging a carriage from jour master, to 
 take him somewhere ? Yes. Where to ? To 
 Leigh. What time of day m as that ? We started 
 from Eccles about ten minutes past six, in the 
 evening. Did you hear him say at what time 
 he must be at Leigh ? He said he was to be 
 there a little before eight o’clock. How far is 
 it from Eccles to Leigh ? Between eight and 
 nine miles. Did you drive him to Leigh } Yes, 
 sir. Did you see anything more of him that 
 evening } In half an hour after, sir, I was coming 
 home again, and, on my left-hand side, coming 
 out of Leigh, I saw him again. — He was merely 
 pulhng his hat off, and bowing. Was there any 
 body’ else there ? There were people mustering 
 about; that was all I saw. Where was he 
 standing ? He was standing on a lump of dirt, 
 addressing the meeting. 
 
 SAMUEL TURNER, examined by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY : — What are you ? A farmer. Do you live 
 at Ashton-under-Lyne ? Yes. Do you remember 
 being at a meeting on Thacker’s ground in Ash- 
 ton? Yes. What day? — On Sunday? No, on 
 Tuesday, the 9th of August. What time of the 
 day w'as the meeting held ? It was arranged for 
 six o’clock in the morning. Were you there at 
 six ? I was there a few minutes after. How 
 many people were there ? 800 or 900, or 1000. 
 When you first went ? Yes. Did they increase 
 afterwards ? Yes. Was there any cart for the 
 speakers to stand on ? Yes, a cart or a waggon, 
 
 I cannot speak to which. Who was in the 
 chair ? At the time I went there was no one in 
 the chair. Did you see any one moved into the 
 chair ? Yes, Mr. Southam. 
 
 The JUDGE -Is he a defendant ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — No, my Lord, — Do you 
 know Pilling ? Yes. Did he speak ? Yes. Did 
 he say anything about Manchester ? Yes. What 
 did he say? He wished to go along with the 
 body to Manchester, to meet the masters at the 
 Exchange, as the masters woidd not meet them. 
 What else did he say ? — Did he say what they 
 were to do as they went ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Ask what he said. — Don’t 
 put it into his mouth. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — I don’t want him to make 
 a long speech. ^ 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — He is not a clever man 
 when you get nothing out of him. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Do you remember any- 
 thing else ? He wanted them to go and meet the 
 masters, and have a fair day’s wages for a fair 
 
 day’s labour. Is that all ? And they must not 
 resume their labour till they get the wages of 
 1840. Anything said about the mills? I am 
 not aware, sir. Very well ; you know a man of 
 ! the name of Woolfenden ? I have seen him, sir. 
 j Was he there ? I cannot speak to him. You 
 j know the man who goes by the name of General 
 j Lee ? Yes, I saw him there that morning. 
 What is his real name ? That I am not aware of, 
 only he goes by the name of General Lee. 
 What did you see him doing? [My Lord, we 
 shall prove by other witnesses that that is Ro- 
 bert Lees, one of the defendants.] What did 
 you see Lee doing? 0, I did not see him doing 
 anything. Did the mob move towards Man- 
 chester ? They did. What did General Lee do ? 
 He went along with them. Where did he go — 
 in the front or back of them ? That I am not 
 aware of. I went to get my breakfast, and af- 
 terwards went in with them to Manchester. 
 Did you pass through Holt Town ? I did. At 
 Holt Town did you see the mob do anything ? 
 Yes ; I saw them stop two or three factories. 
 What do you mean by stopping tw'o or three 
 factories ? They came to the doors, and when 
 they would not admit them in, they used some 
 kind of violence to press them out. Did you 
 see anything done to any of the doors in Holt 
 Towm ? I saw one where the “ stoops” [doors] 
 were shifted loose by forcing them. Did you 
 see any person leaving them as they w’ent to 
 Manchester ? No. Did you see anybody in the 
 front of them ? No. Did you recognise any of 
 those whom you did see ? I did not know^ any 
 party, for they came from all parts of the coun- 
 try. When did you last see General Lee? Not 
 after leaving Ashton. Did you continue with 
 them ? — Did you see any person meet the mob 
 as they were going to Manchester ? No. — 0 yes, 
 a Manchester magistrate met them. Was that 
 Mr. Maude, the magistrate ? Yes, sir. Who had 
 he with him ? Well, there w'as another gentle- 
 nian, who, I understand, is a magistrate. I 
 believe they call him Mr. Brown. — There W'ere 
 some soldiers in Stevenson’s-square. When 
 did you first meet Mr. Maude ? I met him dow u 
 at the factories in Holt Town. — That place is 
 above Ancoats-lane, and is on the Ashton road. 
 When you came down to the factories, you saw' 
 Mr. Maude, and after that you saw the military 
 in Stevenson’s-square? Yes. Did. you see Mr. 
 Maude speaking to the mob ? Yes. Were yon 
 at a meeting that same day at Granby-row- 
 fields ? Yes. Did you see people coming away 
 
101 
 
 from that ? Yes ; they were coming away in a 
 procession. Did you see anybody irr front of it ? 
 Why, there were hundreds of thousands, but I 
 did not know any one in particular. Am I to 
 understand tiiat the last time you sav7 Lee, was 
 in the morning, at Ashton ? Yes. You never 
 saw him in Manchester that day at all ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. D«UNDAS :^Have you 
 ever said so, my friend ? No, never. They are 
 mistaken who think you did ? I never saw Lee 
 after leaving Ashton on that morning. ^Yas 
 this company of people that you had been at- 
 tending, the same people that had been in Ash- 
 ton ? Part of them. Did you understand that 
 they were going to Manchester about their 
 wages ? The expression was that they would 
 go to meet the masters at Manchester, as the 
 masters would not meet them. And vshy did 
 you go with them ? On purpose to see what 
 would be the termination of it. Was it to 
 gratify yourself, or had you any other object in 
 view ? There was a lad of mine going, and I 
 followed him, lest he should get into some 
 scrape. I will tell the truth now. Did the 
 people who went in such a body to Manchester, 
 follow Maude to town ? — Did he go at the head 
 of them to town ? No. What then became of 
 Maude ? He was there at twelve o’clock when 
 the people were stopping the factories, and he 
 told them to be peaceable and comfortable. He 
 said, “ There is a meeting in Granby-row-fields, 
 and if you wish to go and meet them there, you 
 will find everything right, and straight, and 
 comfortable.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL First he told 
 them not to stop the factories ? — They were 
 stopping a mill ? Yes ; he told them not to 
 stop the factories, that a meeting was going on 
 in Granby-row-fields, and that if they would 
 go there they would find everything right, and 
 straight, and comfortable. — (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Did they go in the direction 
 of Granby-row-fields ? I am not aware of it. 
 Did you recognize any one among the persons 
 who met in the early part of the day, as they 
 were coming from Granby-row-fields ? No ; a 
 part of them stuck together, and we went down 
 to the Exchange to see what would be said of 
 it. 0 then they did not take the advice of the 
 magistrate ? No ; I did not go to Granby-row- 
 fields, I know. Where did you go ? We went 
 to take a glass of ale, and a bit of “ mmmet" 
 to eat.- What did the magistrates do ? They 
 escorted the body through the town, and gave 
 
 them every praise that possibly could be given 
 them for being so quiet. Was the mob in good 
 humour with the magistrates ? Well, I should 
 think so ; I never saw any quarrelling ; I saw 
 “ neawt to fait aloutT How far did you go 
 with the mob afterwards ? — Did you go to the 
 Exchange ? I had been there before that, and 
 on going down to Granby-row-fields, I met a 
 party leaving it. Did you see any of the mas- 
 ters at the Exchange ? I did not know anybody. 
 Was there any parley between the masters and 
 these men ? 0 there was nothing at all stirring. 
 
 Was there a mob there ? No mob at all. And 
 what became of all those men you came to 
 Manchester with ? 0 they all went to Granby- 
 
 row-fields. Why did you go then to see if there 
 w'as aught to do, or not ? Why did I go there ! 
 I wor na General Lee. When did you get home 
 to your house that night ? About half-past 
 four, or five o’clock. Did you find the people at 
 Granby-row-fields going back all comfortable, 
 peaceable, and straight a-head ? — Were they in 
 good humour? I saw nobody fight. No ; that 
 is the least degree of good humour. Were they 
 going home to their own place ? Yes ; like 
 myself. You were going home in good humour ? 
 I was going home to my wife and family. 
 
 ARCHIBALD MhMULLEN, examined by Sir 
 GREGORY LEWIN : — Are you an Inspector of 
 the Manchester Police force ? I am, sir. Now, 
 on the 9th of August, did a large assembly of 
 persons enter Manchester ? There did. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Were you in Court while 
 the last witness was being examined? I was 
 not. Were you in Court yesterday ? No. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN That assemblage 
 came from the neighbourhood of Ashton —from 
 the direction of Ashton ? • About what time of the 
 day was it that they arrived ? Between ten and 
 eleven o’clock. Were the numbers very great ? 
 They were, sir. Have you any notion of what 
 the numbers might be ? I cannot form any exact 
 notion. Were they hundreds, or thousands 
 Thousands I should say. What took place 
 Coming down AncOats-street, they divided, 
 you seen Mr. Maude previously ? I had. Where 
 did he meet them ? When I saw them they were 
 at the corner, of Pollard-street, and Ancoats- 
 street. Now at the time Mr. Maude met them, 
 were they advancing in regular order ? They 
 were, sir. They had not broken or dispersed at 
 that time ? No. Just describe how they were 
 marching ? They were four abreast in a proces- 
 sion. Were they marching arm-in-arm or not ? 
 No. Were there any women amongst them ? 
 Y'cs. Where were they ? In different parts. 
 
102 
 
 Any banners ? No. Flags ? No. Any arms of 
 any description Some had small sticks in their 
 hands. Now, you say Mr. Maude met them at 
 the corner of Aucoats-street, and Great Pollard- 
 street? — Was any one with them then ? Some 
 of the military men were there with Colonel 
 Wemyss. Did you see Mr. Maude advance up 
 to them, and address them ? Yes, but I could 
 not hear what was going on. At the time he 
 w'as speaking to them, had the i)rocession halted ? 
 They had. How long did this last ? For a short 
 time. What followed upon that ? On going 
 down a short distance from-there, some of them 
 began a breaking off from the procession, and 
 stopping a mill. After he ceased to speak to 
 them, did they advance after him ? They turned 
 out of Pollard-street, and down great Aucoats- 
 street, in the same j)rocessional order. I left 
 Great Ancoats-street, and went to Mr. Murray’s 
 mill, and met a mob of fifty persons or n\ore 
 there. Now. what took place there ? They de- 
 manded the hands to be turned out of the mill. 
 Did you interpose at all ? Not at that time. I 
 stood by. Were the hands turned out, in con- 
 sequence of that demand ? One of the managers 
 came to the door, and told them to stop, and the 
 hands would be turned out. Were they turned 
 out ? I don’t know ; I did not stop. I w'ent 
 from there to the Town-hall, and the next meet- 
 ing- 1 saw, was a meeting in Granby-row-fields. 
 Now, to the best of your judgment, how many 
 were there in Granby-row-fields ? — Did anything 
 take place here ? Not at that time. I was not 
 there more than five minutes. The next thing I 
 heard, w'as that the mob were breaking the Ox- 
 ford Twist Company’s mill. This was about four 
 o’clock. Th6y were breaking the windows, and 
 turning the hands out. I went dowm there. The 
 military had got there before me, and had taken 
 twelve prisoners into custody. 
 
 Mx. DUNDAS : — Did you see that? No. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did you see that ? No, my 
 Lord; information was received at the Town- 
 hall, that this was done. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Did you go there 
 in consequence of information you had received ? 
 Yes, and I found the military there. The win- 
 dows were broken. Were there stones flying 
 about or not? I did not perceive any. You say 
 the military had twelve prisoners in custody ? 
 They had, sir. Were the window-frames broken 
 as well as the windows ? They were, sir. Were 
 the hands turned out ? They were, siL Was the 
 mill stopped? Yes, sir. Did you see in what 
 direction the mob next proceeded ? Coming out 
 from the mills, I saw them in the act of breaking 
 Birley’s windows. Is he a mill-owner in Man- 
 chester? He'S. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Birley’s mill or house ? Ilis 
 mills, my lord. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — Tell me the man- 
 ner in which the attack you saw, was made? 
 They were throwing stones at the windows. Did 
 they use anything else besides stones ? There 
 were some coals which they used as well. Did 
 you see a hammer there ? I did not, sir. Were 
 there any slates broke ? I did not see any slates, 
 sir ; the gates were broke. How were they broke? 
 I did not see them breaking them ; they were 
 broke w'hen I reached the place. Did you ob- 
 serve the particular state of the gates ? Yes, sir. 
 Describe the state they were in ? The boards 
 were broken quite through, as if with some very 
 strong instrument. Did you see anything re- 
 markable inside ? — Did you see any bags of cot- 
 ton ? I saw some inside the yard. How many 
 panes of glass were there broken ? I should tliink 
 about 3000 or 4000. With regard to the win- 
 dow frames ? A great number of them w’ere 
 broken out, sir. How came they to leave Birley’s ? 
 A strong body of the police came up, and imme- 
 diately took some of the mob into custody; and 
 others were apprehended inside of the gates by 
 the overlookers of the mill. From Birley’s where 
 did they go ? They proceeded to Becton’s. Is 
 that another mill? Yes. When the)^ got to Bec- 
 ton’s what did they do ? — Sfirling and Becton’s, is 
 it ? Yes. When you got there what did you see? 
 The window frames were all smashed to pieces. 
 Were the mob doing anything as regards the 
 window frames when you got there ? I did not see 
 them doing anything. What were they doing ? 
 A body of the police had then got up, and the 
 mob went away. Were the mob resisted by the 
 people on the premises ? They w'ere. Did the 
 town of Manchester -continue in a bad state ? 
 Yes, for several days. Were the shops shut up ? 
 They were. Were the mills generally stopped 
 throughout the town ? They were. Do you know 
 a person of the name of Leach ? I do, sir. In 
 consequence of information that you received, did 
 you get a warrant and go in search of him ? I 
 did, sir. Did you find him? The chief-superin- 
 tendant found him. What is Leach ? —When 
 did you find him ? On the 17th. What is his first 
 name ? James. What is he ? He keeps a small 
 bookshop. Where did you find him ? In his own 
 house. When you got to his house, did you 
 notice anything particular ? Not at the first en- 
 trance. But after? Yes, a board. Was there 
 anything on the board ? Yes. What was it ? A 
 large placard. Did you notice a placard they 
 were reading at the time? No, sir, I did not. 
 Tell me, is that [handing witness a copy of the 
 “ Executive Placard”] the placard you got on 
 the board? Yes, that is it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS What day was this ? 
 
Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — It was on the 
 17th ; I told you two or three times. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS I am much obliged for the 
 information. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then put in 
 a copi-^ of the “ Executive Placard." 
 
 The JUDGE : — Give me the first words in the 
 fourth paragraph at the bottom. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL;— “Let none 
 deftpond.** 
 
 The JUDGE : — Mine is, “ Let none despair.** 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! do not 
 know, my lord, whether it happens from accident J 
 but, I believe, the fact was, that the types were 
 seiml, and some few copies were struck off 
 afterwards for the convenience of your lord- 
 ship. 
 
 The JUDGE ?— I see “despair” is not exactly 
 in the same letter. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— When the 
 types were found, some of the letters fell out, and 
 three were put in. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Was the placard 
 n the shop? Yes. Where was it in the shop? 
 On a board against the wall. I think it was at 
 night you apprehended Leach ? Yes, about 
 eleven o’clock. Was there any reason for be- 
 lieving that he was in the shop, before you went 
 there ? I cannot say, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR :— How 
 long have you resided in Manchester ? About 
 seventeen years. Are you aware, that there has 
 been a procession every 16th of August, during 
 that entire time ? I believe there was. Are you 
 aware that it was in contemplation to have a pro- 
 cession on the last 16th of August ? Yes. Are 
 you aware, that there were notices issued by the 
 committee, appointed for the management of 
 that procession to the effect, that, in consequence 
 of the recommendation of the magistrates, and 
 the disturbed state of the district, there would 
 be no procession held ? I believe it was so. Are 
 you aware, that it was afterwards intended, that 
 a public meeting should be held on a private 
 piece of ground, belonging to Mr. Scholefield ? 
 
 I am not aware ofHhat. Did you see placards in 
 the first instance, to ^hat effect ? I believe I 
 did. You believe you did — and why did not you 
 answer ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — What placards do you allude 
 to ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Placards, my Lord, an- 
 nouncing, that a public meeting, which was to 
 b« held on a private piece of ground, belonging 
 
 to Mr. Scholefield, was put off iu consequence of 
 the state of the district. [To witness] Are you 
 aware that Mr. Scholefield communicated to the 
 magistrates, that he would not have that meeting 
 there, in consequence of the state of the town? 
 No. Are you aware, that the meeting did not take 
 place there on the 16th ? Not to my knowledge. 
 On the virtue of your oath, I ask you, did you 
 ever see so tranquil a 16th of August, as the 
 last ? 0, no ! What was there indicating dis- 
 turbance ? I never saw the town so full of people 
 before. Did any breach of the peace take place 
 on that day ? I am not aware that there was any 
 breach of the peace on that day. Are you not 
 aware that many weeks' notice was given, that 
 there was a procession on the 16th of August, 
 by what was called the Hunt’s Monument Com- 
 mittee, and that those notices were circulated 
 throughout the country ? I cannot say they 
 were circulated throughout the country, but 
 the report in town was such. I don’t know 
 what was in the country. There were notices 
 for several weeks my lord, that there would be a 
 procession. [To the witness.] Now, the notice 
 that there would not be a procession was short 
 — the procession was put off by only a few days 
 notice? Yes, I believe that was so. And then 
 the unusual gathering in Manchester on that day 
 might have been caused by the persons who got 
 notice in the country of the procession about 
 to be held, but who had not got notice that it 
 was put off ? I cannot say. Now, when did you 
 get notice of the marching of these people to 
 Manchester? On the 9th — Tuesday. At what 
 would you estimate the number of persons that 
 usually attended those demonstrations on the 
 16th ? They were very small lately — for the last 
 two or three years. Have you ever seen 50,000, 
 40,000, or 30,000, in one of those processions 
 on the 16th? No. Have you ever seen them 
 estimated in the newspapers at 300,000 ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— My lord, I 
 object to this question. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Well, how many days was 
 Manchester in a disturbed state ? About four or 
 five days. When did Manchester begin to as- 
 sume a perfectly tranquil appearance, altogether ? 
 About five or six weeks. Do you mean by tran- 
 quillity a return of the men to their work ? For 
 several weeks there were outbreaks occasionally 
 in different parts of the town. What time did 
 you apprehend Leach ? At eleven o’clock on the 
 night of the 17th. Now, had you visited his 
 house before eleven o’clock, for the purpose ol 
 
104 
 
 auesting him ? No, but I had passed his house 
 several times in the course of the evening. Did 
 you watch him going in ? — Did you see him 
 go in? No, Were you enquiring for him? 
 No. About what time were you past before ? — 
 You passed several times, and what did you pass 
 for? To take notice of what was going on. 
 When did you commence to parade before 
 Leach's house ? About three o’clock. And did 
 you keep watching there from three o'clock till 
 you arrested him ? No. Did you enquire at any 
 period before you arrested him, whether he was 
 in or not ? I made several enquiries, but I could 
 get no information. How did you enquire af- 
 terwards, when did you get information ? When 
 I got to the house I enquired. But you did not 
 go before to enquire ? Not to his house. Now, 
 air, had you any reason to know the hour at 
 which Leach returned to his own house ? I had 
 not. Did you at any time state that you had ? 
 No, I did not. If your memory was refreshed, 
 would you know? — Did you state before the 
 magistrates that you had reason to believe that 
 Leach did not return till ten o’clock? — Did 
 you state to the magistrates that you had 
 reason to believe that Leach would be in 
 his house at ten o’clock? No. Do you 
 recollect what you swore before the ma- 
 gistrates? No. Doyourecollect, sir, thatitwasyou 
 that arrested me ? I do. Do you recollect when I 
 was in custody, that a gentleman came down to see 
 me ? I do, sir. Do you recollect him having 
 thirteen or fourteen letters addressed to me ? Yes. 
 Do you recollect my telling him to open those 
 letters in your presence ? Yes. And you won’t 
 undertake to say what hour Leach returned, or 
 that you expected to see him there at ten o’clock. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — Describe the state of the town on the 9th 
 and 10th of August ? On the 9th, a great number 
 of mills were stopped ; and, on the 10th, the mob 
 were entering shops and taking bread. The ma- 
 gistrates were swearing in special constables, as 
 fast as they could get them. Was there any busi- 
 ness done in Manchester during the whole of that 
 Tuesday and Wednesday? None at all. This 
 was Tuesday the 9th, and the 16th would be the 
 anniversary of Hunt — ^the following Tuesday ? It 
 would, sir. When did tlie proclamation of the 
 magistrates come out ? I am not aware that they 
 put any proclamation out. When did the Queen’s 
 proclamation come out ? — Do you remember 
 that ? 
 
 The JUDGE It is not in evidence. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is, my 
 Lord ; it came out on the 15th, and the procla- 
 
 1 mation of the magistrates came out on the 14th. 
 — How long after this was it before the mills in 
 Manchester resumed their work ? It would be 
 about a fortnight before they attempted to start 
 their mills again. Did any military come into 
 Manchester ? Yes. How many ? A large num- 
 ber. The Guards came in from London. When 
 did the Guards come in ? I believe it would be on 
 the 14th. It was on a Sunday morning, I believe. 
 Well, that would be the 14th.— Did any artillery 
 come in ? Yes. Do you recollect what force of 
 artillery you saw ? They had two field-pieces. 
 Do you remember if any other bodies of military 
 came in ? There was a great number. 
 
 RICHARD BESWICK sworn. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — May I inquire from the wit- 
 ness, whether he has been in Court to-day during 
 the examination of any of the preceding witnesses ? 
 
 BESWICK: — I have not, Mr. M'Cartney. 
 Nor yesterday ? No. 
 
 Examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : 
 — You are chief superintendant of police to the 
 borough of Manchester, I believe ? Yes, sir. You 
 were so in August last ? Yes. Where were jmu 
 on the 9th of August last ? At the Liverpool As- 
 sizes. On the business of your office ? Yes. 
 What time did you get back to Manchester from 
 Liverpool ? Late on Tuesday evening. In what 
 state did you find the town of Manchester when 
 you returned to it ? On Wednesday morning, 1 
 found it in a most disturbed state. Was any of 
 the ordinary business of the town going on at all ? 
 On Wednesday moniing, there were some few 
 places working, but during the day they were 
 stopped. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Were some mills at work ? My 
 Lord, I don’t know whether the mills were work- 
 ing or not, but some machines wei*e turning at 
 various places in town, but during the day they 
 stopped. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do you mean the machinery 
 of the mills ? No, my Lord, but in machine shops 
 — shops in the town where machines are made. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Some few 
 of these were at work on Wednesday morning, 
 but they stopped in the course of the day ? Yes. 
 Now can you, from your knowledge, state in what 
 manner any of them were stopped ? Yes ; large 
 numbers of persons went in bodies. 
 
 The JUDGE Did you see them ? I did, my 
 Lord ; and they ordered the engines to be stopped, 
 or they would destroy the windows. Were you 
 in different parts of Manchester during that day ? 
 I was. Was there any part of Manchester free 
 from this interruption ? At some parts of the day, 
 all parts of Manchester were interrupted. Can 
 you form any notion of the number of persons 
 who were moving about from place to place, in 
 Manchester, doing what you have described ? ^ 
 
cannot form any opinion as to their number, but 
 a' very large number of persons virere moving 
 about that I never saw in the town in my life. 
 You are now speaking of Wednesday the 10th? 
 Yes. A very large number of strangers were then 
 in town. Are you acquainted with the fact of a 
 procession taking place annually in Manchester, 
 on Tuesday the 16th of August ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Annually, not annually on 
 Tuesday. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL O yes, an- 
 nually on the 16th of August. 
 
 WITNESS : — Yes, they have done so for many 
 years past. Of late years has that procession been 
 very much, or very little attended ? Lately, very 
 little indeed. How long have you been acquainted 
 with Manchester, so as to be able to speak to 
 these facts ? I have been in the Manchester po- 
 lice thirteen or fourteen years. Now, I beg to 
 ask you this distinct question, and pray answer it 
 with great care, — are you able to tell me whether 
 with reference to the procession on the 16th of 
 August, it was usual for people to collect together 
 so much as six or seven days before ? Certainly 
 not. MTiat I want to know is, whether the large 
 number of persons in Manchester on Tuesday or 
 Wednesday, could be referred to the procession 
 that was to take place on the 16th of August ? No. 
 Then I cannot understand the cross-examination 
 in the sense that was intended. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR ; — I did not cross-examine 
 him in that way at all, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is no matter now. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — The Attorney-General need 
 not be angry about it ; I told him that that wafe 
 not the object for which the witness was cross- 
 examined. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My friend 
 can answer for himself only. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — I answer for myself par- 
 ticularly, that I am angry — my friend never is. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL [to witness] : 
 — Now will you describe the acts of the persons 
 you saw during the course of that Wednesday ? 
 
 WITNESS : — I saw large numbers of persons 
 going about on Wednesday, the 10th, in the 
 neighbourhood of Deansgate. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that in the suburbs of Man- 
 chester? It is, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Did any 
 military come in about that time ? There did, sir. 
 Do you remember on what day ? On Thursday. 
 Did you go to that meeting in Granby-row-fields? 
 Yes ; I accompanied the mayor and magistrates, 
 the military and the constables. Did you- see 
 Christopher Doyle at that meeting ? fje was in 
 the chair. Did you know him? Yes, he was 
 there personally in the chair. What humber of 
 ersous were collected at that time ? I really 
 
 could not tell, but they went to various shops and 
 demanded bread. In many instances the request 
 was complied with and bread was thrown out to 
 them. Do you know any instances of their get- 
 ting anything besides bread ? In Oldham-street, 
 also, a large number of persons were going about. 
 Did you see whether they got anything besides 
 bread ? No. What was the state of the town on 
 the Thursday ? A large meeting was held on 
 Thursday morning, in Granby-row-fields. Where 
 is that, in reference to Manchester ? It is within 
 the borough of Manchester, near Chorlton-upon- 
 Medlock ; there were several thousands. Did 
 you eirdeavour to disperse that meeting ? The 
 mayor spoke to the chairman, Doyle, and the 
 meeting generally, ftud told them that the town 
 was in a most excited state, and that he could not 
 allow the meeting to continue longer, and hoped 
 they would disperse and go to their respective 
 homes. Did Doyle, or anybody else, make any 
 answer ? I was on a restive horse, and did not 
 hear particulaidy, but I believe Doyle was wishful 
 for them to disperse. But, did the meeting dis- 
 perse ? Not for sometime. The mayor and ma- 
 gistrates told them to disperse, and after keeping 
 the people for ten minutes they did disperse ; — 
 did the town continue in that state for any length 
 of time? It continued in that state for some 
 days. 
 
 The JUDGE : — In the same state ? It con- 
 tinued in the same state till Friday, but it im- 
 proved after that. On the 17th, did you see any 
 where about Manchester a placard ? Yes, I did. 
 Just take the one that was found at Leach’s. — 
 Were you present when this was taken ? [Hands 
 him the Executive Placard]. No, I sent for it 
 afterwards. Was a placard similar to this posted 
 about the town of Manchester ? Yes. When 
 did you first see that placard ? On the morning 
 of the 17th. That was the first day you saw it ? 
 Yes. That would be the day after which Hunt’s 
 procession was to have taken place. Now, did 
 you go to the house of Turner, the printer ? I 
 did, sir. His name is at the bottom of this 
 placard ? Yes. Did you apprehend him ? I 
 did, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he one of the defendants ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— No, ray Lord. 
 [To Witness.] Did you search the house ? I 
 did, sir. Did you find a placard with any di- 
 rections upon it? There was one found by Mr. 
 Ewart in my presence. Mr. Ewart is a gentle- 
 man who accompanied me. I marked it, and 
 gave it to Mr. Gregory. It has my nnirk on the 
 back of it. It is the address of the Executive 
 Committee. 
 
The JUDGE : — The corrections are with pen 
 and ink— they are in Writing ? Yes. niy Lord. 
 
 The ATTDRNF.Y-GENERAL Was it in 
 that state when you found it ? To the best of 
 my belief, it was. You do not know’ in whose 
 handwriting these corrections are? I do not, 
 sir. Did you also find a press, and the type ! 
 from which this placard had been printed ? I j 
 did, sir. Did you take that too ? I did, sir. 
 
 I believe you accompanied M‘ Mullen to Leach's 
 house ? Yes, I took M'Mullen with me. Well, 
 
 I believe that is more correct. Well, did you 
 see that placard on a board ? I saw it on Wed- 
 nesday morning. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What day did you take Leach? 
 On Thursday. — On the morning of the 17th, I 
 saw’ a placard at Leach's door, and in the even- 
 ing I took him into custody. Y'ou took also the 
 printer that same day ? Yes, sir. Did you find 
 another copy of the placard on Leach’s counter ? 
 
 I did, sir. Did you mark it ? I did, sir. [The . 
 placard is handed to witness, who examines it, 
 and returns it to the Attorney-General.] That 
 is the one I found at Leach’s, on the counter. 
 
 It is marked No. G. — Leach. Did you also find 
 this book ? [Hands it to w itness.] I did, sir. In 
 Leach’s house ? Yes, sir. When you first saw 
 that plccard in Leach's shop, where abouts was 
 it ? 'It was on a large board six or seven feet 
 high, cutside of Leach's door, and several people 
 looking at it. Did you go to Carpenters’ Hall 
 on any day ? Yes, I did. On what day did 
 you go to Carpenters’ Hall?’ I was there on 
 several occasions. Do you remember going on 
 one day when there was a meeiiiig of some per- 
 sons, which meeting you inteiTupted ? I went to 
 the Hall of Science. On whet day was that ? 
 On the l&th of August. Who did you find 
 there ? I found Alexander Hutchinson, and a 
 large number of persons calling themselves dele- 
 gates. About how many persons did you find 
 assembled there ? I believe there were several 
 hundred persons altogether. You say, they 
 called themselves delegates ? The majority of 
 them did. Do you know any of them ? I know 
 Hutchinson — that is all I know. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he in the country ? 
 
 Mr. GREGORY" -.—No, my Lord. ^ 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL Could you 
 identify any of the persons by name that you 
 saw in this ai»sembly as delegates ? No, I could 
 not. Did you desire them to disperse ? 1 did, 
 sir. The magistrates went to the room and told j 
 them the meeting was illegal, and that in couse- ^ 
 
 quence of it, a large number of persons w’as coI» 
 Iccted out-side the room— -the magistrates gave 
 them some minutes to disperse, and they all went 
 away. I do not know whether you w’ould be able 
 to indentify any of the persons in Court, as those 
 who w'as there? M‘Cartney was there, hut I 
 could not swear to it. Did they afterwards to 
 your knowledge, assemble any where else ? No, 
 I was at the Town-hall afterwards, and had to 
 send officers in various directions, under the 
 direction of the mayor and magistrates, as chief 
 superintendent of the police. What was the 
 number of the military altogether in Manches- 
 ter, at that time ? I never heard the number ; 
 there was a considerable number. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS : — What 
 time on the 16th of August, was it that yon went 
 to the Hall of Science, and saw persons assem- 
 bled there ? About eleven o’clock. Is the Hall 
 of Science a large building ? Y"es. And I think 
 you said there were six or seven hundred there ? 
 Yes, in the inside of the building. There was a 
 very large number of persons outside. The 
 street w’as entirely filled. But they went about 
 their business when they were told to go ? Those 
 in the Hall of Science did. You were asked 
 about the procession that is annually made in 
 Manchester, on the 16th of August, on Hunt’s 
 festival. Now, I ask you w’ith a view, different 
 from that of my learned friend, what number of 
 persons used to attend when first you knew it ? 
 Many thousands of persons when I first saw’ the 
 procession. What do you mean by many thou- 
 sands ? I have seen perhaps five or six thousand, 
 or more than that. Try’ again, you are a man with 
 an eye for numbers, you know ? I cannot say more 
 than five or six thousand. Now, you have stated 
 that latterly the procession has rather declined ? 
 Very much so indeed. VTiat should you say has 
 been the number of persons collected in the last 
 two or three years, on the 16th of August ? I very 
 much doubt there having been a meeting at all on 
 the last year. But on the last occasion that you 
 had an opportunity of seeing it ? Two thousand. 
 Now, where was this procession to go from, and 
 to? From New-cross to St, Peter’s-fields, Peter's- 
 street. What distance was this demonstration 
 as people call it ? About half a mile. Did the 
 people go with banners and music ? Y es. Were 
 the public authorities in Manchester apprized 
 and aware of these processions ? Yes. Were 
 such processions generally preceded by announce- 
 ments, or placards ? Y'es, I think I always 
 observed that to be the case. Did you see any 
 announcement of such procession, a few days 
 before the 16th of August last year ? I speak 
 to you as a police authority — did you see any- 
 thing that would lead you to expect such a pro- 
 cession on the last 16th of August. I w’as aware 
 
107 
 
 that such a procession was intended, and I also 
 knew that it was not to take place. Well, that 
 is another answer. The police, of course, would 
 have their eye on that day on account of such 
 procession ? Yes, of course. You said just now 
 that you knew sometime before that such pro- 
 cession would not take place : I was aware of it. 
 How short a time before the IGth of August ? 
 I knew on the 15th. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES : — What was 
 the earliest time yon were aware of the existence 
 of that placard, which you call the “ Executive 
 Placard }** On the morning of the 17th. What 
 time ? I believe about nine o’clock. You are 
 aware, I believe, that in consequence of some 
 information or other, a warrant was then out 
 against Mr. O’Connor? Yes. When was the 
 first time that you knev/ of the existence of that 
 warrant ? Was it before that day or not ? Not 
 before that day. It was I who. had the execu- 
 tion of the waiTant. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — A warrant 
 against whom, my Lord ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES: — I should like to see it pro- 
 duced. I want to know the day. I am not ex- 
 actly aware of the day. You are not aware when 
 the warrant against Mr. O'Connor was taken 
 out ; but you think the 17th ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There was no 
 warrant out against Mr. O’Connor on that day. 
 
 Mr. BAINES ; — Yes, he says there was. 
 
 The WITNESS ; — No ; I have made a mis- 
 take. The warrant I am speaking about was 
 against Dr. M'Douall. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My learned 
 friend will excuse me, I was so satisfied that the 
 thing did not exist, that I was inviting his at- 
 tention to it. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Now, I understand you that 
 processions of the kind you have spoken of have 
 tak^n place ever since the 16th of August, 1819, 
 and the object of these processions 3 ’ou are 
 aware is to commemorate the transactions of a 
 certain day in that year in connexion with Henry 
 Hunt ? Yes. I believe you say these were much 
 less fully attended than when you saw them ? 
 Yes. Now, do you not know that in 1840 ground 
 was given in Mr. Scbolefield’s burying-ground 
 for erecting a public monument to the memory 
 of Mr. Hunt ? I heard that one was erected, but 
 1 am not aware of the exact time; I think it 
 was almut twelve months ago. 
 
 The JUDfi'E : — In 1840 ? I do not know the 
 time, my Lord. It was about twelve mouths 
 
 ago. Do you not know that, in the spring ol 
 last year, the first stone of the monument was 
 laid, and it attracted great attention ? Yes, it 
 did. I believe Mr. O’Connor attended on the 
 occasion of laying the first stone (which took 
 place on Good Friday), and there was a great 
 deal of public interest excited in respect of it in 
 the town of Manchester ? I believe he was there. 
 Probably you are aware of this, that it w as pub- 
 licly announced that the opening of the monu- 
 ment would take place on the 16th of August 
 last year? I heard such a report. In fact on the 
 anniversary of Mr. Hunt’s death ? Yes. Now', 
 are you aware it had been publicly announced a 
 long time before that there would be a general 
 meeting on that day of all persons friendly to 
 such principles, for the purpose of witnessing the 
 opening, and also for the purpose of healing cer- 
 tain differences that existed among different 
 branches of the Chartist body ? No, I did not hear 
 that. Now’, although you say that the interest in 
 this procession had fallen off and flagged, the erec- 
 tion of this monument caused great excitement 
 in Manchester ; and there was a great deal of 
 public interest shewn in the matter ? No. But 
 I am asking you as first police-constable of Man- 
 chester, if you have not sworn that such was the 
 fact ? Yes. Now, tell me, if you please, what 
 w’as the first time, to your knowledge, any stop- 
 page of a mill took place in Manchester ? Before 
 the 16th — on the 10th — Wednesday morning. 
 Then before that time there had been none ? I 
 cannot say that, sir.— 1 was absent. Then be- 
 fore that time there was none ? 0 no, none to 
 my knowledge. Now , I was going to call your 
 attention to something that took place a fort- 
 night before this. Were you not aw’are that 
 notices of this description were placarded most 
 extensively in the tow n of Manchester ?— 
 “HUNT’S MONUMENT. 
 
 “ Men of Manchester, Salford, and the sur- 
 rounding towns and villages, be at your posts 1 
 — In conformity vvith the announcement of the 
 committee in the placards previously issued, we 
 hereby give instructions to be observed on the 
 16th August, 1842, when 
 
 “ A GRAND PROCESSION 
 “ Will take place to celebrate the completion of 
 the monument, in memorv of the late 
 “ HENRY HUNT, ESQ. 
 
 “ Those trades who resolve to join in the pro- 
 cession are requested tp meet, the menibers of 
 the National Charter ^Association, and other 
 friends of Henry Hunt,' in Stevenson’s-square; 
 precisely at ten o’tdock in the forenoon, where 
 the procession will be fonm-d, and thence march 
 in due order, headed aud. conducted by two 
 Marshals, through the following streets* — 
 
108 
 
 namely, Lever-street, Piccadilly, London-road, to 1 Nowit was on the morning of the 10th that yon 
 Ardvvick-green, there to meet the patriot j first knew of the stoppage of any mill in Man- 
 
 “0 CONNOR. I Chester. I want to ask you whether on the 
 
 “ After which to move down Rusholme-road, | game day, the 10th, you did not see this bill pla- 
 
 Oxford-road, Peter-street, passing which the 
 hands are instructed to play ‘ The Dead March.’ 
 It will next move along Deansgate, St. Ann’s- 
 square, Market- street, Oldham-street, Oldham- 
 road, Butler-street, to the Rev. J. Scholefield’s 
 burial-ground, where Feargus O’Connor, Esq., 
 and the delegates from various parts of the coun- 
 try, will address the people. 
 
 “GABRIEL HARGREAVES.;,, , , 
 “THOMAS RAILTON. / ^^‘^*^snais. 
 
 “ The committee most urgently and respect- 
 fully beg that all who join the procession will 
 observe the same sobriety and docorura for u hich 
 our former gatherings have been so admirably 
 distinguished, and thus give another indication of 
 our regard for peace, t.aw^, and order. 
 
 “ There will be a tea party and hall in the 
 Carpenters’ Hall on the same evening, at which 
 Mr. O’Connor has promised to he present. Tea 
 on the table at five o’clock in the afternoon. 
 Tickets for which may be had, price Is., by ap- 
 plying to Messrs. Hey wood, Oldham-street ; Wise, 
 Great Ancoats-street ; Cooper, Bridge-street ; 
 Leach, Oak-street : and on Sunday evenings, at 
 Carpenters’ Hall. 
 
 “ The gates of the premises on which the monu- 
 ment is erected will be opened to the public at 
 ten o’clock in the forenoon. Admission, one 
 penny. The money to he added to the monu- 
 ment fund. 
 
 (“ Signed on behalf of the Committee,) 
 
 “ WM. GRIFFIN, Secretary. 
 
 “JAMES SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman. 
 
 “ Committee Rooms, Every-street, Manchester. 
 
 Aug. 1, 1842. 
 
 Now, 1 ask you, as a fair man, had you not, 
 on the day that this bears date, 10 days before 
 the stoppage of the first mill in Manchester, seen 
 it most extensively circulated ? I believe I had 
 seen it ; but 1 was absent from Manchester for 
 seven days at the Liverpool Assizes. I think I 
 had seen it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Before you went there ? Be- 
 fore I went there, my Lord. 
 
 Mrl BAINES : — This burial-ground that we 
 have heard spoken of is a burial-ground attached 
 to the chapel of which Mr. Scholefield officiates 
 as dissenting minister.^ It is. It is one of 
 those called Cowherdites, or “ Bible Christians,” 
 of which you have several in Manchester ? We 
 have one in Salford. 1 do not know that we 
 have any in Manchester. They are sometimes 
 called Cowherdites, from Mr. Cowherd their 
 founder, and sometimes Bible Christians ? I do 
 not know that. Their tenets are total abstinence, 
 and abstinence from animal food? Yes. And 
 >Ir. Scholefield belongs to the body ? Yes. 
 
 carded through the streets of Manchester ? 
 
 “ The committee for the erection of Hunt’s mo- 
 nument respectfully informs the public, that, in 
 consequence of the very unexpected excitement 
 of the town of Manchester and its vicinity, occa- 
 sioned by the ‘ Tux*n-out for an advance of wages,’ 
 they have decided that the procession as an- 
 nounced in former bills, for the 16th of August, 
 1842, ‘ will not take place,’ lest it should give an 
 opportunity to increase that excitement, the 
 odium and consequences of which have been at- 
 tempted to be fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 “ The meeting will be held on the premises of 
 the Rev. J. Scholefield, where the monument can 
 be seen. The gates wiU be opened at ten o’clock, 
 and the meeting will be addressed by Feargus 
 O’Connor, Esq., and other delegates, at eleven 
 o’clock. 
 
 “ The tea party and ball, as by former bills, will 
 take place in the evening at Carpenters’ Hall. 
 
 “ N.B A number of very neat China models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day, at fi’om 1#. Ad. to 
 Is. 6f?. each, the profits of which are for the funds 
 of the monument.” 
 
 I dare say you remember seeing that ? I remem- 
 ber seeing a bill stating that the procession would 
 not take place, and requesting the members to 
 meet in Mr. Scholefield’s house. And assigning 
 as a reason the very unexpected turn-out for an 
 advance of wages ? I cannot speak to the body of 
 the bill. All I can remember is, that a bili was 
 issued, stating tliat the procession would not take 
 place, and requesting the members to meet at 
 Mr. Scholefield’s house. 
 
 By the COURT : — When was that ? I do not 
 know the date, my Lord. I am sure if you will 
 apply your mind, you will remember when it 
 took place ? I believe it was the 15th. Will you 
 allow me to call your attention to when the pro- 
 clamation of the Queen was received in Man- 
 chester. That proclamation was issued, I be- 
 lieve, in Manchester on the 15th, and the pro- 
 clamation of the magistrates on the 14th. Now, 
 
 I ask you whether, immediately after the prohi-^ 
 bition of the procession, this bill was not very 
 extensively issued throughout the town of Man- 
 chester ? 
 
 “ Procession and Meeting prohibited by the 
 Authorities. — The committee for the erection of 
 Hunt’s monument respectfully inform the public, 
 that in consequence of the very unexpected ex- 
 citement of the town of Manchester and its vici- 
 nity, occasioned by a turn-out for an advance of 
 wages, they have decided that the procession and 
 meeting in Mr. Scholefield’s premises, as an- 
 nounced informer bills for the 16th of August, 1842, 
 will not take place, lest it should give an opportu- 
 nity to increase that excitement, the odiiim and 
 consequences of which have been attempted to be 
 fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 ” The tea jiarty aiid ball, as by former bills, will 
 take place in the evening, at Carpenters’ Hall. 
 
109 
 
 “ N. B. A number of very neat China models of 
 the monument have arrived, and vyill be exposed 
 for sale on that day, at from Is. Ad. to Is. 6<?. 
 each ; the profits of which are for the funds of the 
 monument. 
 
 “ J, SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.’' 
 
 I heard so, but I cannot say positively. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL You may 
 take it that it was. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — You 
 stated that, on the 15th, you went to the Hall of 
 Science, and saw a number of persons calling 
 themselves delegates. Now just recollect, did 
 not they call themselves trades’ delegates ? They 
 said they were delegates, but ,I do not know whe- 
 ther they said trades’ delegates or not. Do you 
 know that there had been people in Manchester 
 calling themselves trades’ delegates ? I know 
 there had been such persons. About that period, 
 and shortly before the 16th } Yes. And I sup- 
 pose your memory is not sufficiently distinct to 
 enable you to say that they called themselves 
 trades’ delegates } No ; I cannot remember 
 whether they said trades’ delegates or not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, 
 Beswick, I will ask you a question ; you say that 
 you saw the placard headed “ The Executive 
 Committee” posted upon a board outside Mr, 
 Leach's door ? Yes, on a board. What is Leach 
 by calling? A dealer in publications, and a 
 printer. And a newsvender? Yes. Now, sir, 
 
 I ask you on your oath, if you are not aware 
 that when any parties belonging to any associa- 
 tion or society whatever, print bills of any kind, 
 they do not immediately send them to the seve- 
 ral newsvenders in the town, and that it is a 
 common praetice for them to paste them on 
 boards, and place them outside their doors ? I 
 am not aw'are of that. Have you passed Hay- 
 w’ard's ? I have. Have you not seen them 
 there ? —Have you not seen placards there ? I 
 have seen them. Then why did you not tell me 
 so. — Have you passed Cooper’s? I have seen ’ 
 some boards there. Have you passed Willis’s ? 
 
 I can't remember. Have you ever passed or ' 
 seen boards ? I do not remember. Have you ^ 
 seen at Hayward’s, Cooper’s, Wallis's, and at ^ 
 other places, placards wholly unconnected with 
 their business ? With respect to Hayward’s, I ^ 
 can’t say. Have you at Cooper’s ? I have. 
 Have you seen placards on the doors of the news- t 
 venders, headed “ Murder, murder, murder ] 
 and containing a great deal of an exciting i 
 nature? When newspapers are sold there, I 
 have. Have you not seen them independently of j 
 newspapers ? \ 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERA^ What kind 
 of placards? 
 
 Mr, O’CONNOR: — I think I was very ex- 
 plicit. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My impetu- 
 osity does not proceed from me, but from the 
 witness not answering. [To witness] Have 
 you nort seen placards posted outside newsven- 
 ders’ shops of a more exciting character than 
 that ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, 
 I think that question is not right. 
 
 By the COURT : — He says he frequently saw 
 exciting placards of newsmen relating to the news- 
 papers they had to sell. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You have been in the 
 j Manchester police for thirteen or fourteen years ? 
 Yes. Have you known, for the last six or seven 
 years, that it was the constant practice of many 
 to attend these demonstrations on the 16th ot 
 August ? I have often seen you during the years 
 I have been in Manchester upon these occasions. 
 The meetings that were to come off had been 
 known to the authorities ? Yes ; generally. There 
 has never been any interference with those meet- 
 ings ? I am not aware that the authorities ever 
 interfered with them. There was nothing calling 
 for their interference ? — No particular breach ot 
 the peace ? I have seen breaches of the peace 
 committed there. I dare say you have. Were 
 you aware, of your own knowledge, that for se- 
 veral weeks before the 16th of last August, it 
 was understood that a meeting of delegates was 
 to take place on the 17th, on the day after the 
 demonstration ? I was not aware. I think you 
 stated, in answer to Mr. Baines, that there was 
 no warrant against me till M'MuUen was sent 
 to London to arrest me ? I said my belief was 
 that there was none till then. Do you know 
 what date was the warrant ? I don’t know. 
 Was it after the 20th of September ? I believe 
 it was after the 20th of September that 
 M‘Mullen went. Now, you being an active 
 officer, of course you made it your business to 
 inquire into all the circumstances connected with 
 the disturbances in the town of Manchester } — 
 When did you find that the people began to re- 
 turn to their w^ork after the 16th of August ? 
 
 By the COURT: — It has been stated that 
 they began to return before that ? Witness : — 
 
 I don’t believe that any of the mills were opened 
 for three weeks. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— What not till the .5th of 
 September ?— About then — not for a fortnight or 
 three weeks I think not. Do you mean 
 
no 
 
 we that the men did not return to their work at 
 Manchester on the 22nd of August, and that after 
 then it became general, and that there were not 
 meetings between masters and men on the sub- 
 ject ? I only know this, that when the men went 
 to work I was obliged, by the instructions of the 
 mayor, to send officers to protect them. Then 
 they did return — if you were to furnish them with 
 protection ? Yes : but it was after the time. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Pray give 
 the witness breathing time, — give him time to 
 answer your questions. 
 
 WITNESS : — Mr. O'Connor puts his ques- 
 tions, and does not let me answer them. 
 
 By the COURT : — At what time did you send 
 protection to the mills ? As soon as the people 
 wished to return to work, I sent officers to various 
 mills ; but that was not till three weeks after the 
 turn-out. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR When did the to^m of 
 ^Manchester begin to resume its usual tranquil- 
 lity? It was about seven weeks before all the 
 hands went in. That was not my question. I 
 asked, when did Manchester resume its usual 
 tranquillity ; and not when the hands went in 
 to work. — A town may be tranquil, though many 
 hands in it may be idle. — Idle men walking about 
 the street is no proof of disturbance ? I should 
 say, something like a fortnight after the 9th. 
 That brings us to Tuesday, 23rd of August, in- 
 stead of Monday, the 22nd. Which was the 
 worst and most excited day in Manchester ? I 
 was there on the Wednesday, but I went to Liver- 
 pool on the Thursday. When I returned, I sent 
 out officers by order of the mayor, and therefore 
 I am not in a position to answer you myself. 
 Why, how can you be in a better position to in- 
 form yourself of the state of the town than at the 
 head of a police force ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Tliat would 
 be only by hearsay. 
 
 WITNESS : — If reports made to me will sa- 
 tisfy you, I will give you report*. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNER : — Do you mean to say that 
 you cannot tell me the state of Manchester from 
 your own knowledge ? I was confined for a month 
 in the Town-hall, and not allowed by the magis- 
 trates to go into the town. I was confined by 
 day and often by night. Not by night, for you 
 went down to Leach’s shop by night. — You were 
 not confined there then ? I went to Leach’s cer- 
 tainly. I went to the Town-hall at five in the 
 morning, and was frequently confined there till a 
 late hour at night. What was the day on which 
 you received the worst report ? After I returned 
 to town, I should say the Wednesday, Thursday, 
 and Friday, the lOtli, 11th and 12th August, were 
 
 the three days on which I received the worst 
 reports. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I have no more to ask 
 you. 
 
 Cross-examined by the defendant JAMES 
 LEACH : — You have stated, that people in the 
 habit of selling newspapers and books, are accus- 
 tomed to have boards at their doors ? Yes, I be- 
 lieve they are. I have seen them frequently. And 
 the board you saw at my door was a board used 
 for that purpose ? Yes, I should fancy so. 
 On the board you saw at my door, were there 
 not several placards ? There were a number of 
 placards when you took it away, were there not ? 
 I only saw two. Run for Gold, and the E.\ecu- 
 tive Placard. At what time in the day did you 
 seize it ? I should think about eleven in the 
 morning. The placard now before the court 
 appears to have been pasted on a great number 
 of other placards ? I cannot exactly say. [Wit- 
 ness looks at the placard] : Yes, it is so. Are 
 you not aware that when bill-stickers go out 
 with bills, they are in the habit of pasting them 
 on the boards at the doors of newsmen ? I am 
 not aware of it. At what time did you first see 
 the placard at my door ? From lialf-past ten to 
 eleven o’clock. Have you any reason to believe 
 I was not at home at the time ? Yes ; I have 
 reason to believe it ; I believe you were not at 
 home at the time ; at least you were not in the 
 shop. In what position was the board in tlie 
 shop when you did come on the night of the 
 17th ? The board was in the shop, and the bills 
 were upon it. It was a large board, about six or 
 seven feet high. And you have reason to be- 
 lieve that I was not at home ? You were not in 
 the shop, certainly ; for 1 looked as I passed. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL: — You have been asked about Hunt’s 
 monument. It is, I believe, erected in 
 Mr. Scholefield’s burial-ground ? It is so. 
 Whereabout is it in Manchester ? It it 
 near Everv’-street, Ancoats-lane, Manchester. 
 Is there a burial-ground round the chapel? 
 There is, sir. Is there any communication 
 across the back-road from one burial-ground 
 to another ? There are two ways. Is there a 
 communication under the road, under an arch- 
 way, taking you to the other burial-ground ? 
 Yes, it leads into some fields. What is the size 
 of the farther burial-ground — how many acres ? 
 I should think about three or four acres. What 
 is the size of the upper burial-ground in which 
 the chapel itself is ? Rather smaller. How 
 many eiitruuces are there to Scholefield’s chapel? 
 
Ill 
 
 There are five or six altogether — three from 
 Every, street ; one from the back part of the 
 burial-ground ; one from the side ; and one 
 from the lower burial-ground. 
 
 Mr. BAINES ; — A question has been put by 
 the Attorney-General, about the size of the 
 burial-ground. I wish your Lordship would ask 
 the witness on that point again, because I under- 
 stand that it is not more than an acre and a 
 half. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! am quite 
 content to take it at your own size. Nothing 
 depends on that. Do you mean the lower 
 burial-ground, or the whole altogether ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — No ; the whole altogether, i 
 
 WITNESS : — I am not a good judge of land, 
 but I should think they were more than that. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I will admit 
 the statement of my learned friend altogether. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Well, we must take the 
 statement of some person competent to give a 
 satisfactory answer. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM DRAKE was then called, and 
 examined by Mr. J. S. WORTLEY : — Did you 
 apply to the office of stamps and taxes for a 
 certificate of the proprietor of the Northern 
 Star? Yes, and I saw the commissioner, Mr.] 
 Seymour Montague, sign the one now produced, ! 
 after we had compared it with the original de- 
 claration. 
 
 The certificate was then read by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY. It purported to be the copy of a decla- 
 ration made by Feargus O'Connor, Esq., of 
 Hammersmith, in the county of Middlesex, and 
 
 I Joshua Hobson, of Leeds, in the county of York, 
 printer, that the aforesaid Feargus O'Connor 
 solemnly declared and said that he was the sole 
 I proprietor of the said Northern Star, and that 
 ^ Joshua Hobson was the printer of it, and that it 
 was to be printed at his printing-office at Nos. 
 12 and 13, Market-street, Leeds, in the county 
 of York, and published at the house of the said 
 Joshua Hobson, at No. 5, in the same street. 
 
 1 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Here is a 
 copy of the Northern Star of Saturday, the 20th 
 of August, 1842, (reading the imprint), “ Printed 
 at Leeds, for the proprietor, Feargus O'Connor, 
 Esq., of Hammersmith, in the county of Mid- 
 dlesex, by Joshua Hobson, at his printing-office. 
 Nos. 12 and 13, Market-street, Briggate, and 
 published by the said Joshua Hobson, for the 
 said Feargus O'Connor, at his office, No. 5, 
 Market-street,” &c. I propose to read these 
 passages ; — one is headed ” Meeting of delegates 
 I in conference at Manchester.” The paper was 
 then handed to the officer of the court, and he 
 was about reading the articles in question, when 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was 
 requested by Mr. O'Connor, to ask that the 
 article might be read to-morrow morning instrad 
 of to-night. 
 
 The learned JUDGE enquired if there was 
 any other witnesses who could then be called ? 
 j The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— No, my 
 1 Lord ; there is no other witnesses which it would 
 ' be convenient to take to-night, 
 j The JUDGE : — Very w'ell, then the case may 
 ! stop for bj-night, and I shall try the undefended 
 I causes. The trial was then adjourned at seven 
 o'clock until the following morning. 
 
 END or IHIIIP PAYS TRIAL 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 FOURTH DAY, 
 
 Saturday, March 4/A, 1843. 
 
 IMr. BARON ROLFE took his seat on the bench this morning at nine o’clock. 
 
 A WITNESS : — My liord, I am subpoenaed here on behalf of the defendants, 
 and I have not money to enable me to remain. I am not able to support myself. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — You should have asked that before; I have no jurisdiction in 
 the matter, and you must exercise your own discretion whether you remain or not. 
 
 The FOREMAN: — My Lord, I have been requested by my brother Jurors to 
 apply to your Lordship for permission to leave town this evening by the five o’clock 
 train, and to return on Monday morning. Not a gentleman on the jury has been 
 prepared for a slay of more than forty-eight hours, and, therefore, they have been 
 considerably inconvenienced. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I regret the circumstance, and I am soiTy that, at present, I 
 cannot give any decisive answer, but I will see what progress the trial will make 
 to-day : as I am suffering under a severe cold I can have no objection, personally, 
 to comply with the request, but it is necessary that the business should be go 
 through with as little delay as possible. 
 
 When the ATTORNEY-GENERAL came into Court, the Judge mentioned it 
 to him, and he said, they should not gain more than an hour and a half by sitting 
 till seven o’clock ; and, at any personal sacrifice to himself, he was ready to consent 
 to adjourn in time to allow the jurors to go home by the train at half-past five. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The great object on the part of the Crown is to dispose of the 
 public business with the least possible delay. I have no objection to say I will not 
 sit later than five. 
 
 I'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — My Lord, it would be necessary for them to 
 leave the Court at least half an hour before the last train starts. 
 
 The JUDGE : — At what time will that be ? 
 
 A JUROR : — Half-past five o clock, my Loi d. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ; — I know mv Lord, from attending frequently 
 at Guildhall, the inconvenience ol men ot business in returning late home on 
 Saturday night. By refusing the application we should not gain more than an hour, 
 or half an hour, while the convenience to the Jury would be invaluable. My Lord, 
 I would submit to any inconvenience, on my own part, in order to accommodate the 
 Jurors in this respect. 
 
 The FOREMAN, on the part of the Jury, thanked the Attorney-General for his 
 consideration. 
 
The ATT0U:NEY-GENERAL then put in 
 ll-.c Northern Star, of the 20th August, 1812, 
 from which the Officer of the Court read the fol- 
 lowing article : — 
 
 MEETING OF DELEGATES IN CONFER- 
 ENCE, AT MANCHESTER. 
 
 “ This body was driven by the ‘ troublous 
 times’ from the consideration of the particular 
 matters and things for which it was summoned. 
 The all-absorbing interest of the ‘ strike’ move- 
 ment was forced on the attention of its mem- 
 bers as a first object of consideration. It being 
 known that the sitting of this body was to com- 
 mence on Monday, it was generally understood 
 and believed that they would take up the sub- 
 ject; and the decision to which they might 
 come as to the course of action to be commend- 
 ed, was looked for by hundreds of thousands 
 with an intenseness of anxiety perfectly indes- 
 cribable. The conference commenced its ses- 
 sion on Tuesday, at two p.m., and continued, by 
 adjournments, till about seven on Wednesday 
 evening. Their deliberations were, as might be 
 expected, most anxious; the discussions most 
 animated and earnest, and while some difference 
 of opinion prevailed on the course to be recom- 
 mended to the people, one soul and purpose 
 seemed to animate the entire assembly as to the 
 necessity of enforcing, by every means in their 
 individual and collective power, the observance 
 of peace, law, and order by and among the 
 people. Each member, in the first instance, 
 stated to the conference, so far as he had the 
 means of knowing it, the state of his own dis- 
 trict, and the opinion of his constituents in re- 
 ference to ‘ the strike.’ 
 
 “ A general, anxious, and protracted discus- 
 sion then ensued upon the question of adopting 
 the following 
 
 RESOLUTION OF THE DELEGATES. 
 
 ‘ That whilst the Chartist body did not ori- 
 ginate the present cessation from labour, this 
 confez'ence of delegates from varioixs ])arts of 
 England express their deep sympathy with their 
 constituents, the working men now on strike ; 
 and that we strongly approve the extension and 
 continuance of their present struggle, till the 
 People’s Charter becomes a legislative enact- 
 ment, and decide, forthwith, to issue an address 
 to that effect; and pledge ourselves, on our re- 
 turn to our respective localities, to give a proper 
 direction to the people’s efforts.’ Every speaker 
 was restricted to five minutes, and no man al- 
 lowed to speak twice on the same question. An 
 
 amendment was proposed, differing from the re- 
 solution in phraseology, but having the same 
 purport. Another amendment was proposed to 
 the effect that — ‘ The information laid before 
 this conference by the several delegates of wliom 
 it is composed does not warrant this conference 
 in now recommending to the people any national 
 strike or holyday, or in anyway mixing up the 
 Chartist name and movement with the present 
 strike for wages, subsisting in some districts, and 
 originated, as this conference believes, by the 
 Anti-corn-law League; not seeing any means 
 whereby the said strike can now be made a suc- 
 cessful effort for the carrying of the People’s 
 Charter ; while at the same time this conference 
 deeply sympathise with their oppressed brethren 
 on strike, and admire the spirit of energy and 
 patriotism with which the trades of Manchester, 
 and at other places, have declared for the 
 People’s Charter, and ex'press their earnest hope 
 that the energies of those bodies, and all other 
 bodies of the people will be unceasingly conti- 
 nued with increasing ardour and determination, 
 until the enactment of that document be secured. 
 
 “ After almost every member had spoken 
 upon the question, it was put, and the original 
 resolution carided by a large majority. 
 
 “ It is but fair to state that a considerable 
 majority of delegates were from the districts 
 actually out and taking part in the struggle. 
 After the adoption of the above resolution, the 
 following address was agreed to nem. con. The 
 mover and supporters of the amendment deem- 
 ing it both unnecessary and unwise to maintain 
 an opposition, which, from being persisted in 
 when seen to be powerless, might justly have 
 been considered factious.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (To the of- 
 ficer of the Court) — Read the next paragraph 
 headed 
 
 ADDRESS OF THE NATIONAL CONFER- 
 ENCE TO THE CHARTIST PUBLIC. 
 
 “ Brother Chartists, — Those who have steeped 
 you in poverty, and accumulated vast incomes 
 by your labour, have turned upon you even 
 in your distress, and would plunge you yet 
 lower in the gulph of misery. Failing 
 to purchase your aid for the accomplish- 
 ment of their own sordid ends, they have ef- 
 fectually put into force the doctrine that 
 “ man has a right to do what he likes with his 
 own;” and, in the hope of starving you into 
 compliance with their will, they have paralysed 
 the ’.and of labour of the old and the yonug. 
 
114 
 
 Yea, infancy and old age are alike instruments 
 in their hands for enhancing the interests of 
 their order. Willing still to labour for a bare 
 pittance, and watching events peacefully, which 
 might lead to the attainment of your just rights, 
 and thereby render you independent of the op- 
 pressor’s will, you were cast upon the wide 
 world for support. Thanks — eternal thanks to 
 the brave and independent Trades of Manches- 
 ter ! They saw the evil, and nobly threw their 
 comparative comfort into misery’s scale. They 
 have struck, not for wages, but for principle : 
 and, regardless of conseciuences to themselves, 
 they have taken the foreground in your cause. 
 They have declared that they will cease to toil 
 till all labour shall be justly requited ; which, in 
 their opinion, cannot be effected till the Charter 
 become law. Must not their names be handed 
 down to posterity as patriots, sacrificing their 
 own convenience and comfort for the attainment 
 of that of their fellow-men ? Who can with- 
 hold praise from such men ? You have not 
 struck — you have been stricken ; but let the 
 stroke recoil upon the tyrants who have so 
 cruelly arrayed themselves against the interests 
 of labour. 
 
 “Brothers, these are not times to hesitate! 
 The corn has a golden hue while your visages 
 are pale, but hope for change and bitter times. 
 We are fortunate in having an accredited .exe- 
 cutive, bearing the confidence of all, at our 
 head.” 
 
 “ They, too, have called upon you. You will 
 read their address : it breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit.” 
 
 Tlie ATTORNEY-GENERAL :~My Lord, 
 that is the document alluded to as the Executive 
 address, which we have put iu evidence ; and I 
 think it right, my Lord, to state, that I shall draw 
 attention to that paragraph bye and bye, for the 
 purpose of shewing that it refers to the Executive 
 committee of the National Chartists’ Association. 
 I make this statement now, in order that I shall 
 not hereafter be accused of doing it prematurely. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Do I understand the At- 
 torney-General to mean, that from that paragraph 
 in the Northern Star, he intends to fasten the 
 National Address on the Conference ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He fastens the Northern Star 
 on Mr. O’Connor, and from that he reads, an ad- 
 dress containing this passage We are fortu- 
 nate in having an accredited executive bearing the 
 confidence of all, at our head They, too, have 
 called upon you. You will read their address, it 
 breathes a bold and manly spirit.” 
 
 The ATTORN E Y - G E N ER A L The A d - 
 
 ' dress alluded to is that contmned in what is called 
 j “the Executive Placard.” 
 j Mr. O’CONNOR: — 1 object to this being 
 evidence. 
 
 I The OFFICER of the COURT proceeds 
 j “ We could not, in times like the present, with- 
 j hold from them, your servants, our cordial sup- 
 ■ port, as in union alone is security to be found, 
 1 and from unanimity alone can success be ex- 
 j pected.” This is not a voluntary “ holiday.” It 
 j if the forced “ strike” of ill-requited labour 
 I against the dominion of all-powerful capital. But 
 J as the tyrants have forced the alternative upon 
 you, adopt it — ^and out of the oppressor’s threat 
 let freedom spring.” 
 
 “ While we have not been the originators of, 
 we are yet bold enough to say to those who adopt 
 the oppressor’s remedy, stick to it rather than be- 
 come tools for your own destruction ; and may he 
 who has a bit to spare, and would refuse it- to men 
 struggling for their rights, feel the gripe of hun- 
 ger, and the still more stinging grief of a crying 
 offspring!” 
 
 ' “ Brothers. — If we are worthy of your confi- 
 
 dence, W'e must prove that we merit your esteem. 
 Hear us, then, and mark well our admonition. 
 Let no act of yours take tiie odium from those 
 ! who have goaded you into resistance, and who 
 would now torture you, because you do resist. Be 
 not deceived ; for although the discomfited Whigs 
 have attempted to rally their scattered forces 
 under this new pretext, yet will all of their order 
 in society, of whatever shade in politics, join with 
 tl»em in throwing upon you the odium which be- 
 longs to your oppressors. But, heed them not. 
 Our’s is the battle of labour against capital — of 
 poverty against property — of right against might 
 — of ju.stice against injustice — and of knowledge 
 against bigotry and intolerance.” 
 
 “This is a holiday, proclaimed not by nature — 
 most unnaturally proclaimed ; and may the wicked 
 fall into the pit w'hich they have dug,” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— My Lord, in the Attor- 
 ney-General’s opening speech, he told the jury 
 that the Northern Star, or anything contained in 
 it, could only be evidence against me ; now, if he 
 means this to be evidence of the Executive Ad- 
 dress, he must shew that it only applies to me. 
 i The JUDGE: — That is only a matter of ob- 
 
 serv'ation. While the paragraph was reading, the 
 i Attorney -general thought that part might have 
 escaped observation. He means to say, that the 
 person who wrote this in the Northern Star re- 
 ferred to the Executive Placard, and whatever 
 be the inference from that, I cannot yei say. 
 i The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-r wished, 
 my Lord, that there might be no mistake on that 
 ‘ point. 
 
 The OFFICER proceeds Let union and 
 
llo 
 
 |) 3 aoe be the watchword. We counsel you against 
 waging warfare against recognized authority, 
 w hile wc believe the moral strength of an united 
 people to be sufficiently powerful, when well di- 
 rected, to overcome all the physical force that 
 tyranny can summon to its aid. The blood of 
 your brothers has been shed while peacefully 
 agitating for their rights ; and the brave delegates 
 of the trades of Manchester, have been scattered 
 from their place of meeting, at the point of the 
 bayonet; yet, will the friends of justice ever 
 find a refuge as long as nature's canopy stands, 
 and so long as those for whom they struggle 
 stand by them. As the people appear to have 
 made the “ strike of the League," for a repeal 
 of the Corn-laws into a stand for principle and 
 the Charter, we w'ould implore every man loving 
 justice and having a shilling at his command to 
 advance it, upon the good understanding that 
 free labour will ere long repay the loan. 
 
 ** Brothers, the trades have issued a noble ad- 
 dress. It breathes a spirit worthy of old laws 
 and old English liberties. This, brothers, is the 
 time for courage, prudence, caution, watchful- 
 ness and resolution. 
 
 ** I’H conclusion, brothers, we v/ould, above all 
 things, council you against the destruction of life 
 or property. 
 
 “ Remain firm to your principles, which are 
 to he found in the docuroent entitled the Peo- 
 ple’s Charter." 
 
 “ Men, be wise I do not commit yourselves or 
 your cause. Let all your acts be strictly legal 
 and constitutional, and ere long your enemies 
 will discover that labour is in truth the source of 
 wealth, and should be the only source of power. 
 
 Immediately after the adoption of the address, 
 it was resolved unanimously, “ That the thanks 
 of the Conference be given to the Executive, for 
 their energetic labours on behalf of the people." 
 
 And it was then resolved unanimously — "That 
 this conference do now disolve." And the dele- 
 gates immediately dispersed to their several 
 homes. 
 
 JAMES HINDLEY, examine<l by Mr. 
 HILDYARD : — You live at Manchester? Yes. 
 You are the driver of the fly No. 10 ? Yes. On 
 the morning of the 1 6th of August, were you 
 employed to drive any one ? Yes ; I drove Mr. | 
 O’Connor to Mr. Scholefield's on that morning. 
 At what time in the morning? About a quarter 
 past five the train was due, but it generally ar- 
 rives at half past. Where did you take him up ? 
 In Every-street. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Is that the defendant Schole- 
 field ? 
 
 Mr. IIILOYARD : — Yes, my Lord. — Where 
 did you take O’Connor up ^ At the Hirraingham 
 
 station. The Birmingham and London station ? 
 j Yes, sir. 
 
 ! Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Do 
 I you know Pope Joe ? Yes. He is a cab-driver, 
 too? Yes. Did you see him and another lately ? 
 Yes. Were you in company with him on Tues- 
 day evening last > No. Were you in company 
 with M'Mullin and two cabmen on Tuesday 
 last ? No. You were not in company with him 
 and two of them ; and it was not said to you, 
 that you should all have one word, and that you 
 should know it ? No, sir. It was not to you 
 that was said ? No, sir. 
 
 ROBERT BELL was next called and sworn. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — To save the time of the 
 court, my Lord, if these men are merely cabmen, 
 I shall admit all that the Attorney-General 
 wants to prove by them. 
 
 'The JUDGE : — The last cabman, Mr. O’Con- 
 nor, drove you from the Birmingham and London 
 station. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD The station is at Man- 
 chester, my Lord, and the witness speaks of it 
 as the Birmingham station. It belongs to the 
 new company at Crewe. 
 
 ROBERT BELL, examined by Mr. POL- 
 LOCK: — You were employed by the Manches- 
 ter police? Yes. On the 16th of August, were 
 you, in the afternoon, walking about Mr. Schole- 
 field’s chapel? Yes. Did you see Mr. O’Connor 
 that day ? I saw him in the evening. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — What do you mean by th 
 evening ? Between six and seven o’clock. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Did you see him go to 
 Mr. Scholefield’s chapel ? Yes. Did you see any 
 one go in with him ? I saw another man, but I 
 don’t know him, and I saw several persons going 
 in in the course of the day. Was the chapel 
 lighted up then ? It was, sir. Were you at 
 the same place on the following day (Wednesday, 
 the 17th) ? I was about every street on the 17th. 
 Did you ever see M’Douall ? I did. I saw him 
 coming out of Mr. Scholefield’s chapel. At what 
 time ? About eleven and a half in the moiTung. 
 
 The JUDGE: — At what time? About half- 
 past eleven, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK: — Did you see him return 
 and go in afterwards ? Yes. At what time ? A 
 few minutes after. Did you see him again in 
 the course of the day, or at night ? No, sir. Did 
 you see any persons leave the chapel that after- 
 noon ? I did, sir. At what time ? Between three 
 and four o’clock, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE: — What did you say? I saw 
 several other persons leaving the chapel. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — How many do you think ? 
 
iir> 
 
 About twenty, sir, Can you speak to any of 
 them? Campbell was one, Christopher Doyle, 
 and M'Cartney 
 
 The JUDGE;— Is that the defendant Camp- 
 bell ? 
 
 Mr. HILYARD Yes, my Lord ? Did you 
 see any of those persons returning again ? I did. 
 How many? Perhaps about twenty or more of 
 them returned in about an hour. Can you speak 
 to them ? There were Campbell, Christopher 
 Doyle, and a man named John Allinson. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do you know, is he one of 
 the defendants ? He was one of the party that 
 came out of the chapel. You don’t know whe- 
 ther he is one of the defendants ? No, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK Is he here ? I cannot speak 
 to him. On the morning of the 18th did you see 
 Mr. O’Connor ? Yes ; I saw Mr. Scholefield and 
 him leaving Mr. Scholelield’s house on the 18th, 
 in a cab. Which w'ay did he drive ? To the Man- 
 chester and Birmingham Railway. In Store- 
 street ? Yes. Of course you did not follow him ? 
 No. Were you before the magistrates ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES : — What was 
 the day you w’ere first there ? The 16th ; that 
 was Tuesday. Were any persons with you ? 
 Yes. Who were they ? A man named Higgins, 
 and another of the name of M‘Clelland. Where 
 were you then ? In Every-street. Just so; and 
 the others were in Every-street ? Yes. What 
 was the earliest time you speak to seeing any 
 of those persons going to Scholefield’s house ? 
 I saw M'Douall coming out of Scholefields on 
 that day. On the 16th? Yes, at half-past 11 
 o’clock. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY:— He said on the 17th before. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — No, I think it was not so. 
 Weil, half-past eleven is the earliest time you 
 speak to ; what time did you go to Every-street 
 that morning ? About nine o’clock, sir. I think 
 you said you were there on the 17th? I was, 
 sir. What was the earliest time on the 1 7 th at 
 which you saw any of the persons mentioned as 
 being there that day ? About one o’clock in the 
 afternoon. Where were they then ? They were 
 going to Scholefield’s. From Every-street ? Yes. 
 That would be, of course, broad day ? Yes. What 
 time was it you saw Mr. Feargus O’Connor 
 coming out to go in this cab } Half-past eight 
 in the morning. There is, I believe, a train at 
 three o’clock in the morning, if Mr. O’Connor 
 was disposed to go by it? I cannot say. Don’t 
 you know that there is a train leaving in the 
 night? I cannot tell that. But, however, the 
 
 fact is that Mr. O’Connor was coming out at 
 half-past eight o’clock of an August morning in 
 a cab ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY: — Who 
 are the parties you saw? The parties I mentioned. 
 Well, mention them again to me, as it is im- 
 portant that I should know them ? Campbell, 
 Doyle, McCartney, and Allinson. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, 
 Bell, I have a word with you. You say I came 
 in a cab to Mr. Scholefield’s in the morning ? 
 No, sir. Did not you see me arrive from the 
 Birmingham station on the morning of the 16th ? 
 I did not. When did you at first see me at Mr. 
 Scholefield’s ? In the evening of that day. What 
 was the earliest period you went there in the 
 morning ? Nine o’clock. How long did you 
 remain there ? Three or four hours. You heard 
 that there was to be a meeting that morning on 
 a private piece of ground belonging to Mr. 
 Scholefield? Yes. Was it for that purpose you 
 went there ? I was sent there to watch tl\e pro- 
 ceedings of Mr. Feargus O’Connor and others. 
 You were sent there on Tuesday the 16th to 
 watch the proceedings of Feargus O’Connor and 
 others? I was. You swear that? Yes. Were 
 you told what the nature of their proceedings 
 were to be ? No. Did you see when you came 
 to Mr. Scholefield’s, on the morning of Tuesday, 
 a placard, announcing that there would be no 
 meeting ? Yes. You saw Mr. Scholefield’s son 
 himself putting one up on a wall announcing 
 that there would be no meeting? Yes, I did. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Who did you see? Mr. 
 Scholefield’s son putting a placard on the wall 
 announcing that there would be no meeting. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY [To Mr. O’Connor] :— It is 
 most important for you that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — How many hours did you 
 remain there ? I said about three, sir. You re- 
 mained about three hours? Y’^es, from nine 
 o’clock. You did not see me during that time ? 
 No, sir. The first time you saw Feargus O’Connor 
 was about five o’clock in the afternoon. 
 
 THOMAS NOBLETT, examined by Mr. 
 WORTLEY : — Where do you live ? In Man- 
 chester. Does your mother keep a public-house 
 there? Yes, sir. What is the name of the 
 house? The Queen’s Stores. Were you living 
 there with her in August last ? Yes, sir. 
 Where is the house? In Whittle - street 
 Were you at home on the 16th of August ? Yes. 
 Do you know M‘Douail? Yes, sir. Did ho 
 come to your house that morning ? Y^es. Wlia 
 
117 
 
 lime ? About ufiu* o’clock in the morning. Did 
 your mother show him a room up-stairs.^ y.eB, 
 sir. Did he go up-stairs with her ? He went up 
 first. Did he remain up-stairs sometime ? A 
 short time. How long ? About five or ten 
 minutes. Did he afterv/ards go up -stairs again ? 
 Yes, he went up several times. While he was 
 up-stairs did any other persons come } Yes. 
 How soon after did they come to your house .' — 
 About — I don’t want it to a minute.^ O, there 
 were several — a great many persons came back- 
 wards and forwards. How soon did the first 
 come ? I cannot say ; there were a great many 
 in the house at the time. How soon did the 
 first person go up to M'Douall ? My mother 
 went up. But I ask yon about men. — Did they 
 go up ? Yes. How soon after } About an hour. 
 How many men went up-stairs to his room ? I 
 cannot say. Well — about I cannot say, I did not 
 go into the room, nor see them go up. Did you 
 see them up-stairs ? I saw two or three up-stairs, 
 and they asked for M'Douall. Who were they ? 
 James Leach 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Is that a defendant ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the man who sells 
 books, &c. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Who were the others.’ 
 (.'arapbell. Who else? I don’t know any one 
 else ? But some others were there ? Yes. Do 
 you remember having been sent for a coach ? 
 Tes, .sir. About what time of day was that? 
 About three o’clock in the afternoon. Who went 
 in that coach ? Mr. Feargus O’Connor and Dr. 
 M'Douall. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You did not see Mr. O’Con- 
 nor before that ? No. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Now, when did O’Con- 
 nor come to the house ? I was in the cellar when 
 he came. But you were afterwards sent for a 
 coach, and Feargus O’Connor and M'Douall 
 went into it ? Yes. Did you see where Mr. 
 O’Connor came from ? — Did he come from up- 
 stairs, or where ? He came down stairs^ 
 
 The JUDGE : — You did not see him come ? 
 No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Did you hear either of 
 them give directions as to where they were to be 
 driven ? I did not, sir. Had you seen M'Douall 
 at your house before that time ? Yes, sir, he had 
 been in the habit of coming there. Now, did 
 you see M'Douall or Mr, O’Connor any more 
 upon that day (Tuesday) ? I did not see Mr. 
 O’Connor. Did you see M'Douall that day? 
 Yes. What time ? About six o’clock in the 
 evening. He came in then? Yes, sir. Wa.s 
 there anybody with him ? No, sir. Did he go 
 out again that evening ? No, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He went up-stairs ? No, he 
 
 did not go uii-sfairs wlien he catnf- in a( six 
 o’clock. 
 
 Mr.WORTLEY -.—Where did he go ? Through 
 the bar, into what we call the “ Saug.” Were 
 there any parties with him ? There were some 
 persons, but I don’t know who they were. Do 
 you know whether he slept in the house or not ’ 
 I don’t know — No, he did not sleep in the house. 
 Did you see him again in the morning? Yea. 
 At what time ? From eight to nine o’clock. 
 
 The JUDGE On the 17th ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Before you goto\Vedues- 
 day morning, tell me, if you please, do you know 
 a man named Turner, a printer ? Yes. Did you 
 see him at your house on Tuesday ? No, air. 
 Did you see him at all on the Tuesday ? I saw 
 him on the Tuesday night. Where ? At his 
 own house. How came you to go there ? I was 
 sent there by M'Douall. To Turner’s own 
 house ? Yes. What did he desire you to go 
 therefor? To see if the placards w'ere printed. 
 Now, what time was that, on Tuesday evening, 
 that he sent you ? It would be a little after six 
 o’clock. About six o’clock, you say? Yes. 
 Soon after he came him? Yes. What an.swcr 
 did you get from Turner ? I was told to say that 
 the type was not ready. Did M'Douall teli you 
 what placard it was ? No, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE: — The type was not set, you 
 mean ? Yes, my Lord. Did any one come from 
 
 Turner’s to your house that day that you saw ? 
 
 Parties were sent, but I am not aware that any 
 one came. What do you mean by saying that 
 parties were sent ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Don’t teli us anything that 
 you don’t know of your own knowledge. 
 
 WITNESS : — I am not aware of my own 
 knowledge, that any one came. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Was M'Douall with any» 
 body when he gave you the message ? No. 
 Where w'as M'Douall when he gave you the 
 message ? 
 
 The JUDGE You say Turner was in his 
 owm house? Witness; — Yes. And M'Douall 
 was in witne.ss’s house ? Yes, my Lord ; he was 
 in the bar when he sent me to Turner. 
 
 Mr. W ORTLE Y : — Do you know Christopher 
 Doyle ? Yes. When did you see him ? On 
 that Tuesday morning he was in the bar. W'here 
 was M'Douall? He was in the "Snug,” and 
 Doyle marched through the bar to the " Snug” 
 where M'Douall w^as. Do you know Bainstow ’ 
 Yes. Did you see him at your house on Tues- 
 day ? Yes. Jit w'hat time ? About dinnefT 
 time. At one o’clock? Yes. Was M'Douall 
 in yovr house when ho canie ? Yes, sijr, W'here 
 was he ? In the bar. He came backward and 
 forward, and Bairstow went into the “ Snug.” 
 
Mr. MURPHY To the Snug!— They had 
 It snug there. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Did you see Turner, or 
 any of the printers there, on Wednesday ? Yes, 
 sir. At what time on Wednesday ? Turner 
 came about dinner-time. 
 
 The JUDGE About one o’clock, my lad ? 
 V.'itueas; — About twelve or one o’clock, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY: — Was M'Douall in the 
 house then ? No, sir. Why did Turner ask for 
 Dr. M'Douall ? — You told me M‘Douall was not 
 in, did you } Yes, sir. Did he stay or go away ? 
 He stayed for two or three minutes. Had Turner 
 anything with him ? He had papers under his 
 arm. Did he come again that day? No, he 
 came only once that I saw. Did you see him 
 only once that day? Yes. He went as far as 
 the door, and came back for a few minutes, and 
 after that he was taken up. And after that you 
 saw him no more ? No. By taking up you don’t 
 mean taking up-stairs, but arrested ? Yes, sir, 
 arrested. You know a man of the name of 
 Wheeler? Yes. What is he ? A printer. He 
 styles himself a printer. What else does he do ? 
 He carries an advertiser. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — What they call a moving 
 legion. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — An advertiser that goes 
 about the streets ? Witness : — Yes. When did 
 he come to your house ? On the Tuesday night. 
 Was M'Douall in the house at the time ? No, 
 sir, he was not. Who did he (Wheeler) ask for ? 
 I am not aware that he asked for any one. Did 
 you see him have anything in his hand ? He had 
 a placard in his hand. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What time did he come ? 
 About nine or ten o’clock at night. On the 17th ? 
 On the Tuesday. The 16th? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY ; — Just look at that, [hand- 
 ing witness the “ Executive Placard”] and tell 
 me— — 
 
 Mr. MURPHY My Lord, I don’t know 
 how this can be put in at the present time. None 
 of the parties are present, nor are they shown in 
 connexion with it. Why then should we be pre- 
 judiced by it ? He is not shown to be a person 
 at all mixed up in this alleged conspiracy. In 
 point of fact we never heard of him till now, for 
 the first time; and, when he does come, he does 
 not even ask for Dr. M'Douall. I do not see, 
 my Lord, why this should be nut in. 
 
 Mr, WORTLEY; — (To Witness) — Was 
 M‘Douall at all there while Wheeler was there, 
 or Campbell, Doyle, or Leach ? No, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — Now, 
 sir, you have spoken of M'Douall being there : 
 Yes. Is not your house a house of entertain- 
 ment for any person that wishes to get provisions 
 
 or drink there ? Yes. I suppose your’s is a 
 house of good resort ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE A general public-house? Yes. 
 I Mr. MURPHY : — Is it in a well-frequented 
 part of Manchester ? It is rather backward, 
 j You mean by that, I presume, that it is not in 
 any of the main streets, such as Deansgate, or 
 j any of those streets one is familiar with as great 
 1 thoroughfares ? — Is it not close to a large market ? 
 It is. Then, I presume, a great many parties 
 come in there for breakfast or dinner ? We sup- 
 ply no provisions. 
 
 The JUDGE: — You supply no provisions? 
 No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY: — The “Snug” is a great place 
 I of resort, then? Yes. For what purpose do 
 you keep that “ Snug” ? For any one that comes 
 I in. It is retired ? Yes, it is retired. And more 
 comfortable than the bar ? [No answer.] 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, 
 Noblett, is not your house close to a large market? 
 Yes. Is it not close to Oldham-street, one of the 
 greatest thoroughfares in Manchester ? There is 
 no business in it. Is it not in point of fact, in 
 that neighbourhood ? — 
 
 j The JUDGE : — Do you mean that there is no 
 business in Oldham-street, or no business in 
 [ your house ? There is no business doing in Old- 
 ham-street. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Is it not the most busi- 
 ness street in Manchester ? — ^Are there not more 
 I people passing through it than through any part 
 of Manchester? Oldham-street is a great thorough- 
 fare, but there is not much business doing in 
 it. Precisely so. It is a great thoroughfare? 
 Yes. You where in the cellar when I was passing 
 inside, you say ? Yes. Howlong were you there? 
 I was there a quarter of an hour. And I had 
 not come before you went into the cellar ? No, 
 
 sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is on the 16th. 
 
 Mr.O’CONNOR : — On the 16th, my Lord.— 
 Now, sir, was not your house open that day to 
 any customer that came — no matter who it was ? 
 Yes. There was no precaution taken to prevent 
 any one from coming in ? No. Now, did not 
 scores of people come in, strangers and all, and 
 go up-stairs, without asking for M'Douall, or 
 any one else? Strangers came in. And many 
 went up-stairs without asking for M'Douall or 
 any one else ? Scores of people, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— He did not 
 say that. Witness :— No, I did not say that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Did not many people 
 come in, and go backward and forward, up-stairs, 
 and every where ? Yes. I was not more than 
 tn’enty minutes in the house altogether ? From 
 twenty minutes to half an hour. You went for a 
 carriage to take him away ? Yes. Was not there 
 
119 
 
 a number of persons collected round the house 
 to take me away ? Yes. Now, sir, on your oath, 
 ciiJ not I tell the people to go away and disperse, 
 at once, in consequence of the state of Manches- 
 ter? I don't know; I was in the cellar then. 
 Are you not aware that a vast crowd was outside, 
 and that I went through your back premises and 
 got away from the crowd? Yes. While I was 
 up-stairs, after you came out of the cellar, did not 
 people from that crowd rush up-stairs to see me ? 
 — Did not they rush indiscriminately out of the 
 crowd for that purpose ? That I cannot say. 
 Was there a great rush up-stairs after you returned 
 from the cellar ? There was before. Was the 
 staircase crammed up ? I never saw it. Was 
 there any precaution given to you as to who yoii ' 
 should let in ? No. And I was there from | 
 twenty minutes to half an hour ? Yes. Now j 
 was it, or was it not four o’clock, or afterwards ? j 
 I cannot say as to the time. — It was about four • 
 o’clock? I should say three, or afterwards. ' 
 Three or afterw^ards. — And I w'as not there more j 
 than twenty minutes ? 
 
 CHRISTOPHER DOYLE I wish to ask | 
 
 him a few questions. | 
 
 The JUDGE :-Who is that ?-Mr. O’Connor : 
 — Christopher Doyle. j 
 
 The JUDGE I thought Doyle had counsel. : 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR No, my lord. I 
 
 Cross-examined by CHRISTOPHER DOYLE: 
 — You say your house is situated backward — re- 
 tired ? Yes. Is it not in Oldham -street ? One 
 part of it (the front) is in Oldham-street, but it 
 does not belong to us. Does not your vault face 
 Oldham-street ? The vault facing Oldham-street 
 is not connected with our house. You say you 
 saw me enter your house on the 16th of August ? 
 Yes. Now', is it anything remarkable to see me 
 enter your house ? No. Have not 1 been often 
 in your house before to take a social glass with 
 ray friends ? Yes. Then there is nothing re- 
 markable in going there that day ? No. Very 
 good, lad. 
 
 Cross-examined by the defendant M‘CART- 
 NEY : — What do you mean the Court to under- 
 stand, when you say that, although Oldham-street 
 is a public thoroughfare, there is no business 
 doing in it ? 
 
 The JUDGE ; — No ; he says “ little business.” 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Little business — compara- 
 tively little business. Do you mean to say that 
 it is not one of the most famous streets in Man- 
 chester for the sale and exposure of various 
 articles ? It is for the exposure, but not for thfc 
 sale. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What are those articles ex- 
 posed for ? They are exposed for sale, but there 
 
 is very little custom. A poor street you mear * 
 Yes, my Lord. 
 
 MACARTNEY : — Is not the magnitude t 
 I the business done in that street greater th*' 
 that done in any other street in Manchester, 
 Market-street excepted ? I am not aware of it. 
 Don’t you think that in the establishment of a 
 public-house you would prefer Oldham-street to 
 any other in town ? I would not, sir. But still 
 you are content to admit that it is one of the 
 greatest thoroughfares in Manchester ? Yes. 
 At all events, it is equal to any other place for 
 the exposure of goods ? Yes. There are sho])s 
 of all sorts in it, from one end to the other, or 
 nearly so ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by JAMES LEACH Did 
 you ever see me in your house ? Yes. Often ? 
 Yes. Three or four times a week ? Yes, and 
 sometimes more. You have often seen me there 
 since the 16th of August? Yes. My appear- 
 ance there on the 16th of August would be 
 nothing remarkable? No. I just sat down in 
 your “ Snug,” and went out again ? You went 
 backward and forward. Now this “ Snug” you 
 speak of, is it not the only place, in your house, 
 where men who wish to be quiet would go and 
 sit down ? There is a news-room. That is a 
 large room with a bagatelle board in it ? Yes. 
 It is a public news-room ? There is very little 
 news read in it. Sometimes it is filled with a 
 low description of people ? Yes. The news- 
 room and the bar too ? Yes. Therefore when 
 people come to your house, and wish to have 
 quiet conversation and a social glass, they go to 
 the “ Snug ? ” Yes. You have ahvays seen me, 
 previous to the 16th of August, going into the 
 “Snug?” Yes. And since the 16th I have 
 often been tlicre? Yes. You have never seen 
 me, in your house, in any other than respectable 
 and quiet company? Never. Generally con- 
 versing on subjects conducive to morality and 
 good behqviour? I don’t know, for I have not 
 been much in the room, but you have been al- 
 ways quiet and sociable. What has been the 
 opinion of your mother and sister, and the com- 
 pany there of my conduct? You were alw'ays 
 quiet and much respected, and esteemed by 
 them. And considered honourable in my pay- 
 ments? Yes. I used to come backward and 
 forward to the “ Snug ? ” Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. WORTLEY : — On the 
 day in question I understood you to say, that 
 Leach went up-stairs? Yes. Is the door of 
 your house in Whittle-street ? Y^a. That is a 
 
120 
 
 part of your bouse that branches into Oldham- 
 street? Yes. 
 
 AGNES MARY NOBLETT, examined by Sir 
 GREGORY LEWIN : — Are you the sister of the 
 last witness ? [Witness was affected to tears.] 
 Don’t be alarmed ; we shall not do anything to 
 disturb you. Do you know M'Douall ? Yes, 
 sir. Did you see him at your mother’s house 
 dh the 16th of August? I did. What day of 
 the week was that? Monday. About what 
 lime of tlie day did he come ? About ten 
 o’clock in the forenoon. Did he come alone ? 
 Yes, sir. I believe he did not stay a great 
 length of time ? No, sir. Did he come on the 
 following day ? Yes, sir. At what time ? Be- 
 tween twelve and one o’clock. • Was any one 
 with him ? lie came alone by himself. When 
 he came, was your mother in ? Yes, sir. Did 
 he ask her anything ? Yes. What was that ? 
 If he could have a room. What did your mother 
 say to that ? That the room was unsafe. Do 
 you know what she meant by that ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY ; — 0 dear, we will have a fact ! 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN It might be the 
 floor that was unsafe. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, we will have that. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :--Did she give any 
 reason why the room was unsafe ? No. What 
 did he say in reply to that ? He asked if he 
 might look at it. Was it up-stairs ? Yes. And 
 when he had looked at it, did he make any re- 
 mark ? He said it was safe. Did he say what 
 he wanted it for ? He said he wanted it for 
 about eighteen. Did he go aw'ay or remain ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — He said he wanted it for 
 about eighteen ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWlN Did he go away ? 
 Witness : — He remained. Did any others come ? 
 Yes. How soon ? Shortly after. Do you 
 know’ how many came — about ? I can’t tell the 
 number. Do you know' any by name ? Yes. 
 Just mention their names. Dr. M'Douall, 
 Campbell, Leach (James) 
 
 The JUDGE ; — The printer and bookseller ? 
 Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — Who else ? 
 M'Cartney and Doyle. Do you know a person 
 of the name of Bairstow ? Yes, he was up stairs. 
 Do you remember the names of any others ? No, 
 sir. When did Mr. O’Connor come ? ' In the 
 afternoon. Was his arrival noticed in any man- 
 ner ? He was cheered. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Cheered by whom ? By the 
 party following him. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN What room di.l 
 , he go to ? To the room named. When he had 
 gone up-stairs, do you remember your mother 
 doing anything ? Yes. What did she do ? She 
 went up-stairs and said the crowd must disperse. 
 On her making that wish of hers known, what 
 followed ? Some went down stairs to the door, 
 and wished the crowd to go away ; and the 
 crowd went away. Then what became of the 
 persons in the room up-stairs ? They went 
 away. Who remained up-stairs. Mr. O'Connor 
 and Dr. M’Douall, and others; but 1 do not re- 
 collect their names. Do you remember w'ho 
 addressed the mob, and told them that they 
 must go away ? Dr. M’Douall. Now, after the 
 mob had gone, how long did Mr. O’Connor and 
 the others remain ? Till the coach came for 
 them. There is a person of the name of Baron 
 lives next door to you ? Yes, in the next house 
 but one. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — How do you spell it ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN B-a-r-o-n. Which 
 way did O’Connor go out ? Through Baron’s 
 door. The back way through your house, and 
 on to his premises ? Yes, sir. Now, on the 
 Wednesday night (the 17th) did any of those 
 persons come to your house, who had been there 
 on the 16th? Yes. Who were they? Dr. 
 M’Douall and Campbell, Mr. M’Cartney, and 
 others that I don’t remember. Was it in the 
 evening they came ? Yes. What room did they 
 occupy ? The room called the “ Snug.” How 
 long did they remain ? I believe about an hour 
 to an hour and a half. Did they make any in- 
 quiry ? They went away a few minutes before 
 eleven o’clock. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY' : — I shall 
 ask one or two questions. Are you aware that 
 Mr. O'Connor is a gentleman rather popular 
 among the people of Manchester ? I heard his 
 name frequently. Have you not seen crowds of 
 people following him through the streets ? No. 
 Well, you would not know it. You heard a 
 question asked by M’Douall about the room 
 being unsafe ; allow me to ask, did the Doctor 
 ask ’’for eighteen” before your mother made 
 that answer, or was it a spontaneous answer of 
 her own ? The wall is cracked. Then am I to 
 understand that that was the cause ? He asked 
 for a room up-stairs, and she said it was unsafe, 
 and asked for how many it was, and he said 
 ” eighteen.” 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — How 
 long was I in your house altogether ? I should 
 
121 
 
 cay uQt better than half an hour. Wliwi I came 
 in, an immense number of people gathered round 
 me? Yes. These were the people that were 
 cheering me. Yes. The people outside ? Yes. 
 Did you see me coming in ? I saw you in the 
 room. Were there not people coming in indis- 
 criminately, and filling the room ? They were 
 not allowed to go into the room. Were you in 
 the room ? I was about. Did not your mother 
 come up and request that the people should be 
 dispersed ? — Who requested that they should be 
 dispersed ? My mother. Did not I, imme- 
 diately, send your brother for a coach, and ask 
 some one if there was not some way where I 
 might get out, besides through the front, that I 
 might go away ? My mother ordered my bro- 
 ther to go and fetch a coach. Were you in the 
 room while I was there ? I was. You were ! I 
 thought you said you were only about.— How 
 long did you remain in the room while I was 
 there ? A few minutes. Did your mother come 
 into the room while I w'as there ? She did. 
 How long did she remain there ? I cannot say. 
 How long do you think ? I can’t say how long. 
 Did you miss your mother away? A few 
 minutes. Did she tell you she had been up to 
 see me ? I knew she was up. While I was 
 there, you and your mother, some of the family, 
 and strangers, were coming up. About what 
 hour did I arrive at your house ? About two 
 o’dnck. Did you hear me telling the people for 
 God’s sake to go aw'ay, or I w’ould leave Man- 
 cliestcr altogether ? I did not. At what time 
 on the Wednesday was it you saw M'Gartney, 
 Doyle, and others, come to your house ? Tell 
 the hour as near as possible ? Between nine and 
 ten o’clock. They remained there, you say, 
 about an hour and a half? Yes; Campbell went 
 away, and the others remained there an hour and 
 a half. How far is it from your house to Every- 
 street ? Don’t you know it is a great distance ? 
 
 I don’t know. I don’t want to puzzle you, Miss 
 Noblett ; I want to come at the facts. Do you 
 know that it is above a mile ? — Is it not a good 
 way off — in the other part of the town altoge- 
 ther ? 
 
 The JUDGE; — Is it a long way off? It is. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — And M'Douall, Leach, 
 and others were there betw een 9 and 10 o’clock, 
 and remained there an hour and a half? Leach 
 was not. 
 
 Cross-examined by JAMES LEACH : — Do 
 you remember Saturday, the 13th of August ? 
 Yes. Who was in your “ Snug ” on that day ? 
 you were. At what time ? Between 8 and 0 
 
 o’clock. What time did I leave your house ? 
 At a quarter to eleven O’clock. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Does any other defendant 
 wish to ask a question ? 
 
 JAMES CARTLEDGE, examined by the AT- 
 TORNEY-GENERAL : — Where do you live now, 
 sir ? At Manchester. Now, Cartledge, speak 
 as loud as you can that the people over there 
 [pointing to the Jury box] may hear you. How 
 long have you lived at Manchester ? About 20 
 years. And what has been your business ? I 
 have worked in a factory part of the time, and 
 I have been a schoolmaster. Now, in the be- 
 ginning of the month of August, in last year, 
 were you yourself a member of the Chartist 
 body ? Yes, sir. W'ere there any persons who 
 called themselves the “ Executive Committee ” ? 
 Yes, sir. Who were they ? James Leach, of 
 Manchester, John Bairstow, John Campbell, 
 Peter Murray M'Douall, and Morgan Williams. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY “ Morgan Ratler.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL;— On Sunday, 
 the 7th of August, did you attend a meeting at 
 Oldham ? Yes, sir. Was that what is called a 
 Chartist meeting, or what was it? Yes, sir, 
 a Chartist meeting. Was it held in the open 
 air or in a room — w'hat sort of a meeting do you 
 call that ? — Does it go by any name ? By no 
 name ; it was a regular Chartist-lecture meeting. 
 Well, W'ere you the lecturer at that time ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR; — At this stage of the pro- 
 ceedings I wish to remind your Lordship, that 
 this man is in the indictment. 
 
 . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Is that true, 
 my Lord ? I thought there was a nolle prosequi 
 entered. 
 
 The PROTHONOTARY No. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Well, it was 
 ordered. I am much obliged to Mr. O’Connor 
 for reminding me of it. I certainly, my Lord, 
 had given directions for a nolle prosequi to be 
 entered. 
 
 .Mr, MURPHY : — Cartledge is in the indict 
 raent. 
 
 Mr. PART examined the indictment, and said 
 the nolle prosequi had not been entered. . 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, having entered 
 the nolle prosequi, said : — As my hand is in — 1 will 
 now do the same for Wm. Scholefield, John 
 Wilde, and Thomas Pitt. It is done. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — My Lord, I am not quite 
 aware of the practice in this matter, but I think 
 the evidence of this witness is inadmissible. I 
 remember a case of this kind which occurred be- 
 fore Mr. Baron Holland, and which was after- 
 
wards considered by the Judges in London ; j 
 where a question arose, whether a person, against | 
 whom a bill had been found, could be received j 
 as a witness against others accused of the same } 
 offence. He was in the bill sent before the j 
 Grand Jury, and the bill having been found he | 
 was deemed an incompetent witness. j 
 
 The JUDGE : — That might have been a ques- j 
 tion, but this is a different one. A nolle prosequi ■ 
 having been entered here, the question is, does 
 not the witness become competent ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I mention this objection 
 now in order that, if anything should arise out of 
 it afterwards, the defendants may not lose the ! 
 advantage of it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, 
 nothing is more common, if the Attorney-General 
 be absent, than to take an acquittal. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A nolle prosequi is as good to 
 the party as an acquittal. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS But, my Lord, you will not 
 allow him to be acquitted till the end. 
 
 The JUDGE I will do so now. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — But my learned friend has 
 taken a step in advance. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Nothing 
 is more common than to apply to the Attorney- 
 General, at the sitting of the court, for a nolle 
 prosequi, w here one of the defendants is a neces- 
 sary witness. 
 
 The JUDGE -.--There is no doubt about it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — As an 
 objection has been taken, perhaps we may as well 
 be regular. Perhaps you wdll allow the witness 
 to be sworn. 
 
 The JUDGE -.—Certainly. 
 
 JAMES CARTLEDGE was again sworn. 
 
 The JUDGE I have taken a note of the 
 objection of the defendants to have the witness 
 examined, on the ground that he is in the indict- 
 ment — that the Attorney-General entered a nolle 
 prosequi with his own hand to discharge him from 
 the indictment, the defendants still objecting. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I may just observe, that in 
 the case of the King against Perceval, Lewis's 
 Crim. Cases, vol. 1, page 151. — The Judge, Mr. 
 Baron Bolland, in a similar case, sent back the 
 bill to the Grand Jury to amend it. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— In that case the 
 Grand Jury intimated that their intention was to 
 throw out the bill as against that individual. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — In the case of the King j 
 and Perceval, application had been made for I 
 Perceval to go before the Grand Jui*y as a witness } 
 against his confederates, but, by an inadvertence, I 
 his name was inserted previously, and w^as not j 
 erased from the bill before it was sent before the j 
 Grand Jury. They returned a true bill against j 
 
 all, including Perceval. Application having been 
 made to Baron Bolland to admit him as a witness, 
 and he objected to alter the bill. He said it must 
 stand as delivered to the Grand Jury, and the 
 witne s was held incompetent. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is entirely a different 
 thing. The bill there was found on the evidence 
 of that person alone against himself. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — But here is a case of a bill 
 being found against a person, and nothing is done 
 before the trial to render him competent as a 
 w’itness. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think there is no analogy 
 whatever in this case, and that of the King 
 against Perceval. In the latter, the question was 
 whether the bill was a good one, but here there 
 there is no dispute of the kind. Suppose A. and 
 jB. are indicted, and a bill is found against both, 
 I don’t see why B. might not afterwards be a 
 witness. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— I believe, 
 my Lord, in point of law, (although it is usual 
 to gain an acquittal, or enter a nolle prosequi 
 before trial, for the purpose of preventing even 
 the supposition that the witness labours under 
 any infirmity arising from a motive of that sort,) 
 he is perfectly competent as a witness. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think the point is quite 
 clear when the nolle prosequi is entered. I shall 
 now' read over the evidence w^hich he has already 
 given, and ask him to swear to it again. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY applied for and was handed 
 the indictment, in order that he might look at 
 the names of those on whose behalf a nolle pro- 
 sequi had been entered. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed the 
 examination : — Were any of the defendants pre- 
 sent at that meeting ? No, sir. Where did you 
 go to on the following day .^— On Monday, the 
 8th of August ? To Eccles, near Manchester. 
 Do you know Morrison ? Yes. Was he there ? 
 Yes. WTiat is his Christian name ? David, I 
 believe. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is he a defendant ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Yes, my Lord. 
 Was that meeting in the room, or in the open 
 air ? In a room. Did you there learn about the 
 strike of the workmen ? I heard it named. 
 Where did you go to from Eccles? To Man- 
 chester. You came liack to Manchester. Were 
 you at Manchester when the mob entered, on 
 Tuesday the 9th ? Now, I ask you nothing about 
 the proceedings in Manchester on Tuesday and 
 Wednesday, but on Thursday moraing. Did you 
 attend any meeting in or near Manchester on 
 Thursday the 11th? Yes. At what o’clock? 
 Six in the morning. Where was that? In a 
 place called Granby-rovv-liclds. I believe the 
 
magistrates interfered, and dispersed the meet- 
 ing ? Yes. Now, I believe you went from there 
 to some other part of Manchester? I went to 
 Carpenters'^ Hall. Were any of the defendants 
 at that meeting ? Brophy. What is his Chris- 
 tian name ? I cannot say. His signatures are, 
 generally, P. M. Brophy. Was he the only one 
 of the defendants that you know to have been 
 there ? I don’t remember any other. At that 
 meeting, was any resolution come to in connec- 
 tion with the state of the disturbances that ex- 
 isted at that time? A resolution was passed 
 for the five iron trades of Manchester to cease 
 work till the Charter had become the law of the 
 land. What do you mean by the five iron 
 trades? Five different branches of the iron 
 trade ; — Moulders, Smiths, Filers, Turners, and 
 another, which I don’t remember. On Sunday, 
 the 14th, did you attend a meeting at Mottrara 
 Moor? Yes. Was that in the open air? Yes. 
 How many persons attended ? Several hun- 
 dreds. On Tuesday, the 16th, were you in the 
 shop of Heywood, a printer ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY What is that ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — On Tuesday, the ICth, he was 
 in the shop of Heywood, a printer. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Where was 
 that ? Witness : — In Oldham-street. How far 
 is that from Noblett’s ? Not far. Did Heywood 
 put anything into your hands ? A roll of paper, 
 accompanied by a note ? 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Is Heywood a defendant ? No, 
 m 3 ’ Lord ? Did he desire jmu to take it to any 
 one ? To Dr. M'Douall. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is, Peter 
 Murray M'Douall? Yes, Sir. Did he tell you 
 where he (M‘Douall) was? He said I should 
 find him at James Leach’s. Did you go to 
 Leach’s ? Yes. Who did you see there ? The 
 shop was full at the time. I sent for M‘Douall, 
 and he came down stairs to see me. Where did 
 he come from ? From up-stairs. What passed 
 l>etween you and M‘Douall? I gave him the 
 roll of paper and the note, and told him the note 
 would explain to him what it was. Did he re- 
 main with you, or go away ? He went up-stairs. 
 And how long did he stay? A few minutes. 
 He came down again. What did he do, or say ? 
 He brought down the same roll of paper, and 
 presented it to me ; and told me to get it printed 
 at all hazards. Did he say anything else — who 
 it was for, or anything of that sort ? No, he did 
 not say for whom it was. Now, did you open 
 the paper? Yes. Did you know what after- 
 
 wards became of that paper — whether it is in 
 existence or not? I believe it to be burned. 
 Why ? Because P. M. M'Douall told me so on 
 the night of the 17th. 
 
 Mr. DUND AS : — I have looked for a moment 
 more at the point which I submitted to your 
 Lordship, and 1 submit still, that the witness is 
 not a good w itness, by reason of his having been 
 put upon his trial with the other defendants 
 before the slightest intimation was given from the 
 Attorney-General of his intention to enter a nolle 
 prosequi. In the 2nd “ Russell on Crimes,” p. 
 597, it is laid down that not only if two or more 
 persons are accomplices, may one who is not 
 indicted be a witness against the others ; but he 
 may also be so, it seems, when he is indicted 
 jointly with his partners in guilt, although it is 
 not usual or proper to include them in the in- 
 dictment, he has not been put upon his 
 
 trial at the same time with the others. And 
 there is quoted for authority the case of the 
 “ King V. Rowland and others,” before the Lord 
 Chief Justice Abbott, on an indictmeift for con- 
 spiracy, on which theLord Chief Justice held, that 
 the counsel for the prosecution had a right, before 
 opening his case, to call for the acquittal of any of 
 the defendants he intended calling as a witness, 
 if he had not previously entered a nolle prosequi. 
 Here we have quite a different state of things. 
 The Attoi'ney- General did notente^ a nolle pro- 
 sequi till after the defendant was put upon his 
 trial with others, and the rule of law is, that, if he 
 stand indicted with others as defendant, and put 
 upon his trial with others, he cannot be called as 
 a witness. I call your Lordship’s serious atten- 
 tion to the case which has been decided. I am 
 quite sure your Lordship was not till this moment 
 aware that this defendant was intended to be 
 placed in a different situation from any other de- 
 fendants. It appears to me this is decisive of 
 the point. I submit to your Lordship that he is 
 incompetent. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY:— In “Phillips on Evi- 
 dence,” p. 57, it is laid down that on a prosecu- 
 tion by the Crown, a nolle prosequi be entered 
 by the Attorney-General, either before or at the 
 trial, in order that the particular defendant may 
 be called as a witness, 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS It does not appear there 
 that the defendants were put on trial. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:-In 2nd Starkie 
 it is laid down that an accomplice is a competent 
 witness, provided he is not put upon his trial 
 with the others. I have frequently, my Lord, 
 seen it in practice at York, that, where persons 
 were indicted together, applications have been 
 made that they might be tried separately, in 
 order that one might be a witness against another.- 
 
124 
 
 And 1 remember Mr. Justice Holroyd, where 
 two persons were indicted together, allow'ed after 
 the conviction and before judgment, one to be 
 examined as a witness in favour of the other. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — That is the difficulty in our 
 case, precisely, and if his Lordship gets it in his 
 notes it will be enough. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, 
 I am much obliged to my learned friends on the 
 other side for guarding the prosecution against 
 the trouble of a new trial, to which, no doubt the 
 
 vriiere the testimony of an accomplice is required, 
 is to prove the case before the Grand Jury, and 
 the counsel for the prosecution is to move, that 
 he be allowed to go before the Grand Jury, pledg- 
 ing his own opinion, after a perusal of the facts of 
 the case, that his testimony is essential.— Where 
 the accomplice has been joined in the indictment, 
 and before the case comes on, it appears that his 
 evidence will be required ; the usual practice is, 
 before opening the case, to apply to have the 
 accomplice acquitted, where the case has pro- 
 
 defendants would be entitled if this man is not j ceeded against all the prisoners; but if no evi- 
 a competent witness. But 1 consider that the j dence appears against one of them, the Court 
 ends of public jirstice require that 1 should ex- j will, in its discretion, upon the application of 
 
 amine him. I may, however, insist on examining 
 him, for, I believe, in point of law, I am entitled 
 to do so. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR r — My Lord, I have another 
 objection to take. It is necessary that the At- 
 
 the prosecutor, order that one to be acquitted 
 for the purpose of giving evidence against the rest. 
 But the Judges w ill not, in general, admit an 
 accomplice, although applied to for that purpose 
 by the counsel for the prosecution, if it appears 
 
 tomey-General should enter the nolle prosequi | that he is charged with any other felony than that 
 
 on the record. Now, this record having been 
 removed by certiorari to the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench, it is necessary that the Attorney-General 
 should have the record here in order to enter the 
 nolle prosequi. 
 
 on the trial of which he is to be a witness. Where 
 j the defendants w-ere indicted for a conspiracy to 
 persuade a witness to absent himself from the 
 I trial of a person charged with uttering base 
 i money, the Attorney-General entered a nolle 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — The record \ prosequi as to two of the defendants. “ who were 
 
 came here by and must, necessarily, be [ then examined for the Crown, and on their 
 
 before your Lordship. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Of course it is for all 
 available purposes, but the question is, — can the 
 Attorney-General alter the record, and on so 
 vital a point I 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — ! would 
 beg, my Lord, to read from “ Roscoe’s Criminal 
 
 evidence the others were convicted.” It there- 
 fore appears to me, my Lord, it is quite competent 
 for me to ask your Lordship to direct the Jury 
 to acquit the witness, or I may, on behalf of the 
 Crow'n, exercise the power of entering a nolle 
 prosequi. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — This does not at all effect 
 
 Evidence,” p. 141, the following passage : — ” The j the point raised, namely, that the record has, 
 evidence of persons who have been accomplices in ; been removed by certioray'i. 
 
 the commission of a crime wdth which the prisoner 
 stiuids charged is in general admissible against 
 him. This rule has been stated to be founded 
 on necessity 
 
 mitted it would frequently be impossible to find 
 evidence to convict the greatest offenders, hlven 
 where the accomplice has been joined in the same 
 indictment with the prisoner he may still be called 
 us a witness before he is convicted. Jt is .said that 
 un accomplice indicted with another, is an admis- 
 sible evidence, if he be not put upon /tis trial.'” 
 Tiiis is in Italic.^:, my Lord. “In strictness. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON: — The view which Mr. 
 
 O’Connor has taken, my Lord, appears to me to 
 
 be the correct one ; and I heg again to submit 
 
 since, if accomplices were not ad- | objection raised by him, to the consideratio.i 
 
 Id frequentlv be impossible to find : r r i i • » • ..i • i. i. 
 
 I of your Lordship. Assuming this to be an or- 
 
 : diiiaiw case of indictment, and not one removed 
 
 by certiorari, still a nolle prosequi could not 1)2 
 
 entered oii this record, for this record is not the 
 
 i real indictment ; this record is not the informa- 
 
 I tioii returned by the Grand Jury, hut a transcript 
 
 ' sent down by mittimus, as appears on the face 
 
 ho vvever, there does not seem to be any objection of the record itself. The entry of a nolle prosequi 
 to the admitting the witness at any time before ’ is taking the judgment of the Court with respect 
 
 conviction. “4Tio party that is the w'itness,” says to a particular defendant — let no further pro 
 
 Lord Hale, is never indicted because that ceedings be taken. Your Lordship is sitting now 
 much ueakci.s end disparages his testimimv, but ; ,,, jliis is a civil action- 
 
 possibly does not wholly take away his testimony. ' ... , 
 
 It 13 not a matter of course to admit an accom- ! _ 
 
 plice to give evidence on the trial, even though ! AITORNEY-GENERAL : I beg to say 
 
 his testimony bus been received by the commit- ; I frequently, as Attorney. Genera I, 
 
 ting magistrates, but on application to the Court ! signed a parchment for a nolle prosequi, but, 
 f-.ir the pttrpose, he may bc admitted the practice, . inlil this occasion, I never entered it on th iu- 
 
15 ^ 
 
 dictment itself, but always on a little paper 
 banded to the officer of the court. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — It must be a part of the 
 record, and the entry »f it now alters the record. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I will now state my opinion. 
 In the first place, 1 conceive that the Attorney- 
 General may, in omne teinpori, et in omne loco, 
 enter a nolle prosequi. There can he no prose- 
 cution going on against any person, at the suit of 
 the Crown, in which it is not the privilege of the 
 Attorney-General, at any time, to enter a 7iolle 
 prosequi. I confess I have a strong feeling, that 
 in an indictment for misdemeanor, at all events, 
 the mere circumstance of his being a defendant 
 would not incapacitate a person from being a 
 witness ; but, I think the Attorney- General can 
 at any time, before the verdict is given, enter a 
 nolle prosequi for him, and thus put him in the 
 same situation as if he never were a defendant. 
 However, as it has been objected that this record 
 has been removed by certiorari to the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench, I would suggest, as the most 
 convenient thing (the Attorney-General may take 
 his own course), instead of entering a nolle pro- 
 sequi, to take an acquittal. And it may be essen- 
 tial to the interests of the other defendants to 
 have the party acquitted. There can be no 
 possible law that a man can be a more competent 
 witness for one side than the other. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have no de- 
 sire to struggle for any point of law. I submit, 
 my Lord. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — I submit, my Lord, that you 
 will not permit the Attorney-General to take an 
 acquittal at this period. 
 
 The JUDGE We cannot do it again. I j 
 shall take it now as a tabula rasa — as if nothing 
 had been said. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — In the ordinary state of 
 filings I believe it is the rule, that the co-conspi- 
 rator is not acquitted till the end of the case. 
 
 The JUDGh : — I do not see how any conspi- 
 rator can object to his co-conspirator being 
 acquitted. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I submit to your Lordship 
 tliat no co-conspirator can be acquitted. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I submit that no co-defendant 
 can be heard. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Suppose the Attorney. 
 General offers no evidence against Cartledge 1 
 
 The JUDGE : — If the Attorney-General offers 
 no evidence against him, I think it very hard if 
 lie do not take an acquittal. We will take the 
 others in llie '-ainewa} : — Wilde and ^^choleficld. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — The grounds on which the 
 Attorney-General allowed Wilde to be acquitted 
 was this ; that nothing w’as found against him. 
 Now, my Lord, other witnesses do, in their de- 
 positions, charge Cartledge. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The Attorney-General is not 
 going to offer any evidence against Cartledge, 
 Wilde, Scholefield, jun., or Pitt, and he wishes 
 them to be acquitted, There are four of them 
 against whom he offers no evidence. 
 
 The JURY' then, by the directions of the Court, 
 acquitted James Cartledge, William Scholefield, 
 John Wilde, and Thomas Pitt. 
 
 CARTLEDGE was then re-sworn. 
 
 The JUDGE: — What you have stated before,, 
 is it correct ? I need not read it over to you 
 again. Yes, my Lord, it is. 
 
 The JUDGE : — As this may he important, 1' 
 shall let the parties know the note I have taken : 
 “ The objection was renewed, and it vvas' 
 suggested further, that as the Attorney-General 
 had not entered a nolle prosequi before the de- 
 fendants were put upon their trial, the witnesr 
 was incompetent. I considered the objecfioii 
 unfounded, and to prevent any further difficulty, 
 I directed an acquittal against Cartledge, Wilde, 
 Pitt, and Scholefield, and allowed the compe- 
 tency of Cartledge to give evidence.” [Ilis 
 Lordship then read over the notes he had 
 taken of Cartledge’s evidence, up to the time the 
 objection was made, and Cartledge again alleged 
 that they were true.] 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Where did 
 you see it last ? In Turner’s, the printer’s. 
 In whose handwriting was it? In P. M. 
 M‘DoualPs. You say you took it to Turner’s, 
 the printer’s ? Yes. How soon? Immediately. 
 
 The JUDGE : — This was on the 1,6th ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — What time 
 did you take it to Turner’s, the printer’s. As 
 near ten o’clock as I can remember, on the 
 merning of the 16ib. Did any person go with 
 you ? Yes. Who ? Edward Clarke and a per- 
 son named Johnson. Did you put it into Tur- 
 ner’s hands? Yes. Did you tell Turner who it 
 was to be printed for? For the “Executive 
 Committee.” Did you refer Turner to any one? 
 To Mr. Leach. You say Clarke and Johnson 
 were with you ? Yes. Were they Chartists ? 
 Yes. How many of the placards did you order ? 
 Three hundred. 
 
 The JUDGE :— To be printed from that pa- 
 per ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 
 Where did 
 
126 
 
 you after go to yourself? I returned to 
 Leach’s. While you were there, did any person 
 come from Turnei-’s about the printing of these 
 placards? One of Turner’s apprentices came to 
 ask him as to some words that- he could not 
 read. Did any one explain them to hin» ? 
 M'Douall eame down and explained them to him. 
 
 The JUDGE : — This was on the IGth? Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENEKAL:— Did M‘Douall 
 give the boy any directions ? He told him to 
 take it and make the best of it he eould, and 
 bring it to him for correction. Now, while you 
 were there, before you went away, did any per- 
 son come down-stairs from the room above ? 
 John Campbell and Bairstow came down 
 from the room where j\rDouall was. Before 
 Campbell went away, did he make any commu- 
 nication to you about a person named Cooper ? 
 Yes. What did he say ? He stated that Cooper 
 had arrived from the Potteries, and that the peo- 
 ple there were burning all before them. Did be 
 say what it was about ? That they were all de- 
 termined to strike for the Charter. Did you 
 again go to Turner’s on the subject of the print- 
 ing of that roll ? Y’es. Well, did you get it 
 that day ? I did not get any myself that day. 
 Did you know anything about a proof-sheet be- 
 ing sent ? Mr. Turner told me. Don’t tell us 
 what Turner told you, but just look at it, and 
 tell me whether you can’t speak to M'Douall’s 
 handwriting ? [The proof-sheet of the “ Execu- 
 tive Placard ” was then handed to witness, and 
 I'.aving examined the marginal corrections, he 
 said, “This is M‘Douairs handwriting.”] You 
 are acquainted with bis handwriting ? I am, 
 sir. The following morning did you go to 
 Leach’s shop? I did. That was Wednesday 
 the 17th ? Yes. Did you see any of the defend- 
 ants there ? Yes. Do you remember who were 
 there? Yes; Julian Harney, of Sheffield, Mr. 
 Parkes, Rev. Wm. Hill, Bairstow’, and Leach. 
 Did you mention Bairstow ? Yes. Which 
 Leach was that? James Leach, of Manchester. 
 Did any body send you anywhere ? The Rev. 
 Wm. Hill sent me to procure a placard. What 
 placard w’as that ? One that had been issued by 
 the trades of Manchester. Should you know 
 the placard if you were to see it [handipg the 
 “ Liberty Placard ” to witness] ? 1 believe this 
 
 to be the same ; I got one similar to this, and 
 I gave it to Hill. Did you learn from any body 
 the time or place when any conference was to be 
 held ? Bairstow told me it w as to be held im- 
 
 mediately. What ? The conference. What 
 conference ? One that had been called by the 
 “ Executive Committee.” Where was it to be 
 holden ? At Mr. Scholefield’s chapel. Upon 
 that, did you go anywhere, with whom did you 
 go, and where did you go to ? I went with 
 Bairstow to Mr. Scholefield’s chapel ? Now, on 
 the way, had you any conversation with Bair- 
 stow, about any placard? Yes; he stated that, if 
 the Government did not arrest the “ Executive 
 Committee ” within forty-eight hours, they dare 
 not do it, on account of the agitation of the 
 country. Now, what placard was he speaking 
 of ? The one called the “ Executive Placard” — 
 address of the Executive Committee. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I heard nothing of a placard. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL His answer 
 did not mention it, but my question was this — 
 Had you any conversation about a placard as you 
 were walking along, and he did not answer, but 
 said, he (that is, Bairstow) stated, that, if the 
 Government did not arrest the Executive Com- 
 mittee within forty-eight hours, they dare not do 
 it, on account of the agitation of the country. 
 Now, had you any conversation about a placard ? 
 Y’'es; he stated that the placard was a spirited 
 one; that Mr. O’Connor, and some others, ob- 
 jected to the wording of it ; and then he added, 
 that, if the Government did not arrest the Execu- 
 tive Committee within forty-eight hours, they 
 dare not do it. Did he say when it was that the 
 objection was made by Mr. O’Connor ? I under- 
 stood him to say that it was on the previous even- 
 ing. Now, to complete — from what passed on 
 that occasion, have you any doubt that it w’as the 
 “ Executive Placard ?” 
 
 IMr. DUNDAS That is as strong a question 
 as ever I heard. It is a driving question. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY — That is a nolle prosequi ! 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Well, what 
 placard was it? Witness: — The “ Executive 
 Placard.” 
 
 The JUDGE :— How do you know? Wit- 
 ness : — Because we were talking about it, and I 
 was at the printer’s with it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— You have 
 been at Turner’s with it. Well, you got at last 
 to Scholefield’s, and how did you get in there? 
 
 The JUDGE :— You and Bairstow ? Witness: 
 — ^Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— How did 
 you get in ?— Did they let in anybody } — ^Was 
 there anything required ? I did not see anything 
 required. Was there anything to identify you ? 
 When w’e got into the chapel, near the pulpit, the 
 secretary was appointed to receive the credentials 
 of those who came as raeinbers of the confer- 
 
ence. Were you there early — before the business 
 began, or after the business commenced ? After. 
 The business had commenced, I believe, when 
 you went in. xVbout how many persons were 
 there ? Near 30 at the time I entered. Did any 
 others come in afterwards ? Yes. Well, now, 
 v/ill you tell us who were there ? — Who do you 
 recollect ? A gentleman of the name of Arthur 
 was in the chair. What is his Christian name 
 I don’t know. Did you learn from him, or from 
 anything that occurred in his presence, where he 
 came from ? He came from Carlisle. ^ 
 
 The JUDGE He said so, did he? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Who, also, 
 were present ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Mr. Hill, Mr. Beesley, 
 Mr. Harney, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Otley, James 
 Leach, of Manchester, John Leach, of Hyde, 
 Thomas Railton, David Morris, Arran, of 
 Bradford, Thomas Cooper, from Leicester, 
 Fletcher 
 
 The JUDGE : — These are all defendants ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY - G ENEIIAL : — Except 
 Bradford. 
 
 WITNESS : — And a young man of the name 
 of Ramsden, and Hoyle. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - G ENE R AL : — Was 
 M'Douall there ? Yes^, — John Campbell, Bernard 
 iSrCartney, Norman. Was Skevington there ? 
 Yes. Was anybody of the name of Brooks 
 there ? Yes ; he came from Todmorden, I believe. 
 Do you know his Christian name ? I don’t. Is it 
 Brook or Brooks ? Brooks. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Brooks— with an s ? Yes, I 
 believe. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : - Do you 
 know Mooney ? Yes. Where does he come from, 
 do you know ? He comes from Colne. I believe 
 there was some accomodation wanted ? Yes, sir, 
 a table was wanted for the use of the chairman. 
 Did you get it ? I was solicited to go to Mr. 
 Scholefield, to ask the loan of one. Did you 
 apply to him for it? I did so. Is there any com- 
 munication between the chapel and his house ? 
 Yes, sir, I went through the yard to the surgery 
 door. Is Scholefield also a surgeon ? An apothe- 
 cary. You went to the surgery door. — Well, 
 did you get the table ? Mr. Scholefield promised 
 to take one to the chapel. Did he give you any 
 message to the delegates ? Yes, sir. What ? He 
 reriuestcd me to tell them not to come so publicly. 
 Did he mention any reason for that ? He said 
 certain persons had watched Mr. Harney and 
 Mr. Pc.rkes, and were then w'atching the 
 door. Did . the delegates all come in at one 
 entrance. I cannot speak to that. Did Schole- j 
 field say anything more ? Yes, he requested me ! 
 to send two men away who were sitting on j 
 the steps opposite his gates. Did you do so ? i 
 
 1 I did. Did the men go away ? They did. 
 Do you know a person of the name of Griffin .’ 
 I do. Did he come to the meeting ? He did. 
 ' Upon his coming in was anything said by any- 
 body ? Remarks were made by several delegates, 
 and amongst the rest M‘Douall stated, that if 
 the speeches, which there passed, were to be pub- 
 lished, he for one should 1)6 silent. Was Griffin 
 one of the delegates or a Chartist ? I put the 
 question myself, through th.e chairman, in what 
 capacity he (Griffin') had come there, and the 
 answer was, that he came there as a reporter ; 
 then M'Douall said, if the speeches wxre to be 
 published, he for one would be silent. Had he 
 (Griffin) a note hook ? He had. Did any one 
 say anything in favour of his remaining there and 
 taking notes ? Yes, sir, Mr. O’Connor. Well, 
 did he remain there ? He did. For the whole 
 time ? To the best of my knowledge, he was 
 there for the whole time. And did he take notes ? 
 I saw him writing. Then was there any speak- 
 ing ? Yes. What did the delegates do then ? 
 A resolution was moved, that the speeches should 
 not be published — nothing but the resolutions. 
 Was there any resolution proposed? Yes, sir. 
 By whom ? By Mr. Bairstow. What was the 
 effect of that resolution ? The purport of it was, 
 to continue the pi'esent “ strike.” Was the ob- 
 ject of their doing that mentioned ? — Tell us 
 what the resolution was about?— Was there any- 
 thing more in the resolution ? — Was it a resolu- 
 tion or a speech ? No, a resolution ; and, as 
 far as I remember, it went to lay the blame 
 on the Anti-corn-law League, Bairstow stated. 
 Do you remember anything that Bairstow 
 said, when he proposed the resolution ? He 
 stated, that the favourable irapres.sion made on 
 his mind, by the reports given by the various 
 delegates, caused him to propose that reso- 
 lution to the meeting ; and that it was the 
 duty of every Chartist to throw his influence 
 into the scale. Who seconded the resolution ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Do you remember any- 
 thing he said ? He stated that it was the duty 
 of the Chartists to take advantage of passing 
 events. Not that he anticipated so much from 
 the present strike, but after we had expended 
 so much money and time in inducing the trades 
 to join us, w'e could never get them to join again 
 unless we passed some such resolution. Do you 
 I remember if Cooper spoke ? He supported the 
 I resolution. What did lie say ? lie stated that 
 : the Shakes])cariau Chartists of Leicester w(!rc 
 1 determined to have the Charter. What do you 
 
128 
 
 . Jpean l)y the Shakespearian Chartists ? I under- 
 stood it to he a body of Chartists in Leicester, 
 of which he is the General ; he calls them the 
 Shakespearian Brigade. Did he say anything 
 more ? He said he had been at various places, 
 and enumerated Bilston and the Potteries. The 
 people of that district were determined to have 
 the Charter, and for his part, he was prepared 
 to fight for the liberties of the people. Did 
 they all speak } Most of them. Some, I suppose, 
 opposed the resolution ? Yes, sir, Mr. Hill op- 
 posed it. — Harney opposed it. Was there any 
 amendment moved ? Mr. Hill moved an amend- 
 ment. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are speaking of the reso- 
 lution that they might continue the present 
 strike ? Y'es, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you see 
 an account in the Northern Star of the 20th of 
 •Vugust t — Did you read an account which was 
 there given of the meeting of delegates ? — And 
 as far as it goes is that correct ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I object to that, my Lord ; 
 he may ask the witness qneation by question if 
 he likes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-At all events, 
 as against Mr. O'Connor, having read lus news- 
 paper, I have a right to ask whether that is 
 correct. 
 
 The JUDGE : — As against Mr. O’Connor it 
 should be rather, that he made such a state- 
 ment. ' 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL [To Witness] 
 — Well, is that statement true 'i Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think that is evidence more 
 against Mr. O’Connor than anybody else. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 am most anxious to avoid every possible objec- 
 tion. — [To Witness] — Do you remember what 
 Hill said when he moved the amendment? He 
 summed up the speech of every man, and went 
 on to show, or did rather, that the report given 
 in by the delegates did not justify the passing of 
 such a resolution. Do you recollect anything 
 said by M‘Douall ? M‘Douall supported the 
 original resolution, and said, that after the 
 spirited placard that had been sent out by the 
 Executive Committee, he could do no less than 
 support the original resolution ; more especially 
 on account of the good sense displayed by some 
 of the trades, in taking their money out of the 
 Savings’ Banks. He referred to a placard that 
 had been posted on the walls of the town of 
 IMatichcster, “Run for gold;” and said that w^e 
 
 I inside did not know ^\•hat was passing outside ; 
 j that orders had come down from Sir James 
 ; Graham to the mill-owners, to get their work- 
 I people in at any price. He believed, that some- 
 I thing was “ up” on the Continent, and that, by 
 taking advantage of it, the Charter would soon 
 I become the law of the land. Was Scholefield in 
 ! during any part of these transactions ? I saw 
 him in the chapel several times. Do you re- 
 member at last, his making some communication 
 to the chairman ? I saw' him communicate some- 
 thing to the chairman, wdio then declared that 
 Turner, the printer, had been arrested. That 
 was Turner who printed the Executive Address ? 
 Yes. And hearing that, did O’Connor make 
 any other remark ? Yes, he stated, 
 
 The JUDGE : — After the chairman said Tur- 
 ner was arrested ? Yes. And what did Mr. 
 O’Connor say ? He stated that that justified 
 the remark that he made last night, and added 
 something to the purpose, that it was better to 
 avoid such things w’hen they could. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL ; — Did 
 j M'Douall say anything to that. Y'es, he rose, and 
 said it was true that Turner was arrested, but not 
 for printing the placard, — it was for refusing a 
 copy of it to the authorities. About what time 
 did the meeting break up. We adjourned in the 
 afternoon, near four o’clock. Now, this w'as the 
 17th. When was it that M'Douall told you 
 about burning the manuscript ? About seven 
 o’clock in the evening. Now, I want to know 
 when was it, and where w'as it, that M'Douall 
 told you about the manuscript? It was in the 
 evening. Was any body with you ? John Camp- 
 bell, James Leach, Bairstow, and Doyle. YYas 
 Doyle at the meeting of delegates ? Y''es. How 
 came M'Douall to tell you anything about it ? 
 We retired from the meeting l:o consult about 
 our own safety. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Those that you mention,— 
 Campbell, Leach, Doyle, Bairstow, M'Douall, 
 and yourself? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL i-Y'ou say 
 that you retired to consult about your own 
 safety. Yes, as we heard that the officers had 
 been at Mr. Leach’s house. Where was it you 
 met, or where had you been together? We 
 retired to the Bull’s Head, Holt-town, at the 
 Reservoir banks. Did the conference ever meet 
 again to your knowledge ? Not after that, but 
 we met after the adjournment. This meeting 
 was after the breaking up of the conference alto- 
 gether. Did you attend any meeting of the 
 conference after the 17th ? None. When did 
 they break up and disperse ? On the evening of 
 the 17th. After passing the resolution? Yes, 
 
aud an address. I want to ask you, sir, was 
 there any division about the amendment and the 
 resolution ? — I think you say Hill proposed an 
 amendment, — was there any divison ? There was. 
 Do you remember the numbers, or about the 
 numbers, one way or the other ? To the best of 
 my recollection their would be six or seven sup- 
 porting the amendment. And how many were 
 supporting the original resolution. Perhaps thirty. 
 Now, after the resolution had been carried by a 
 majority, was there any other resolution pro- 
 posed } I understood that the minority was to go 
 with the majority. You understood, you say, 
 that the minority was to go with the majority, 
 but was there any resolution put to that effect ? 
 That I can't say. Did you see Cooper that night 
 at all.’ Yes. Where.’ At my house. Did he 
 say anything to you on the subject of that meet- 
 ing .’ On our way to Oldham, we held a conver- 
 sation about it. Well, what did he say .’ My 
 Lord, I don’t think it is worth while asking 
 conversations. You said there was a resolution 
 and an amendment, but you also said there was 
 an address ; was there any division about the 
 address ; or was it carried unanimously ? I 
 believe the address w'as carried unanimously. 
 Very good. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES ; — Did you 
 vote on this question about the amendment ? I 
 voted against the amendment. With the ma- 
 jority .’ Yes. Did you understand then that it 
 was their intention to do anything illegal .’ It 
 was not my intention to do anything illegal. 
 This was a conference, I believe, Cartledge, 
 entirely ofi delegates — Was it not.’ — You say 
 there were delegates assembled in the chapel .’ 
 I understood it to be a conference between the 
 delegates and the Executive Committee. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The meeting, you understood, 
 was intended for that .’ Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES : — And 
 conducted exclusively by them. For instance, 
 I presume that Griffin took no part in it? Not 
 any. Was Mr. Scholefield a delegate or one of 
 the Executive Committee ? No ; not to my 
 knowledge. Are you not aware that before this 
 time it was understood that delegates were to 
 assemble in Manchester for the purpose of heal- 
 ing some dissensions that had broken out among 
 the leaders of the Chartist body ’ — There had 
 been such dissensions ? Yes. And I am sure 
 you were aware, Mr. Cartledge, that one object 
 announced for holding this meeting, was to bring 
 parties to a good understanding among them- 
 selves ? Yes. Now, I ask you, was not that an 
 object considered important by all persons fa- 
 vourable to Chartist principles — to have that 
 good understanding .’ Yes. And, in addition to 
 that which you tell me was an ob’cct of great 
 
 interest to all persons aavocating Charti.st prin- 
 ciples, I have no doubt you will tell me also that 
 another object of the delegates assembling on the 
 16th, was to do honour to the memory of Henry 
 Hunt, by being present at the opening of the 
 monument erected to his memory? The dele- 
 gates were not assembled on the 16th. But was 
 it not intended to do honour to Hunt’s memory? 
 Yes. Was it not considered that the opening of 
 that monument was an important and interest- 
 ing occasion for all persons holding those prin- 
 ciples .’ Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — Well, 
 sir, I have just a question or two to ask you ; — 
 were you taken up for this matter ? — Of course 
 you were. — You are a defendant. — When were 
 you taken up for this matter ? I have never been 
 taken up for it. Have you ever been taken up 
 for any matter connected with Chartist proceed- 
 ings ? Yes. On what occasion was that? The 
 meeting on the 14th. Where abouts was that 
 meeting ? On Mottrara Moor. Where you taken 
 to prison ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You were taken up on account 
 of the meeting at Mottram Moor ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Where were you taken ? 
 To Chester. Were you one of the parties that 
 was to be tried at the last Special Commission at 
 Chester? I was. How came it that you were 
 not put on your trial at Chester .’ I traversed 
 my trial. You traversed ? Yes. Were you kept 
 in prison ? I came out on bail. On bail, very 
 well. I believe the magistrates demanded rather 
 high bail of you ? — Did they not ? Yes. How' 
 much .’ Two 300?.’s, and myself in 600/. 
 When was it first intimated to you, that you 
 would be wanted as a witness here .’ At Chester. 
 What time ? A few days before the commis - 
 sion. A few days before the last Special Com- 
 mission .’ Yes. . That is the Commission which 
 took place in last October ? Yes. Who was the 
 party that made that intimation to you? Mr. 
 Irwin. What is he ? An inspector of police. 
 Is he an inspector of police .’ He was then. Are 
 you aware that he made that communication to 
 you of his own accord, or in consequence of any- 
 thing you stated yourself ? I don’t understand 
 the question. Had you made a communication 
 to any person before that, stating your residence 
 and your willingness to become a witness for the 
 Government ? I had been solicited previous to 
 that. Then, do you mean to tell me, that you 
 had been solicited to betray the confidence o 
 your associates, without ever having made any 
 move towards it yourself? I swear that. So- 
 lemnly? Solemnly. Then, who was the person 
 
130 
 
 tliat made that coinnuuncation, previous to Mr, 
 Irwin? Mr. Grifd.n. Oh, Griffin! the reporter 
 of whom you spoke ? Yes. Was Griffin a very 
 intimate friend of yours ? He was, and I rejected 
 his offer with scorn ! You rejected his offer with 
 scorn, and you come here in consequence ! Not 
 in consequence of that. Now, tell his Lordship 
 and the jury what were the insinuating terms 
 in which Griffin conveyed the gentle intimation 
 to you ? He told me of the danger I was placed 
 in in consequence of that placard. Did he tell 
 you that any person had told him to say that ? 
 No. Then was that what he said to yon, “ Y'ou 
 are in great danger. You know all about the 
 delegates’ meeting ; let you and I confer to- 
 gether, and we will get something from the 
 Government ?” Nothing of the kind. Was 
 there no reward spoken of? None whatever, 
 Griffin and you made no such arrangement. — 
 Did you know w'hat was the inducement for his 
 coming to you ? No. When did he come ? When 
 I was in the “ lock-up ” in Manchester. Was 
 that before the first examination — shortly before 
 the 14th of August ? It would be in September. 
 Do you mean to tell me that Griffin came to 
 you, and, at that time, asked you to turn Queen’s 
 evidence ? He did. Now, having rejected it with 
 scorn on that occasion, what was it that induced 
 you to come forward now ? The Chartists brand- 
 ing me as a traitor, and insulting ray wife iu 
 Manchester. When did they brand you as a 
 traitor first? When I was in Chester Castle. 
 Was that after the proposition made to you by- 
 Irwin ? It w’as before that. And you mean 
 to sw'ear that it was merely on that account 
 you came forward here ? I saw no other way 
 open, being treated so badly by my own party, 
 and those who should have been my friends, 
 but to throw myself on the clemency of the 
 Court, and tell all I know. Did you send to 
 Irwin, or did he come to you ? He came to me. 
 Now, do you mean to tell me, that, having re- 
 jected that offer of Griffin’s with scorn, you 
 conveyed no intimation to betray your associates, 
 but that Irwin came to you ? — You gave no 
 intimation whatever ? — What did Irwin say to 
 you first, when he came ? He pointed out to me 
 the danger I was in relative to the placard, the 
 conference, and the other case. He pointed out 
 those dangers to you. — Then, do you rrlean to 
 swear that Griffin and he had conversation be- 
 fore about it ? Not to my knowledge. Is Griffin 
 well acquainted with your handwriting ? Yes. 
 Now, sir, I understand you were a schoolmaster; 
 
 had you ever any hand in the writing of those 
 placards, purporting to come from the Chartists ? 
 Yes, sometimes. Now, tell us the sirbstance of 
 any you have draw'tr up ? One calling a meeting 
 to petition for the life of John Frost. Have you 
 written anything that appeared in the form of 
 a placard ? I dorr’t remember any. Now^, sir, 
 do you mean to tell me — you are upon your 
 oath — that that Executive Placard was not in 
 your own handwriting? 
 
 The JUDGE : — The MS. of the Executive 
 Placard ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY: — Yes; the MS. of the Ex- 
 ecutive Placard. Witness : — It was not in my 
 handwTiting. Will you swear that the correc- 
 tions oit that pr oof-sheet were not in your hand- 
 writing? I will; solemnly. Y^ou swear that, 
 when you got this roll of paper from Heywood, 
 you took it to Leach’s, and M'Douall brought it 
 up-stairs, and brought it down again. — Now, how 
 do you know it to be the same roll of paper ? 
 By the general appearance of it. Had you seen 
 its contents ? I had just glanced at the head of 
 it. When did you do that ? On my way from 
 Heywood’s to Leach’s. Had you authority from 
 Leach so to do — to open it ? I had no autho- 
 rity either way. Very well — now, sir, again, I 
 want to ask you about Griffin. — Did you see him 
 after you saw him in the New Bailey, in Man- 
 chester ? I did not see him in the New Bailey. 
 Well, when you were at Manchester, in the 
 lock-up. Did you see him afterwards ? Yes ; I 
 saw him at Hyde. That is, when you were out 
 on bail ? No ; that is the day I was committed. 
 Were you taken before the magistrates at Hyde? 
 Y'^es. And you were committed from Hyde to 
 Chester Castle. Very well ; and you had a con- 
 versation with Griffin that day ? None. Had 
 you ever a conversation with Griffin but the one 
 about coming forward as Queen’s evidence ? 
 None. Very well; now, you told ray learned 
 friend that you did not mean, at that time, to enter 
 into anything illegal yourself ; is that so ? Yes. 
 Did you suppose, at that time, that any of the 
 resolutions proposed at that meeting were ille- 
 gal ? I did not. You did not ; do you suppose 
 the parties present had anything in contempla- 
 tion, more than to make those parties out on 
 strike adopt the five points of the Charter ? That 
 was the principal understanding. Very well. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. McOUBREY ; — I be- 
 lieve it is a public place — this of Mr. Scholo- 
 field’s ? Moderately so. You say you were 
 desired to send two m^n away that were in the 
 
 $ 
 
131 
 
 street ? Yes. What was the object of doing 
 so ? — What was the reason why they were sent 
 away ? I don’t understand you, sir ; I did not 
 hear the question properly. What was the rea- 
 son that you were told to send the two men 
 away ?— To keep the thing as private as possible. 
 Was that said ? That was the understanding. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did he tell you that that was 
 the reason ? That I believed to be the reason at 
 the time. 
 
 Mr. McOUBREY : — Have you not already as- 
 signed another reason ? Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY ; — (In an under-tone.) It does 
 not signify a damn. 
 
 Mr. McOUBREY : — Were you not a delegate 
 yourself? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — From where ? Mosley. 
 
 Mr. McOUBREY :Was Griffin ? No ; he was 
 a reporter ; — I have already answered that ques- 
 tion. How do you say that Griffin went to this 
 meeting, it being a meeting of delegates ? He 
 came to the meeting. And any other reporter 
 might have gone to the meeting ? I cannot 
 answer that. Was not Griffin objected to 
 almost immediately after he entered, but yet he 
 remained? Mr. O’Connor requested that he 
 should remain. And he did remain. Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, 
 Cartledge, I want to have a word with you — 
 When did you qome to Lancaster ? On Tuesday. 
 Who did you come with ? With Mr. Irwin and 
 Mr. Griffin. How did you come ? By the rail- 
 way. By the third (dass ? No. Second class ? 
 No. First class? Y^es — (laughter). Is that 
 your workirig jacket that you have on ? It is. 
 Have you not got better clothes than these ? No. 
 
 I have not. Will j ou swear that ? I will. Have 
 you not got a fancy waistcoat ? I helieve I have 
 got a better waistcoat than this. What did you 
 give for it ? Three shillings. Did you give 
 U. 156*. for anything lately ? No. Where did 
 you buy the waistcoat ? I don’t know — in a shop 
 in Manchester. Y’ou don’t know where ? — Are 
 you sure of that ? In Manchester. Whose shop ? 
 
 I don’t know. Wiil you swear that ? Yes. Did 
 you pay for it? I don’t know. But you are not 
 sure ? No — (laughter) — Either me or my wife 
 paid for it. Is it paid for ? Yes. Do you know 
 Mrs. Knowles? I do. Did you order a coat 
 and waistcoat of her? Yes. When? A few 
 weeks since. When did you get the coat? 
 About a fortnight ago. Did you pay for it ? I 
 did not, and consequently it is not mine. Did 
 you give any notice of your intention to leave 
 your lodgings, or did you leave them in a hurry ? 
 
 I left them in a hurry — (laughter). When I got 
 the coat and waistcoat, I got them for the express 
 
 purpose of pledging them to bring me Imre. 
 (Much hissing in the body of the Court.) You 
 picked up your traps after you got these things 
 from Mrs. Knowles ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, he has not got them. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — He said he bought them, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE. — He said they are not mine, 
 they are not paid for. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Did you get them ? 
 
 WITNESS : — Yes, for the express purpose of 
 bringing me here. Did you pay for your seat in 
 the railway carriage ? Yes. Did you pledge the 
 coat and waistcoat ? I believe my wife has. 
 What was got for them on pawn ? I don’t know. 
 You never heard? No. Upon your oath? I 
 don’t know. How soon after you got the things 
 from Mrs. Knowles did you leave your lodgings ? 
 I don’t know. I left my wife there. Were you what 
 is called purveyor and secretary to a district co- 
 operative store ? Yes. For what district ? Man- 
 chester. That is a large district. In what dis- 
 trict of Manchester ? Ancoats. Did you fiU any 
 post of distinction in the Brown-street district ? 
 I did. Where you purveyor and furnisher of 
 the goods to the association ? Yes. And secre- 
 tary ? No. Did you settle accounts ? So far as I 
 was concerned, I did. Was there a balance in your 
 favor ? No. Was it all the other way ? I don’t un- 
 derstand the nature of the question. — (Laughter.) 
 Was the balance against you ? No ; not when 
 explained. Do they charge you with owing the 
 money ? I believe not. Then what wants 
 explaining ? I had the selling of Northern Stars, 
 the profits of which were to go to the Associa- 
 tion. They did so ; but certain parties ran into 
 debt. A fresh committee came into office, and 
 now they say I must be responsible for the debts 
 of other parties, and they lodge that to my 
 account. How* much do you owe ? I don’t owe 
 anything. With respect to the co-operative 
 stores; do you ow'e anything there? I don't 
 know how the matter stands. Do you owe 
 money? No. Then, do they owe you money ? 
 No. Then you don’t know* how it stands ? No. 
 (Much laughter.) You say that the Chartists 
 behaved badly to your wife when you were at 
 Chester ? Yes. Did she go to Chester ? Yes. 
 Who sent her there ? The Chartists. Did they 
 give her money ? Y'es. Then, it was at Chester 
 that you first conceived the notion of coming 
 here to give evidence ? It was. And it was in 
 consequence of the bad treatment of the Char- 
 tists to your wife that you came here ? It is. 
 Did you consider it bad treatment to have your 
 wife sent to you? I did. — (Great laughter.) 
 
132 
 
 You considered yourself badly treated by having 
 your wife sent to you ! Now*, sir, I think you 
 stated, in answer to the Attorney-General, that, 
 on the 14th of August, you were a Chartist? 
 Yes. How soon after did you read your recan- 
 tation ? I have not read it yet. Are you still a 
 Chartist ? I still approve of the principles 
 of the People’s Charter ? Are you still a Char- 
 tist ? Yes. Are you for Annual Parliaments ? 
 I am. Are you for Universal Suffrage ? I am. 
 Are you for Vote by Ballot ? 1 am. Are you 
 for equal electoral districts? I am. Are you 
 for no property qualification for Members of 
 Parliament ? I am. And are you for payment 
 of Members for their services ? I am. Then 
 you are a good Chartist — (much laughter, and 
 an attempt at cheering in the body of the Court, 
 which was instantly checked.) 
 
 Mr. MURJ’HY : — [In an under tone] I am 
 for the last. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You stated that it was in 
 consequence of the great danger you were repre- 
 sented to be in from the placard of the Executive 
 Committee, which induced you to come here ? 
 Yes, and the other prosecutions. You have now 
 traversed, and you are to be tried at the next As. 
 sizes, unless you meet with the same leniency 
 you have met with here ? Yes. Now I wil} 
 keep you to that. And you swear, that the cor- 
 rections in that placard are not in your hand- 
 writing ? I have sworn. You have sworn most 
 solemnly, that the danger connected with that 
 jilacard has brought you here; and you have 
 sworn most solemnly, that the corrections on 
 that placard are not in your handwriting ? Yes 
 When you went to the meeting of delegates, was 
 there any obstruction offered ? None whatever. 
 No one knew who were delegates until their cre- 
 dentials were produced ? None whatever. Are 
 you aware that the delegates about to assemble 
 in Manchester, were elected two months before 
 the time fixed to commemorate the erection of 
 the monument to Mr. Hunt ? Yes, I am aware 
 that they were previously elected. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — A long time before ? Some of 
 them I believe were. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — They met on the 16th, for 
 the purpose of Hunt’s procession, and on the 1 7th, 
 they were to meet as a delegate body in con- 
 ference. I 
 
 The JUDGE : — This was resolved upon more j 
 than a week before ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Two months, my Lord. 
 
 WITNESS : — Some of them had been elected 
 
 ^ some weeks before. When were you elected ? On 
 the night of the 16th. Now, sir, for what pur- 
 pose Was the delegate meeting to take place ? — 
 I Was it not to examine and revise the Chartist 
 I organization, to put it on a better footing, and if 
 j there was anything illegal in it to alter it, and to 
 1 heal the differences that existed between some 
 parts of the Chartist body ? That was what I 
 understood to be the object of the meeting. I 
 believe you have the honour of being an active 
 member of the Chartist body ? I have. Did you 
 fill the office of Secretary to the South Lancashire 
 delegates ? I did. How long did you officiate in 
 that capacity? More than two years. During 
 that time, sir, did many spirited publications come 
 from your pen? Some addresses did. Didanycome 
 from your pen, sir, that were refused publication ? 
 Not to my knowledge. Will you swear that ? 
 I will. Have you sent many addresses for inser- 
 tion in the Northern Star ? Y’es, I have sent 
 some. Have you complained of the non-insertion 
 of some that you sent ? [ Witness hesitated ] . 
 Don’t fence with the question, sir. Have you 
 complained, whether or not ? I believe I have. 
 Are you aware that while the cdnference waa 
 sitting at Manchester, a deputation came from 
 the trades to ask for admission ? I am. Are you 
 aware that the conference refused to receive the 
 deputation because it was illegal ? I am. Are 
 you aware that it was distinctly said, that, if they 
 wished to constitute a part of the audience, they, 
 or any body else, might remain if they chose ? I 
 am. 
 
 The JUDGE : — ^Who applied for admission ? 
 The trades. — Mr. O’Connor, a deputation from 
 the trades, my Lord, came, and they were refused 
 admission as a deputation from the trades, 
 because it would be illegal ; but they were told 
 that they, or any other parties, might come and 
 compose a pjvrt of the audience. Witness : — Yes. 
 Now, Cartledge, we have tested that you are a 
 good sound Chartist. — (Laughter.) During the 
 last two years, how many Chartist meetings have 
 you attended ? A great number. Have you attend- 
 ed one hundred ? Perhaps I have. Well, have you 
 attended five hundred ? I think not. Have you 
 done your duty by attending every one within your 
 reach ? I have. Have you attended some meetings 
 at personal inconvenience, as secretary and all ? 
 
 I have. Now, sir, I ask you on your oath, 
 wherever a resolution was passed, at a public 
 meeting of Chartists, whether it was not in sub- 
 stance, and nearly in words, precisely the same 
 as that passed at the conference? Nearly so. 
 Especially those words “ To continue our pre- 
 sent struggle till the Charter becomes the law of 
 the land ?” Yes. Is not that the exact form or 
 
133 
 
 nearly so of every one of our resolutions? — Is 
 not that, in substance, the form of every reso- 
 lution that passed at every one of our meetings ? 
 
 The JUDGE t — Stop, you are going too 
 fast. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Especially those words : 
 they amounted to this, that they were to con- 
 tinue the present struggle,^ and the word “ strug- 
 gle” was found in every Chartist resolution ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that so ? 
 
 WITNESS : — I believe the words were often 
 used. By often, you mean generally ? Yes, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — You were a delegate 
 from Mosley ? I was. You attended the whole 
 of the meetings of conference ? I attended that 
 on the 17th of August. On your oath, was there 
 one word said at the conference about the pla- 
 card of the Executive Committee? Nothing 
 more than what was said with respect to Turner, 
 the printer. 
 
 The JUDGE: — He said the chairman had 
 announced that Turner, the printer, was taken 
 up for printing the Executive Placard. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Was it proposed to the 
 conference ? No. Did not you say that on Tues- 
 day morning you sent a placard headed, “ Run for 
 gold ; ” on your oath, don’tiyou know that it ema- 
 nated from the trades’ delegates of Manchester ? 
 
 I don’t know from what source it emanated. 
 Don’t you know that the trades recommended a 
 run for gold, and the people to v/ithdraw their 
 money from the Savings’ Banks ? I understood 
 that placard to come from Dr. M'Douall. | 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Are you aware that 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Do allow him 
 to give the answer. 
 
 The JUDGE :— How do you know that the 
 placard, “ Run for gold,” came from Dr. 
 M'Douall ? Witness : — I don’t knov/ from what 
 source that placard came. I thought you said, 
 you understood it came from Dr. M'Douall. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, he is excessively 
 touchy on the placard points. Are you aware 
 that Griffin was reporter for the Northern Star ? 
 
 I am. Were you in frequent comraunicatin with 
 Griffin ? I was. Are you aware that as repre- 
 senting the Manchester districts, he had a very 
 good salary of 75^. a-year? [Excessive laughter 
 among the reporters.] I don’t know wliat he 
 got. Are you not aware that he was very 
 much annoyed at having lost that salary ? 
 No. Now, was not Griffin discharged from his 
 office as reporter for the Northern Star prior to 
 the meeting of delegates ? Yes. Now, Cart- 
 ledge, I will ask you a question, and answer 
 
 ! it honestly ; on your oath, are you not aware 
 i that Griffin was discharged for having given 
 garbled and w'long reports of speeches made by 
 the Chartists ? Not to my knowledge. On 
 your oath, did not M'Douall say, when he pro- 
 posed that there should be no report of the 
 speeches, that he could not rely on the ac- 
 curacy of Griffin’s reoorts, and that he did not 
 wish to be misrepresented ^ Not to my know- 
 ledge, Was not that said in Griffin’s presence, 
 when it was under discussion whether he should 
 remain or not ? Not to my knowledge. Did I 
 not, at once, tell Griffin to remain and take 
 notes of all he liked, after I had discharged him ? 
 You did. Had you any conversation with Grif- 
 fin prior to the time you went before the magis- 
 trates and tendered vourself as a witness ? 1 
 
 had none. When did you first give over taking 
 an active part after the meeting on the 1 7th of 
 August ? After I came from Chester. Did you 
 take any active part in the Chartist movement 
 from the time the conference was dissolved, and 
 how long after. I did not take so active a part 
 as I have done. Did you issue any publications ? 
 T’es. When ? Some time intervening between 
 my arrest and the time of the conference. Did 
 you issue an address on the 14th of September ? 
 Not to my knowledge. Was any address refused 
 in the Northern Star, about that time ? Not that 
 I know of. Did you publish one in the Evening 
 Star ? Tell me the time ? The 14th of Septem- 
 ber. Would j'ou know the address if you saw it ? 
 Yes. Was that address refused insertion in the 
 Northern Star ? The address bore my name. Who 
 first sent for you and examined you ? Mr. Drake, 
 Where ? At Chester. Were you then unwilling 
 to come here ? I was unwilling. Is Irwin’s 
 name Drake ? No. I thought it was he who 
 examined you first ? No, I consented to give evi- 
 dence to Irwin, but Drake examined me. How 
 soon, after you had consented to Mr, Irwin that 
 you would come, did Mr. Drake examine you 
 The next day. How often have you been in 
 Griffin’s company, from that time to the present ? 
 I have not been in his company ; I started on 
 this journey since I left Manchester. You dis- 
 tinctly swear that ? I do. What did Mr. Drake 
 or Mr. Irwin say to you, when he asked you to 
 give this information? They pointed out the 
 difficulty and danger I w^as in [witness hesitated]. 
 Well, well, well, what then? And at laiit 
 I consented to give evidence. On what condi- 
 tion ? Unconditionally. Wholly uncondition- 
 ally ? Yes. After your wife was sent to you — 
 K 
 
134 
 
 the first offence they gave you — how many of 'j 
 the persons who met at the conference were 
 unknown to you ? I can’t say. How many 
 were perfect strangers to you ? Some of them 
 were. How many ? I don’t know the number. 
 Was there a youth admitted— a child — a boy — a 
 brother conspirator Yes. Now, sir, you have at- 
 tended hundreds of meetings. On your oath, and 
 I ask you boldly, did you ever hear me express one 
 word or a sentence at variance with the duty of 
 a good subject ? Not to my knowledge. That 
 is, you did not hear me. On your oath, have 
 you not heard me complain, and complain loudly, 
 of the misrepresentation that I had to encounter* 
 and that there was no man in England who had 
 been so much misrepresented through the me- 
 dium of the press as I had ? You have. Have 
 you not heard me in the most emphatic and con- 
 vincing language that it was possible for a man 
 to use, endeavour to point out to the people the 
 folly of violating the peace in any, the slightest 
 respect ? You have. Do you know a man of 
 better character in the world than James Leach ? 
 
 I do not, sir. How long have you known him ? 
 Several years. About what time was tranquil- 
 lity restored in Manchester ? Very soon after the 
 conference. I will ask you, as an honest man, 
 whether or know you think that the object of the 
 conference, and the tendency of the speeches 
 made, was to preserve the peace, and to keep the 
 people out of violence ? I believe it was. Now, 
 sir, I place before you a file of the Evening Star, 
 of the 14th of September, 1842. Was the ad- 
 dress of the South Lancashire delegates to their 
 constituents written by you ? It was. 
 
 The file of the above newspaper was put in, 
 and the officer of the Court read from it the fol- 
 lowing address : — 
 
 “ THE ADDRESS OF THE SOUTH LAN- 
 CASHIRE DELEGATES TO THEIR 
 CONSTITUENTS, AND THE CHAR- 
 TISTS GENERALLY. 
 
 “ Brothers in bondage and in hope,— We 
 conceive it to be our duty to address you at 
 this critical juncture in the affairs of this class- 
 ridden country. Since we first met on your be- 
 half, many have been the struggles in which you 
 have had to engage in your different localities, 
 Tliough the conflict is fearful, the contest 
 is not doubtful when a united people firmly 
 stand against the unrighteous aggressions of class- 
 constituted tyranny. During these last few 
 weeks, the monstrous power of the capital in 
 the hands of the middle classes has been more 
 especially arrayed against the hand that gave it 
 birth. After enjojnng all the comforts and luxu- 
 ries of life — rioting in voluptuousness as the 
 Bwine wallows in the miro — the middle classes, 
 
 j both Whig and Tory, have united all their power 
 for the purpose of depriving the honest artisan, 
 not only of the commonest comforts, but even 
 those necessaries which make life desirable or ra- 
 ther bearable. The position in which we are now 
 placed by the scheming of our oppressors, calls 
 for prudence as well as courage on our part, that 
 the pit dug for our destruction may receive those 
 who are a curse to our existence. Our wives 
 look at our progress with anxious eyes, and with 
 feelings of anguish ask how long shall the oppres- 
 sor triumph ? Our children cry for bread, and 
 when we meet to consult together, our rulers 
 give us sticks, bludgeons, steel, and lead, and 
 then they call upon us to obey the law. 
 
 “ ‘ When pinched with want all reverence they 
 withdraw. 
 
 For hungry multitudes obey no law.’ 
 
 So sung the Roman poet Lucan : and later expe- 
 rience has proved the truth of the sentence ; for 
 the only things which the present unjust laws 
 of England in operation are the enormous 
 physical force powers of the ruling few, and the 
 disunion of the working many. Under these it 
 is most politic to keep within the grade of the law, 
 if possible, though all must admit that this is very 
 difficult. What may be quite legal in one is treason 
 in another unfortunate wight. The fact is, there 
 is one law for the rich, and another for the poor. 
 Nothing can more clearly evince this than the 
 conduct of the powers that be during the last six 
 months. Whilst the tools of the rich Auti-corn- 
 law League were going through the land, pomfing 
 forth their inflammatory moonshine, advising the 
 people to repeal the Corn-laws, even by the point 
 of the sword — 1;o go in thousands, and tens of 
 thousands, and demand bread — to destroy the 
 bread-taxers root and branch. Yes, these 
 ‘ Speakers turbulent and bold 
 Of venal eloquence that seiwes for gold 
 And princii'Jes that might be bought and 
 sold,’ 
 
 went forth and endeavoured to cause a popular 
 outcry against these obnoxious laws. Yet no 
 warrants are issued for speaking sedition, neither 
 are they arrested for conspiring, even when the 
 machinations of these men produced the late 
 stx'ike, so long as it was likely that it could be 
 used for the accomplishing of the schemes of 
 the free trade gentry ; there is nothing talked of 
 but how they must support the people by these 
 lovers of fair play. No sooner do the brave and 
 honest trades of Manchester declare for prin- 
 ciple, and the people in every part respond to the 
 call — ^no sooner is the tocsin of the Charter 
 sounded — no sooner is the breaking of the bonds 
 of the slave proclaimed, than all the middle class 
 
unite. The press marks the victims. The go- I 
 vernraeut, strong in arms, sends forth the har- 1 
 pies of the law to seize — spies to concoct and 
 convict, and thus endeavour to stifle free dis- 
 cussion, and put down democracy. It is the 
 duty of every Chartist to buckle on his armour 
 afresh, and renew the fight with increased vigour 
 and energy, until signal success shall crown our 
 efforts. Let us so rally our forces as to convince 
 even our oppressors that we are determined to 
 achieve our liberty in spite of every opposition, 
 and that nothing short of political power to pro- 
 tect our labour will satisfy the working classes 
 of this country. The pulpit and the press are 
 teeming with calumny and abuse against you, 
 and those who have honestly dared to support 
 the lights of labour against the aggressions of 
 heartless capitalists. The bar is showering tor- 
 rents of misrepresentation to induce middle class 
 juries to convict your best friends ; whilst the 
 bench is waiting with anxiety to dungeon and 
 expatriate those who have possessed so much of 
 the milk of human kindness as to declare for 
 right against might. Let not these things dis- 
 courage you, but rather stimulate you to make 
 an effort to bring this unrighteous system of 
 class-legislatioft to an end. Do all you can to 
 show your sympathy with those who are vic- 
 timised on your behalf. Spare all you can for 
 the support of their families, and thereby cheer 
 the inmates of the gloomy cell, and encourage 
 others to beard tyranny in its den. Spread the 
 principles of Chartism — the principles of truth 
 and justice — in your own neighbourhoods. Let 
 every Chartist endeavour to make one convert, 
 confirm one wavering mind every week. We 
 wmuld ask, is this too much for seven days. Look 
 round — how many of your acquaintances are ig- 
 norant of true politics — are careless about poli- 
 tical power — are halting betw’een two opinions ? 
 Here is a field for the exercise of every diver- 
 sity of talent. Let none say he is not qualified, 
 but to work at once ; for whilst we admit the 
 usefulness of lectures, and speeches, and resolu- 
 tions, we confess that it is each man, doing his 
 own work, that must carry the People’s Charter. 
 It is necessary to send lecturers to break up 
 the fallow ground. There is much of this yet ; 
 and one particular part we would call your espe- 
 cial attention to at this time. Ireland has many, 
 very many, things to impede the spread of the 
 pure principles of freedom ; and though O’Hig- 
 gins and his brave band, assisted by the Nort/i- 
 ern Star, have done much to dispel the mist 
 
 from the minds of our brethren of the sister isle, 
 yet there remains much to be done ; and, in our 
 opinion, nothing is more calculated to produce 
 that change, so much desired, than to send a 
 man of sterling honesty to open the eyes of the 
 blind, and to remove the veil of prejudice from 
 the minds of those who have been led to believe 
 that the working classes of England were the 
 enemies of their brethren, the working classes of 
 Ireland. If each locality, belonging to the Na- 
 tional Charter Association, would subscribe only 
 one penny a week, and sixpence as a first sub- 
 scription to start the fund, we should have as 
 much as would support one, and something 
 more. In this way the principles of Chartism 
 could and would be made known where they 
 had never been heard of, only through a dis- 
 torted medium. This can be done in a legal and 
 constitutional way, without endangering any one, 
 or placing a burden upon the shoulders of any 
 person. 
 
 “We feel the delicacy of calling upon you 
 for pecuniary support at this critical period of 
 general distress, and when so many claims are 
 made upon an impoverished people ; but this 
 subject has been two months before the people 
 of South Lancashire, and they have confirmed 
 the recommendation by commencing the fund, 
 as they have a man they can confidently recom- 
 mend for this work. Mr. P. M. Brophy has 
 consented to undertake this object, as soon as 
 there is sufficient in the fund to enable him to 
 commence his lectures in his native land. Some 
 localities may be so situated as to be able to de- 
 vote a collection after a lecture occasionally to 
 this great and glorious object, and thus the flag 
 of freedom may be made to wave on every 
 breeze that wafts across the Emerald Isle. 
 
 “ All subscriptions for this object to be sent 
 to Mr. James Cartledge, 34, Lomas-street, Bank- 
 top, Manchester. And now, in conclusion, 
 brother Chartists and friends, we trust that you 
 will press on to the mark of your high calling in 
 the People’s Charter. 
 
 “ We are yours, 
 
 “ In the bond of union, 
 William Cornett, Henry Worthington, 
 
 John Butterworth, Robert M'Farlane, 
 
 Dan Haslem, Edward Hall, 
 
 William WoodrooiTe, William White, 
 
 Robert Beaumont, Ashton Ashton. 
 
 Thomas Raihon, Chairman. 
 
 James Cartledge, Secretary.” 
 Cross-examination resumed Now, Mr. Cart. 
 
136 
 
 le.lge, on your oath, was not that address sent to ! 
 the Evening Star because the Northei'n Star re- 
 fused to publish it ? I sent copies to both. Did 
 it appear in the Northern Star ? I believe it did. 
 Don’t you know that it did not, and that there 
 were complaints in consequence ? The complaint 
 was that the names were omitted. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Have you 
 done with it ? 
 
 .Mr. O’CONNOR: — It never did appear. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The witness 
 says it did appear, but the names did not appear 
 to it. 
 
 .Mr. O’CONNOR: — It never did appear. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says he does not know. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Were not you and Griffin 
 in the habit of composing addresses together t — j 
 Haveyou not written several addresses from South 1 
 Lancashire ^ Yes. You giving him notes, and he j 
 giving you ? It is not often I took notes. No, ! 
 but you wrote for each other ? Yes. Now, sir, j 
 conversation between you and M'Douall appears j 
 to have been very unguarded. — When was it that j 
 that he referred to the placard “ Run for gold ? ” j 
 At the conference. On your oath, did you not j 
 say that it was on the 16th ? — Don’t you know | 
 that the Trades’ Delegates met on the 15th, and 
 were dispersed on the 16th } Yes, I know they i 
 V. ere dispersed. When you were elected, were you i 
 not chosen to sit at a conference at Carpenters’ j 
 Hall, and was not that, originally, the place ! 
 in which the conference w’as to be held ? 
 
 1 believe it was. When you gave up the office 
 of purveyor and secretary to the Hulme Co- | 
 operative Stores, did you give up the books? I j 
 did. Y'ou don’t know how the accounts stand ? | 
 Not exactly. Where have you been for the last | 
 three weeks, Cartledge — You have not got them 
 now ? In Manchester. For the whole time ? A 
 fortnight ago 1 was at Lymm, in Cheshire. How 
 long were you there ? 1 went one day and came 
 back the next. And during the last three weeks, 
 you have never seen Griffin ? Not before last 
 Sunday night. When did you come here, and 
 were did you come from ? From Lymm, a fort- 
 night ago. I thought you were at Lymm one ! 
 day and came back the next ? 1 l)ave been at ^ 
 Lymm twice. Ah, sir, you are a limb. (Laugh- i 
 ter). When did you come here? On Tuesday.! 
 Where did you see Griffin then ? Here. Where I 
 did he say he came from ? From Ireland.' Where j 
 did you go to from Lymm ? To Lancaster. On i 
 Sunday ? No. (W^here did you remain on Sun- 
 day) ? On Tuesday. TJien you remained at | 
 Lymm on Monday? Yes. In company wdth J 
 Irvvin ? Yes. You did not hear a sentence about ' 
 
 what you were to say here ? No. Not a word ! 
 you never spoke a word to Irwin about what you 
 had to say here ? There might be something 
 about it. What was it ? The principal conver- 
 sation was relative to the danger in which I 
 might be placed. That had a powerful effect 
 on you ? It had. Did you go and see your wife 
 when you returned from Lymm to Manchester ? 
 No. Now, from the time you were at Lymm 
 first, and then returned, where were you ? At 
 Manchester. Was it there you got the coat ? 
 Yes. And the waistcoat ? Yes. When did yov 
 get the other parts of your dress ? About si.v or 
 nine weeks ago. Now, sir, on your oath, again, 
 I ask you, do you mean to say there was not one 
 word about this trial during the whole time you 
 were with Griffin and Irwin ? I cannot say that. 
 Were you told you were relieved from consider- 
 able danger ? 1 never had surety till this jury 
 
 acquitted me. Had you any promises made 
 you? I had no promises made me. None, 
 whatever? None, whatever. Did anyone tell 
 you to say you had no promises made you ? No, 
 sir. Had you lived in the house with Griffin ? 
 No. Did you eat onions and beef-steaks toge- 
 ther on Tuesday night ? No. Did you sup 
 together ? We did. Had you any conversation 
 then ? Yes. About this trial ? Yes. What w'as it ? 
 We wondered how it W'as going on. But nobody 
 told you ? No. Not a soul ? No. Had you 
 any conversation about it before you came in 
 to-day ? Yes. With whom ? With Griffin. 
 What was that conversation ? — Did any one tell 
 you the Crown was failing to make out a case ? 
 No. . Did you say you would assist them to 
 make a case ? Not to my knowledge. You did 
 not? Not to iny knowledge. What did you 
 get when you pawmed the things ? I told you 
 before — I did not know. But you did not pay 
 your own expenses here ? No. When you went 
 to Lymm, was it necessary for you to go ? I went 
 on Saturday night. What for? To see Irwin. 
 You went to Lymm, and came back afterwards ; 
 w’hether would it not be shorter to come direct 
 from Manchester at once ? — Which is the short- 
 est way ? I don’t know. How did you go to 
 Lymm ? With Irwin. Does he keep a good 
 house ? I was not at his house. Was Griffin 
 with you ? Not till Sunday night, when he 
 arrived from Ireland. You did not go to Irwin's 
 house at all ! Who paid your expenses to Lymm ? 
 Irwin. Who paid for your living while there ? 
 He did. Who brought you here ? Irwin. Who 
 is now paying for your living, while here ? 
 Irwin. How long is it since you have been at 
 
137 
 
 work, Car Hedge ? I have been partly at work 
 since I was at Chester. What kind of work ? 
 At school-teaching. How much have you earned 
 since you left Chester ? I cannot say. About 
 how much? — What kind of employment were 
 you in ? I told you already ; I had ray school 
 part of the time. What did your school make 
 for you ? About six or seven shillings a week. 
 Have you seen your examinations ? I never saw' 
 them ; I don’t know what they were. Have you 
 seen any paper, or any written document, con- 
 cerning what was said on this trial ? No. Have 
 you had any conversation with Irwin, Beswick, 
 or any one, relative to this trial ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by the defendant JOHN- 
 SON : — Am I the person alluded to by you in 
 the course of this examination ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by M‘CARTNEY : — Mr. 
 Cartledge, you have spokeu of a table at the 
 meeting of the conference at which [table] the 
 secretary was to receive credentials. Now', are you 
 not aware that those documents, to which you 
 have referred under the term credentials, were 
 for the purpose of shewing that the delegates 
 were legally elected for the purpose of attending 
 that meeting ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is what you understood 
 by credentials ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL: — You w'ere asked whether the original 
 MS. roll was in your handwriting ? Yes. You 
 said no. Yes. May I ask you in whose hand- 
 writing it was ? In Dr. M'Douall’s. 
 
 The JUDGE: — That is the original M.S. of 
 the Executive Placard ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 TheATTORNEY-GENEiRAL :-Mr. O’Con- 
 nor asked you about your being secretary at the 
 Ancoats and Brown-street district — how long 
 were you so? — ^Were you so weeks or months? — 
 Or how long ? Some months. When did you 
 give over being so ? When the co-operative 
 concern, to which Mr. O’Connor referred, 
 broke up. When did it break up ? About twelve 
 months ago. Was it long before that when you 
 were received among the delegates ?— Was it 
 some months before you were elected to go to 
 the conference ? Perhaps twelve months before 
 that. You were asked whether it was bad treat- 
 ment to send your u'ife to you. — Now, in what 
 way did they insult your wife ? By denouncing 
 me as a traitor in her presence. Very good. 
 
 WITNESS : — May I be allowed to explain to 
 the Court, why I considered my wife’s coming 
 to Chester, to be of no advantage to me ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Certainly. 
 
 The ATTORN EY-GENERAL : —Why ? — I 
 Witness : — Because I believe she was sent there 1 
 by the Chartists, to i)e:suade me to take my trial ! 
 
 J at Chester, during the time of the excitement 
 instead of 
 
 The JUDGE :— Instead of traversing? Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — While 
 Griffin was taking notes, or about to take notes 
 at the conference, did you hear any body mak- 
 ing any objection to him as a reporter, to the 
 effect that he could not be trusted ? No ; he 
 referred to other reporters ; he referred to Mr. 
 Hill, as reporter to the Northern Star. Was 
 HiU there as reporter to the Northern Star? 
 He stated distinctly that he and Griffin were the 
 only reporters present. Was Hill a delegate as 
 well as reporter ? Yes, and he said the delegates 
 might trust to his discretion. 
 
 GEORGE BARLOW, a boy 15 years of age, 
 examined by Mr. IIILDYARD : — What are 
 you ? I am an apprentice to Ellerby and 
 Cheetham, letter-press-printers, Manchester. In 
 the month of August last were you an appren- 
 tice to Charles Turner, of Turner-street, Man- 
 chester ? Yes. Do you remember your master, 
 in August last, to set the types and print the 
 placards of the Executive Committee ? Yes. 
 Who brought the MS. from whence that pkcard 
 (handing a copy of the Executive Placard to 
 witness) was printed? Either two or three 
 men, I am not sure which. Did you knov/ who 
 they were at the time ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — You don’t know who brought 
 it ? Two or three men ; I don’t know which. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Did they tell you where 
 you were to apply for information, if you could 
 not make out the writing ? Yes. Where was 
 that? At Leach’s. Very well; did any one, 
 during the afternoon, apply to see if a proof was 
 ready ? Y'es, sir ; at half-past three in the 
 afternoon. Did your master, Mr. Turner, sec 
 that person? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — At half-past three in the 
 afternoon was it ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD: — Did you hear your mas- 
 ter address him as M‘Douall ? Yes. Was a 
 proof ready at that time ? No. Did the person 
 give directions to where it should be sent when 
 the proof was ready ? He gave directions 
 that it should be sent to Noblett’s. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is, the person who 
 brought it ? 
 
 Mr HILDYARD :— No, my Lord; the person 
 who applied to see if a proof was ready. To 
 witness :— Did that person return again in the 
 evening, with a proof in his hand ? Yes Had 
 that proof been corrected ? Some corrections 
 had been made, but not all. Should you kiiow 
 
138 
 
 again, do you think, if you saw that proof ? Yes. 
 Now just look at that, will you? — [handing wit- 
 ness the proof.] Yes, sir ; this is it. That is 
 the same which was brought back by your mas- 
 ter from M‘Douall. Now, on the following 
 morning, did that person come to your master's 
 shop ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY On what morning ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD: — The following morning, 
 but he can’t say exactly it was the 17th, I believe. 
 [To Witness.] What did he say on coming back 
 the following morning ? He wanted a part of it 
 taken out. Did he give any reason ? He said 
 it might bring some trouble on them. What did 
 your jnaster say, upon that ? He said it would 
 be a great deal of trouble. To do what ? To 
 take it out. Upon that, what did the person re- 
 ply ? He consented to let it stay in. Did he 
 give any directions as to what was to be done 
 with the placards ? Bill posters were to have 
 them, and 50 were to be kept for himself. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — Had you 
 ever seen this person before, whom your master 
 addressed by name ? I had not. Now, where 
 is your master. — Has he come over here to Lan- 
 caster ? Not that I know of. So that you know 
 nothing of who the person was, except that he 
 was called M'Douall ? No. Now, will you un- 
 dertake to say, that he used the name M‘Douall 
 to the person that came, or that he used that 
 name in speaking of some person ? No, he 
 meant the person that came; he answered to 
 M‘Douall. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — Now% 
 my boy, you have spoken of tv70 days. Now, it 
 w'as on the first of these days the type was 
 set up ? Yes, it took all the afternoon. Was the 
 type set up immediately after the manuscript 
 came ? Yes, sir. And can you say what time 
 the manuscript was brought — I mean to the 
 hour? About 12 o’clock. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Does any other defendant ask 
 a question ? No answer. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — How long did it take to 
 set up the type ? It came about twelve o’clock, 
 and was done about five or six o’clock. Finished ? 
 Yes. 
 
 THOMAS SUTTON, examined by Mr. HILD- 
 YARD : — You are now, I believe, an apprentice 
 to Wm. Irwin ? Yes. In the month of August 
 last, were you an apprentice to Charles Turner., 
 of Manchester ? Yes. Did you assist your 
 master in setting up the type of the Executive 
 Address, on the iGfh of August last ? Yes, sir. 
 Were you pi’cscnt hen any one brought a manu- 
 
 script to your master’s, from whence the type was 
 to be set up? Yes. Who brought it? Three 
 men. Did you then, or do you now, know who 
 these three men were ? No. Did they give di- 
 rections to whom you were to send, if you could 
 not make out the writing in the manuscript? 
 No. What directions did they give ? Mr. 
 Turner was to send up to Leach’s. To enquire 
 for whom there ? For M‘Douall. Was th.^re a 
 difficulty in making out the manuscript ? Yes 
 Did you go to Leach’s ? Yes. Did you enquire 
 for M‘Douall ? Yes, and a boy in Leach’s shop 
 was sent up-stairs for him. The boy went up- 
 stairs and called him down. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — The witness does not say 
 that. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD On that enquiry being 
 made, a boy went up-stairs and M'Douall came 
 down. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — He does not say so. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Well, a man came down 
 stairs ? 
 
 WITNESS : — Y^es, one of the three men who 
 came to my master’s came in and looked at the 
 manuscript, and while he was doing so, some one 
 came down stairs. Did the person looking at 
 the manuscript address the man who came down 
 stairs? Yes. By what name did he address 
 him ? As M'Douall. Did the person so ad- 
 dressed as M'DouaU, look at the manuscript ? 
 Yes. What did he say ? He read a portion of it 
 over. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Loud ? — So that you could 
 hear him ? Yes, my Lord. Do you mean, that 
 he read it loud — not to himself ? Not to himself, 
 but so that I could hear. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD And then what did he 
 say ? He said he had not time to look it all over 
 then, but that we were to send the proof up to 
 him at Leach’s. Did he call at your master’s 
 1 shop at four or five o’clock in the afternoon of 
 the same day ? Yes. Was the proof ready then ? 
 No. Did he call again at seven o’clock? Yes. 
 Was he at that time printing it ? 
 
 WITNESS Who.’ 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD The same person. Did 
 he look at the proof and make alterations in it ? 
 Yes. Now, look at that, [handing witness the 
 proof-sheet of the Executive Placard] and say 
 whether these are the alterations which he made ? 
 Yes, these are the alterations which he made. 
 Did he give any directions respecting the pla- 
 card ? Yes. What were they ? He said they 
 were to strike off 100 that night. 
 
 The JUDGE : — One hundred copies ? Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD .—Did he say what was to 
 
139 
 
 be done with them : That the poster would call 
 for them. Did the poster call for the placards 
 that night ? Yes, and got 100 copies. Did the 
 same person, of whom we were speaking, who 
 was called McDouall, call again ? Yes, he called 
 the next morning. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Call him M'Douall now ; we 
 have got the name. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — I believe you did not 
 hear what passed between him and your master } 
 No. On the same day your master was taken 
 into custody, with the type ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Where 
 do you live now, my boy ? At Victoria Bridge, 
 Manchester. What is your master’s name ? 
 Irwin. That is all. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — I wish 
 to ask him on6 word. — This person, whoever he 
 was, came and took the manuscript, and said he 
 had not time then to look it over ? Yes. It was 
 a manuscript and not a proof-sheet you took to 
 him ? A manuscript. That portion of the manu- 
 script which you wished to be informed of ? Yes. 
 W’as there much of it obscure ? A few words 
 here and there. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Do you re- 
 collect whether — if “ despair,” or “ despond,” 
 that was there ? [Pointing out the place on the 
 placard.] No. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN You are in the 
 “ Slough.” 
 
 JOHN HEAP, examined by Mr. POLLOCK:— 
 You are the constable of Todmorden ? I am, 
 sir. Do you know Robert Brooke ? Yes, sir. 
 What is he ? A schoolmaster. Does he live at 
 Todmorden ? He does, sir. Had you a warrant 
 to apprehend him in August last ? In Septem- 
 ber, sir.* W’^here did you arrest him } At his 
 own house. On that day ? On that day, sir. 
 Did you search the house ? I did, sir. Did you 
 find any books and papers there ? I did, sir. 
 Will you examine the contents of that parcel, 
 [handing it to witness] and state whether these 
 are what you found at that time ? [Some books 
 are handed to witness by Mr. Gregory, the 
 solieitor.] Yes, sir. Did you mark upon them 
 at the time ? I did, sir. How many pieces of 
 paper are there ? There are three here, sir. Look 
 at the book, did you find that paper there ? 
 [Handing to witness a paper.] I did, sir, And 
 that one ? [Handing him another.] I did, sir. 
 Did you mark, that paper ? I did, sir. Did you 
 mark that one? [Handing him another.] I did, 
 ■ir. Now, where did you find them? In his 
 
 house. In what room in his house r In ihe 
 living part. Did you tell Mr. Brooke what you 
 had come about ? 1 did. Did he say anything : 
 He said if he had known I had been coming 
 he would not have had either books or papers in 
 the house. Was that after you found the 
 papers ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was that what Brooke said ? 
 Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. POLLOCK : — Who did you hand these 
 papers over to ? To Mr. Eastwood, solicitor. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS:— What 
 time of the day was it you went to Mr. Brooke’s 
 house ? About one o’clock. Did you find him 
 at home ? Yes. Is he a family man ? He has a 
 wife. I meant that. — Has he any children ? Yes. 
 Was he sitting in the living part of the house, as 
 you call it. No, he was standing. But he was 
 in the house ? Yes. I shewed him the warrant, 
 and he looked at the name of it, and tlien we 
 began to search. Who was with you ? A police 
 officer and a constable belonging to the township. 
 When you were there, w’as his wife in ? Yes. 
 You went pulling about the drawers and opening 
 them ? Y^’es. And he made no opposition ? No, sir. 
 And when you found the papers, did you say any- 
 thing to him ? No, sir, nothing particular. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS No, sir 
 
 The JUDGE : — I suppose no body else wishes 
 to ask him anything else ? [No answ'er.] 
 
 Mr. EASTWOOD, examined by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY : — I believe you are a solicitor at Todmor- 
 den ? Yes, sir. Did the last witness (Heap) 
 hand to you the papers which you have in your 
 hands ? There were two parcels sealed up wliich 
 the last witness handed to me. Did you at any 
 time read them over for the purpose of decipher- 
 ing them ? 1 examined these pencil notes with 
 Mr. Part, yesterday ; first examining the pencil 
 notes, and then that copy, [Handing a copy to 
 counsel] each with the other, and that appears 
 to be a copy of the pencil notes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Let me see them. [The 
 notes are handed to Mr. Dundas.] These three 
 papers purport to be copied from these ? Wit- 
 nes : — I first read the pencil notes, and afterwards, 
 with Mr. Part, compared them with the copy. 
 The copies are correct. 
 
 Mr. WOllTLEY : — It is better to hand the 
 pencil notes up to the Judge, and then compare 
 them with the copy. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— When were they brought 
 before the magistrates do you say ? On the 6th. 
 
 LUKE BARKER examined by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY : — Where do you live ? I live at Wicken 
 bury-clough, near Todmorden. Do you know 
 Robert Brooke, the schoolmaster ? Yes. Is that 
 pencil writing [handing witness a paper] hi? ? 
 
140 
 
 Yes, I believe it is. Is the pencil writing in that 
 [handing him another paper] his ? Yes, I believe 
 it is. Is the pencil writing in that [a third paper] 
 his ? Yes. Look at the other side. Is the pen- 
 ciling on that side in his handwriting? Yes, 1 
 believe this is his penciling. Do you believe 
 that [handing him another paper] to be in his 
 handwriting ? Yes, sir, that is his. And that — 
 and that? [Handing him others] Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — The witness (Heap) only 
 proved five. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — He proved the whole of 
 those that were lying there. 
 
 The JUDGE .—Heap proved six. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS If so, my Lord, it is only 
 an error on my part, but I think he only proved 
 five. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What Heap proves extends to 
 all that were found there. Witness was then 
 handed a book, and having inspected it, he said 
 he could not speak to its being in the handwrit- 
 ing of Brooke. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD: — Can you speak to any 
 part of it ? Witness then pointed out the words 
 “ Meeting of Counsel" as being in the hand- 
 writing of Brooke. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD Mark it down on the 
 margin where you think it is his handwriting. 
 
 Mr. EASTWOOD re-called. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD;— I think I understood 
 you to say, that, having compared these scraps 
 with the penciling you found them a correct 
 copy? Yes, this is a copy as far as we could de- 
 cipher the notes. * 
 
 LUKE BARKER re-called. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — You say you know’ Robert 
 Brooke ? Y^es. Is there any person of the name 
 of Brookes at Todmorden ? Yes, there are two 
 Brookes. Who wrote this name “ Brookes ? " 
 Robert Brookes. What are you? A schoolmaster. 
 What opportunities have you had of knowing bis 
 way of writing ? Well, about 8 or 9 years ago I 
 went to school there. When did you leave ? It is 
 about 7 years ago since 1 left that night-school. 
 Have you known anything of his handwriting 
 since then ? Yes, I have seen his handwriting 
 frequently, but I have not seen any of it since last 
 summer. Have you seen any of his handwriting 
 since last summer ? Yes, the days were long 
 and I had some writing to do, and he did a part, 
 we wrote together. Did you ever see him write 
 in pencil ? Frequently, more so than with the 
 pen. Then, from your acquaintance with his 
 handwriting, you take on you to say, that 
 that penciling is his ? I can’t be positive, 
 but I believe it is. Just let me see that por- 
 tion of the book which you cannot speak to ? 
 
 The greater part is written by him. Show me 
 some part of it which you doubt to be his ? 
 Here are some parts which I doubt about, but 
 they were written with different pens. How do 
 you know’ his writing ? There is a particularity 
 in the r’s and r’s. What is your belief on the 
 subject ?— Is it his or is it not ? I don’t believe 
 this [pointing out thisi is his writing, but it has 
 some resemblance to it. Well, now, let me see 
 something which you say is his ? I believe this 
 is his, and this too, [pointing out two passages 
 in the book] but they are written with two dif- 
 ferent pens. Well, let us see. [The book is 
 handed to Mr. Dundas.] Examine this again, 
 Mr. Barker, and see whether the writing in the 
 book and the penciling are in the same hand. I 
 never saw them before, but I want your opinion 
 upon the matter. [Returns the book to witness.] 
 
 I have not, but the penciling is in his writing. 
 Well, now, look at the last page of the book ? 
 It has some resemblance to it, but it is not his 
 regular form. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Possibly it may be his. 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Anything may be possible. 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — But he does not repudiate 
 it. You have not the penciling is his ? No ; 
 none whatever. Will you say the writing in 
 the book is his ? Yes ; the greatest portion 
 of the book. Well, show’ me the portion of 
 the book that is not by him ? Here is a letter 
 from Beesley which is not in the handwriting of 
 Brooke. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — Are 
 you a schoolmaster ? Yes. You don’t conjoin 
 with the trade of schoolmaster that of journey- 
 man tailor ? — [Laughter.] Witness (indig- 
 nantly) — What do you mean, sir ? ^ 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — Were you never a jour- 
 neyman tailor in Stalybridge ? No, sir ; I never 
 w'as in Stalybridge. Were you the postmaster of 
 Todmorden ? No, sir. 
 
 Mr. EASTWOOD, re-examined by Mr. HILD- 
 YARD : — Were you present before the magis- 
 trates when Brooke was examined? Yes, sir. 
 Was this writing pointed out in his presence as 
 being his ? It was. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — And now, my Lord, I 
 propose to hand up the penciling to your Lord- 
 ship. The witness will read the copy, and then 
 your Lordship will be able to sea whether it is 
 correct. (To the witness)— Are these papers in 
 the state in which you received them ? I think 
 so ; I handed them to Mr. Gregory when I 
 
[41 
 
 received them. But were they then as difficult 
 to decipher as they are now ? I think so. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — My Lord, you will see it 
 begins at August 16th, at the top of the right- 
 hand corner. Witness : — I make out, my Lord, 
 at the top of the right-hand corner, “ August 
 16th.” In the next line, my Lord, I make At 
 a delegate meeting^ 
 
 The JUDGE : — I can’t see it 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — Well, my Lord, if you 
 look below the ink, your Lordship will see “ Cre- 
 dentials.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — I see it perfectly. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — I am now pointing your 
 Lordship’s attention to the lower part. 
 
 The JUDGE: — “At a delegate meeting, 
 August 16th.” Then under that “ Credentials.” 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — That is below the ink. 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — Don’t attempt to fill up the 
 word. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is “ Credentials.” 
 WITNESS Moved by Mr. Doyle, that 
 
 Mr. O’Connor is” 
 
 The JUDGE : — Stay, this is not the copy. 
 WITNESS Moved by Mr. Doyle, that 
 Mr. O’Connor is invited here by Mr. Hill: 
 Moved by Dr. McDouall.” 
 
 The JUDGE Dr. } — ^That is not here. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Then I object to the copy. 
 The JUDGE : — ^Well, I will read if I can. 
 WITNESS proceeds: — “That the delegates 
 give a small report of the position of their dis- 
 tricts. Adjourn to nine o'clock to morrow 
 morning. 
 
 AT A MEETING CALLED ESPECIALLY. 
 Resolved: — “That each person have only one 
 vote.” — (That is what it is) — “At the ad- 
 journed meeting on August the 17th, where 
 many fresh delegates were admitted. 
 
 “ Moved by O’Connor, and passed, that each 
 speaker when making a motion, shall have 
 five minutes to speak ; and when replying, 
 two minutes ; and that each person have five 
 minutes allowed” 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — [A sensible rule, my Lord.] 
 “That the address be read — moved by O’Con- 
 nor.” 
 
 “ R. H. Bairstow, Britol, 22,000 persons.” 
 [That is the population, my Lord.] “ There 
 to be a desire to aid the movement for the 
 Charter — all the working-party would not 
 carry out the present movement.” 
 
 John Massey, Newton-heath. “ They was turned 
 out for wages, but do think that it would sub- 
 stantially. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher, Bradford, 15,000 present at the 
 meeting on Sunday. “ The resolutions were for 
 the Charter. 
 
 ” Todmorden people and us, were coming info 
 Halifax at the same. 
 
 Rev. W. Hill, Eckmonwike. “The people do 
 not wish to connect themselves with the 
 strike. 
 
 John Smith, Leeds, 80,000 people. “The feel- 
 ing would be against the strike. 
 
 Thomas Oldham. “ A division. 
 
 Thomas Frazer, Leeds district. “ The Colliers 
 are determined to c-a-r. 
 
 John Hallison, Stockport. “ Resolved, not to 
 go to their work, until this conference ended. 
 At another meeting passed, that they stand 
 only for the wages, &c. 
 
 James^ Taylor, Ashton-under-line. “ Masters 
 and'shopkeepers, had a meeting — and a meet- 
 ing passed, that Jhe Charter be agitated for. 
 James Hoyle, Salford. “ Several mills have 
 commenced — the wages the same. 
 
 James Thornton, Bolton, “Great many went 
 in this morning. 
 
 John Norman, Warrington. “ If the turn-out 
 goes on generally, tliey will come out and — 
 
 William Clark “ Opposed to connecting 
 
 this movement with the Charter. 
 
 Dewsbury. “ We turned out on Thurs- 
 day, and have been cautious some time, but 
 we are now determined to go for the strike 
 being connected. 
 
 John Shaw, Huddersfield. “The town was in 
 a state of confusion, and they do not wish to 
 connect themselves with the strike. 
 
 Christopher Doyle, Manchester. “ They are 
 determined to stand out until the Charter. 
 James Grosby, Hull. “ Are not expected to 
 take any part in the strike. 
 
 Moved by Doctor M'Douall. “That there be 
 nothing published but the resolutions. 
 
 Thomas Cooper, Leicester. “The men will 
 cease to work, if the conference recommended 
 they went to fight in the Potteries.” 
 
 [Mr. EASTHOPE, in answer to a question 
 from Mr. DUNDAS, said : — A day or two after 
 the papers were taken, the Attorney for the pri- 
 soner, Brooke, examined the whole of these. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :—Is Stansfield here ? 
 
 Mr. EASTTOPE : — No. Oh ! the gentleman 
 employed as Brooke’s attorney and I examined 
 the whole of these papers, with these copies in 
 my office. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — You are aware that the 
 gentleman now defending Brooke, is not Stans- 
 field .> 
 
 Mr. EASTHOPE :— No. Mr. Stansfield, who 
 was then his attorney, applied to me, and ex- 
 amined the papers along with me.] 
 
 William Beesly, Lancashire. “ Never trust 
 those who hunt so much for Fisical. 
 
142 
 
 Feargus O’Connor, Nottingham. “ They- are 
 
 in a good position. 
 
 James Chippendale, Halifax. 
 
 G . J. Harney, Sheffield. 
 
 Samuel Parks, Sheffield. “ No connection with 
 
 the middle class.” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I beg leave to ask the 
 Attorney- General, how he intends to put in these 
 papers ? Whether as narratives— admissions— or 
 confessions ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — These are papers found on the 
 party apprehended. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — But, my Lord, they are 
 mere narratives of what occurred, and are not 
 admissable except on the party on whom they 
 were found. 
 
 . The JUDGE : — How can other parties object 
 as to what evidence may be brought against 
 Brooke ? In aU cases of conspiracy, there are 
 proofs advanced which may not be brought 
 against other people. This is evidence against 
 Brookes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I suppose this is similar to 
 the case of King and Watson, where the ques- 
 tion was raised, whether the confessions of a co- 
 conspirator could be given in evidence at all. 
 
 The JUDGE: — The question is there, whe- 
 ther or not they were in possession of that 
 evidence, at the time the party was apprehended t 
 If time elapses between the apprehension of the 
 party and his being taken avv^ay, and you find 
 documents afterward in his possession, non con- 
 stat — they came there afterward. The late cele- 
 brated case of Blanchard and Sidney, is similar 
 to this, there the documents were found in the 
 possession of the prisoner, ‘ as in the present in- 
 stance,’ in the moment of his apprehension. 
 
 “ Jiichard Otley, Sheffield. They do not agree 
 to come out for physical force. 
 
 Thomas Railton, Joiners and Carpenters, Man- 
 chester. They have come out for the Charter. 
 
 James Cartledge, Mosley. They agree to 
 make the move into a Charter movement. 
 
 Robert Ramsden, Manchester. Youths. 
 
 James Mooney, Colne. 22,000 persons. They 
 are wishful to join the present movement into 
 the Charter. 
 
 James Arthur, Newcastle. We determine to 
 take advantage of the present moment. 
 
 Barnard ■ M'Cartney, Liverpool. [The 
 JUDGE : — Here you are getting beyond me.] 
 Apathetic. 
 
 Thomas Mahon, Stalybridge. Charter thrown 
 overboard. ' 
 
 John Leach, Hyde. They are determined — 
 keep out for the Charter. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I can’t make that out. Wit- 
 ness : — There is a great difference in the light, 
 my Lord. 
 
 David Morrison, Eccles. Good feeling pre- 
 vails with regard to, and they think it would be 
 best to go for the whole Charter, 
 
 John Lomax, Burnley. Some have gone in. 
 Moved by Mr. Bairstow, and seconded by Mr. 
 O’Connor. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Unless it is very important, 
 perhaps we might dispense with reading the re- 
 mainder, these notes are so daubed and smeared, 
 it is very difficult to make them out. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I entirely 
 accede to your Lordship’s suggestion, if your 
 Lordship does not see at once what it is, I at 
 once accede. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — You will see, my Lord, 
 that it was afterwards moved by Dr. M'Douall, 
 and seconded by Mr. M‘Cartney, and carried — 
 “ That we abstain fi-om intoxicating drinks.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — I suppose all the Attorney- 
 General wants to show is this — that there w’as 
 found in the possession of this man, when he 
 was taken, a narrative of what occurred at the 
 meeting of delegates. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL :— Yes, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY :— Jly Lord, shall I furnish 
 you with this copy, which I think is correct. I 
 have checked it as you went on. [The copy is 
 handed to the judge]. 
 
 The JUDGE : — This is in ink. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Perhaps my Lord, it may 
 have nothing to do with this transaction. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — It is a copy of the notes 
 in pencil, found on Brooke. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY :— My Lord, I beg leave to 
 hand in this paper, found on Brooke, it is 
 merely to shew his connection with the meeting 
 of Chartist delegates. 
 
 The JUDGE Proceeds to read the paper : — 
 “National Charter Association Dr. To Robert 
 Brooke, as under. 
 
 To victuals, while at Manchester, as a] s. d. 
 delagate. August 16th. j 
 
 One glass raspberry . .02 
 
 Do. Dinner . . • d 10 
 
 Tea at Carpenter’s Hall . . 10 
 
 Supper . . . .05 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— What is that ? 
 
 Mr, DUNDAS : — A Debtor and Creditor ac- 
 count, as I understand. 
 
 The JUDGE “ A bottle of Pop 2d.” It was 
 only some very small expenses. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR -A current account, my 
 Lord. 
 
143 
 
 The JUDGE “ 17th, Bed— 6d.” It is only a 
 one sided account for victuals, &c. 
 
 Breakfast, Dinner and Supper,'! 
 
 and some other little things, j 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The object 
 of it is to confirm the statement against him, 
 that he was at Manchester, as a delegate, on 
 ther 16 th. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Was proceeding to examine 
 Mr. Eastwood, as to the mob seen at Todmor- 
 den, but the witness declined giving any evidence 
 in that respect, on the ground that he had been 
 in Court and heard the evidence ; on the under- 
 standing that he would not be examined as to 
 any thing, except the papers he had to pro- 
 duce. 
 
 WILLIAM HEAP, examined by Sir GRE- 
 GORY LEWIN : — Where do you live ? I live 
 at a place called Ingbottom, in the neighbour- 
 hood of Todmorden. On the 18th of August, 
 was there a meeting near Todmorden ? There was 
 a meeting on the 18th August last, at Basinstone, 
 about a mile from Todmorden. At what o’clock ? 
 About ten in the forenoon. What number of 
 persons were assembled there ? About 1,000. Do 
 you know a person named Robert Brooke ? Yes. 
 He resides in Todmorden } Yes. Stone ? Yes. 
 Was he at that meeting ? Yes. Did he make a 
 speech ? Robert Brooke was speaking when I 
 arrived. He said he had been at the delegate 
 meeting at Manchester ; and, while there, there 
 came three letters from a man whose name he 
 would not tell. The first letter said he had 10,000 
 men to back him ; the second said he had got 15, 
 and the third said he had got 30. Do you mean 
 30,000 ? Yes. — And he said they were gone to 
 Leeds, and had driven the barracks, and were 
 masters of the town at that minute. Brooke says, 
 
 “ Now, my friends, we shall all stand firm. I 
 move that we never go to work any more till the 
 charter be got. — 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — “ The school-master’s 
 abroad.” 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN 
 “ Teaching the young idea how to shoot.” — 
 
 “ Perhaps some of you cannot do without working ; 
 but I will tell you, you must go to the overseers; 
 and if those won’t relieve you, we’ll try some 
 means else.” Brooke made a motion, that they 
 should meet that evening near the railway arches 
 at Todmorden. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN .—Was that motion 
 seconded ? Yes. There was another man made 
 a motion to go six abreast to Todmorden. Well, 
 now, on the same evening, did you attend another j 
 meeting at Todmorden Yes,about seven o’clock. 1 
 Was Brooke there ? Yes. He is a school-master 
 is he Yes. Now, about this time, was 'i’od- 
 
 morden in a quiet state } They were all unwork- 
 ' ing. 
 
 j The JUDGE : — That is, they were not work- 
 I ing ? Witness : — A great part of them, 
 j Sir GREGORY LEWIN Do you know 
 I the valley between Todmorden and Halifax 
 I Yes. Do you know anything of an assemblage 
 going down that valley ? Yes. Do you know 
 where they came from? One part came from 
 Burnley, and some from the Bacup-road. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — Did you see them ? Yes. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN : — In your judgment, 
 what is the largest number you have seen assem- 
 bled there ? I can’t say I ever saw so large a 
 number of persons assembled together. How 
 many thousands were there ? Several. Were 
 the mills turned out ? They were turning them 
 out just then. This large assembly of persons 
 marched down the valley towards Halifax. Did 
 they ? Yes. You don’t recollect the exact day ? 
 No. Did that place continue in an excited state ? 
 Yes. You can’t say how long ? For a good many 
 days. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS : — Well, Mr. 
 Heap, what may you be when you are at home ? 
 
 I have been a farmer, and kept many horses and 
 cattle. You have been a farmer, pray what are 
 you now ? Well, I kept a good many horses, 
 and cattle, and sheep. Are you a farmer now ? 
 No, my brother is one, he has taken the farm 
 now. Did you give up farming, or did it give 
 up t — What were you doing in August last ? I 
 was weeding . stones. Where was the farmer 
 then? — Were you carting ? Yes. For yourself? 
 No, but with my own horse and cart. For yom*- 
 self? No, for the trustee of the Todmorden 
 turnpike road. What were you doing at the 
 mooting ? I was requested to go there by my 
 brother. Who was he ? John Heap, the con- 
 stable of Todmorden. Why did he not go him- 
 self ? He wished me to go up, and see if there 
 v/as any disturbance, and let him know if there 
 was. So you went there ? Yes, I did. Did 
 you take any notes ? No. You earned all this 
 in your head for 5 or 6 months ? No, I bore it 
 in my mind till I got to Todmorden, and set it 
 down in Todmorden. Is it not from what you 
 remember, and not from what you set down, that 
 you now speak ? No, I remember it, but I set 
 it down too. Well, were is your paper ? Wit- 
 ness hands a paper, containing his notes, to Mi'. 
 Dundas. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — The notes 
 that he does not refer to, you have no right to 
 caU for. 
 
144 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS returns the notes. Did he re- 
 commend the people to be peaceable ? Yes. 
 Did not he say that several times ? Yes, I think 
 he mentioned it several times. They tell me 
 that this fighting man is a lame man ? I have 
 seen people that walked better than Mm, whether 
 he be lame or not. You have seen people that 
 walked better — well, that is the lowest descrip- 
 tion of a walker I ever heard. Is he lame ? I 
 cannot tell whether he brought it into this world, 
 or how it is. But whether or not, he walks w ith 
 a crutch sometimes } He does, and sometimes 
 he does not. But do people, who are not lame, 
 wallc with crutches ? Yes, I do myself, some- 
 times. For pleasure ? Yes, I take a stick when 
 1 go out after the sheep. But what is your fun 
 about using a crutch ? Well, we call it a crutch 
 sometimes, and sometimes a stick. But, when 
 I asked you whether the schoolmaster was a lame 
 man, and walked with a crutch, did you under- 
 stand me to mean the same thing as when you 
 go out with a stick after the sheep ? Well, I go 
 out with a crutch sometimes. As a lame man ? 
 Well, he does not go out well liowsomdever. But 
 does not he go out wdth a crutch sometimes ? 
 He does, and sometimes he does not. Then he 
 has not a crutch ? Well, 1 never saw a man that 
 way, Y/hether he came so into the world or not. 
 Is he lame of a leg ? Well, they are both lame ; 
 
 I should say they are both alike. Is he lame, or 
 not ? lie appears lame. Well, why not say that ? 
 
 I said so before. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — You 
 have spoken of the magnitude of the procession ; 
 now, tell us how far do you live from Todmor- 
 den ? Two miles. During last summer, before 
 the strike, have you seen large processions in 
 Todmorden ? Sometimes. Is not Todmorden a 
 celebrated place for having large processions? 
 Sometimes there are large processions in it. 
 Now, sir, I ask you, on your path, do not you 
 know that Brooke, in consequence of his misfor- 
 tune, became a schoolmaster, in order that he 
 might have a sedentary occupation ? I said so. 
 No, you did not. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN He said so. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR ; — No : he said he walked as 
 well with one leg as with the other. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He said they 
 were both bad. 
 
 JOHN HEAP, recalled and examined by the 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you see any of 
 the Executive Addresses at Todmorden ? I did. 
 Did you take one down ? A person posting 
 
 them up gave me one. Very well; have you 
 got one here ? [Witness produced a copy of the 
 “ Executive Placard.”] On what day did you 
 get that? On the 17th of August. At Tod- 
 morden ? Yes. How far is that from Manches- 
 ter ? About twenty miles. Well, now, did you 
 see a person putting bills up of this description ? 
 I saw him put one up, and he had some more in 
 his hand. How many ? About three. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What time of the day did you 
 see him ? After dinner. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — What is the Todmorden 
 dinner hour ? About two o’clock. 
 
 The next witness sworn was JAMES WIL- 
 COX, the person whom, it was understood, Mr. 
 O’Connor consented to receive as a substitute for 
 Sir James GRAHAM. The Judge suggested, 
 that, as the examination might occupy a great 
 length of time, and as he did not like to break 
 off in the middle of it, he thought it better, ac- 
 cording to previous arrangement, to let the jury' 
 leave Court in time to depart by the train, at 
 half-past five o’clock. However, both the At- 
 torney-General and Mr. O’Connor said they 
 should not occupy much time in examining this 
 witness. 
 
 JAMES WILCOX examined by the ATTOR- 
 NEY-GENERAL Where do you live ? At 
 Ashton-under-Lyne. Do you remember a meet- 
 ing at Ashton, near Thacker’s foundry-yard? 
 V’itness : — At what time, sir ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL In August. 
 Witness : — What date ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is what 
 I want to ask you. — Do you remeihber taking 
 any candles to a Chartist news-room ? I re- 
 member there being a meeting,.but I was not at 
 it. Can you fix the date when ymu went with 
 the candles ? It was a night or two after that 
 took place. 
 
 The JUDGE When did you take the can- 
 dles ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The meeting 
 Avas a day or two after the candles, and the 
 candles were a day or two after the meeting ! 
 
 The JUDGE What day of the week was 
 it ? Witness The strike took place on the 8th 
 of August, and this would be the Tuesday or 
 Wednesday prior to the 8th. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It would be 
 the 2nd or 3rd of August ? Yes.— The meeting 
 of Thacker’s foundry, don’t you want to know ? 
 — Well, that would be about the time. V ell, 
 for some reason or other, you went with the 
 
canilles yoursHf ? Yes. Where did you take the 
 candles to ? To the Chartist news-room. Where 
 was that ? In Charles Town. Is that a part of 
 Ashton ? Yes. Did you find that any part of 
 the room was parted off ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Charles Town is part of Ash- 
 ton ? Yes, sir. 
 
 Th ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you find 
 any part of the room separated from the rest ? 
 Y^es. What was it done with ? Pack-sheeting. 
 Did you see any person you know sitting in that 
 room ? 
 
 The JUDGE Parted off with what ? With 
 cotton bags, boards, &c., so as to make two 
 rooms ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL How many 
 people did you find there ? I can’t say, but I 
 should think there were upwards of twenty. 
 Did you know any of them ? I knew Richard 
 Pilling. What station did he occupy ? I don’t 
 know whether he was chairman or not, but it 
 appeared he was, from the way in which the 
 people spoke to him — They addressed him as 
 chairman. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Addressed who.’ Pilling. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did you hear 
 what they were talking about ? They were talk- 
 ing about the heading of a placard. What did 
 Pilling say ? lie said it should be headed with 
 “ The reckoning day is nigh or, “ The reckon- 
 ing day is at hand.” Did you afterwards see 
 any placard of that kind posted through the 
 town ? Yes. Well, now, did you read it ? I 
 only read the heading; I can’t read except I put 
 my glasses on ; I could read the heading dis- 
 tinctly, but nothing more. Was the placard in 
 many places, or in a few only ? I saw it in two 
 places. Now, let us know what you recollect 
 seeing as heading of a placard .’ “ The reckoning 
 day is nigh or, “ The reckoning day is at 
 hand or, “ near,” or, words to that effect. 
 Did you afterw'ards hear Pilling say anything 
 about that Placard .’ I was in the room a day or 
 two afterwards, and I heard Pilling say he w’ould 
 send twenty-five of them, I think, to Manchester. 
 Was there anybody else in the room you know 
 besides Pilling ? I knew one or two. Did you 
 knew a person of the name of Storah ? I know 
 a person who challenged me with saying, that I 
 saw the Anti-corn-law League paying the dele- 
 gates. I said I knew nothing of the kind, but 
 that a person of the name of Hunt told me so ; 
 and he then said, “ I was at the back of the ^ 
 
 boards.” But you have no recollection of his 
 being there ? No, I have not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr O’CONNOR: — I be- 
 lieve, Mr. Wilcox, during the whole time of 
 these disturbances, you w'ere very uneasy in your 
 mind ? Yes, sir. Did you ever attend any of 
 the meetings of shopkeepers .’ Yes, I did. Did 
 you ever attend any other meetings Yes I did ; 
 two or three others. Any of the corn-law 
 League ? Witness : — When .’ 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — On or about that time. 
 Witness: — I did not. 
 
 Mr O’CONNOR : — Did you ever complain, 
 that the working people w ere unfairly got out of 
 their work, and that then the parties who got 
 them out turned against them .’ Yes. You are a 
 shopkeeper I believe at Ashton ? Yes. Did you 
 think that the treatment received by the turn-outs 
 was so bad, that it was your duty to make a 
 representation of it to the government ? Yes, I 
 did. Had you heard from any of the manufac- 
 turers, Mr. Wilcox, previously to the turn-out, 
 that there were to be three reductions of wages 
 before Christmas ? Not from the manufacturers 
 themselves. Was it a prevailing report in 
 Ashton ? It was a prevailing report. Who told 
 you this ? It was a certain gentleman who had 
 a correspondence, and he was a member of their 
 news-room. Whose news-room.’ The corn-law 
 League news-room he told me. What did you 
 hear from him ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— No, really; 
 I must interpose. My Lord do you think this an 
 important thing. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, we are charged 
 here with conspiring together fora certain period ; 
 and, being charged with conspiracy, I submit 
 that it is the Attorney- General’s duty to show 
 who originated that conspiracy. The third and 
 fourth counts charge us with having continued a 
 conspiracy then in existence. I am now about 
 to show who were the originators of this con- 
 spiracy ; and I think, upon the law of presump- 
 tion, that this is fair to give evidence of, at this 
 time. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are asking him what a 
 certain person, who w^as a member of the news- 
 room, told him with regard to the manufacturers 
 in the neighbourhood. And it was to that I 
 understood the objection to apply. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — ! must 
 object, my Lord, to the mere understanding of 
 this witness, as derived from no authentic source. 
 
 I shall object now as being wliolly irrelevant ; 
 
146 
 
 and if derived from some person with whom he had 
 any communication, still I must object to that. 
 
 Ti\8 JUDGE I don’t know that is strictly 
 evidence, but statements have been received 
 several times as to what was the prevailing notion 
 among the w'orkmen. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — That was the question I 
 put to him, my Lord. “ What was the prevail- 
 ing notion among the workmen at the time.^” 
 They understood that there v.ere two or three 
 reductions to be made before Christmas. 
 
 Tl'.e JUDGE : — It must not be taken that I 
 lay this down as a rule. 
 
 hlr. O’CONNOR ; — Precisely, my Lord, and 
 this is the Attorney-General’s own witness. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: -That does 
 not vary the rules of evidence. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR -.— [To witness.] — Now, 
 did you complain yourself that it was a conspi- 
 racy against the Chartists ! — Witness : —To 
 whom ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Did you complain that 
 it was a conspiracy got up by other parties to 
 injure the Chartists, and further the agitation for 
 a repeal of the corn law's ? I cannot say that I 
 ever mentioned it in that way. In what way did 
 you mention it ? — ^Tell us what your own opinion 
 was. My opinion was, that there w'ere parties 
 in Ashton, that were desirous to bring about a 
 tumult, in order to stop the Chartists from hav- 
 ing their meetings. What party in Ashton did 
 you attribute that to ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: — Why, 
 really, my Lord — 
 
 The JUDGE : — Why, Mr. Attorney, I think 
 that is just as good evidence as the other. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (emphati- 
 cally) ; — 1 cordially assent to that, my Lord, 
 that it is just as good. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — As good as Brooke hav- 
 ing both legs lame ! 
 
 The JUDGE : — (To the witness.) If you 
 understand the fact, we may as well have it at 
 once. You mean to say the Anti-corn-law 
 League ? Yes, and I will give you my reasons. — 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— We don’t 
 want your reasons, but your facts. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Surely you don’t object 
 to a man giving his reasons for what he does. 
 Witness: — I was in company with a certain 
 gentleman, and he told me Observe, I’ll tell 
 you what was the reason that brought me into 
 his company, he told me there woul^ be three 
 reductions between that and Christmas ; and 
 that the Chartist Institution would be broke up, 
 and there would then be nothing but the Corn- 
 law League and the Tories ; and, he says to me, 
 “ Which of these two parties will you take ?” 
 
 IMr. O’CONNOR Now, how long hiwe 
 you resided in Ashton ? I have been five years 
 in the parish, and before then, ten or eleven 
 ! years. Did you see, during the strike or dis- 
 turbance at Ashton, one Chartist hand-bill 
 ^ posted on the walls ; a bill ; a placard ; did you 
 see one ? I saw these papers regarding the reckon- 
 ing day. Nothing more than that? And that 
 was after the people were turned out ? No, not 
 after they were turned out. They were just 
 out about Stalybridge. It was a w'eek before the 
 strike. I believe they were out the very day 
 1 that I saw the papers up. Now, Mr. Wilcox, 
 you spoke of the Charlestown meeting-room. 
 Have you frequently attended public meetings in 
 Ashton ? I have sometimes. I believe you and 
 I never met till now ? O yes ; I once spoke to 
 you. Then that is more than I know. I have 
 not the pleasure of recollecting you. Wit- 
 ness : — No more than shaking hands wnth you, 
 and asking how you did. You have heard me 
 often address the people? I have heard you 
 speak twice. Upon those two occasions, did 
 you think my addresses calculated to preserve 
 the peace, or to lead to a disturbance? They 
 were not calculated to lead to a disturbance. 
 Do you not think, that those addresses, or any 
 address that you ever heard me make, — did 
 you ever hear me say one single word calculated 
 to lead to a violation of the peace ? Never, not 
 a word. Have you not heard me frequently dis- 
 countenancing every thing like violence and 
 physical force ? I frequently read your paper, 
 the Northern Star; and I always found that 
 your advice was to keep the peace, and to take 
 care that they were not led into any snare or trap. 
 And ray speeches were of the same tendency? 
 Yes. You spoke of your desire to go and see the 
 authorities in London, in consequence of the 
 manner in which the people were treated, and to 
 represent the entire to Sir James Graham ? Yes. 
 Did you go to London ?, I went as far as Bir- 
 mingham, on my way to London. There I wrote 
 a letter to Sir James Graham, telling him 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — That we 
 must not have. 
 
 Mr. 0 ’CO IS NOR :— Telling him what ? Surely 
 we may have a letter written by the witness for 
 the Crown. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— No,.no ; you 
 cannot have that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Does not your Lordship 
 think that a letter written by the witness him- 
 self— 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, you cannot have the cor- 
 respondence. 
 
147 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — Then you did not see Sir 
 James Graham ? No. Or Sir Robert Peel ? No. 
 Then, when you got to Birmingham, you turned 
 back ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My lord, I 
 will say this, that, if Mr. O'Connor had been en- 
 titled to ask Sir James Graham to state the con- 
 tents of that letter, or to produce it under a 
 duces tecum, then I would have no objection to 
 have it produced, but I wish Mr. O'Connor to 
 be in the same situation as if Sir James Graham 
 w'ere standing here in court, to answer his ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — As a privy councillor, I 
 don't think I could ask him. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Just so ; and if Sir James 
 Graham, on being asked for that letter, were to 
 say, “ I received this letter in my official charac- 
 ter, and I think it not for the public interest, 
 that I should produce it,” that would have been 
 sufficient to shut it out. Suppose, Mr. O’Con- 
 nor, you had said to Sir James Graham, “ Pro- 
 duce that letter,” and he replied, “ No, I will 
 not ; I received it in my official character as 
 Secretary of State, and I think it would be in- 
 jurious to the public interest to produce it.” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I quite see the nature 
 of your objection, and, therefore, I shall not 
 press for the production of the letter. 
 
 WITNESS (cross-examined by BERNARD 
 M'CARTNEY) : — Did you ever hear, in the 
 course of your residence in Ashton, other 
 speakers, who possessed some degree of influ- 
 ence, recommending the people to peace, as well 
 as Mr. O’Connor, and to abstain from violence 
 and obey the law Yes. Their addresses were 
 generally of that character and tendency ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Does any other defendant 
 wish to ask a question ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— No, my Lord. 
 
 SAMUEL HIGHLEY, examined by Mr. 
 HIGHLEY : — You are a cotton-spinner, having 
 a mill at Glossop, I believe 'i Yes. Brookfield, 
 
 I believe, is the name of the place ? Yes. On 
 the 10th of August last were your hands turned 
 out by the mob t They were. Were your 
 works, in consequence, stopped for some time } 
 Yes ; from the 10th to the 26th. On the 26th, 
 did your men resume labour ? They commenced 
 at the usual time in the morning. At half-past 
 twelve that day, did any persons assemble round 
 your mill.> Yes; a mob came down the road, 
 from Glossop ; perhaps there were 600 or 700. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — There is no cross-examination 
 about that. Rhodes was examined to tlie same 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. IIILDYARD : — Between the 26th and 
 30th of August were there ineflectual attempts 
 made by the mob to turn out your hands ? 
 There were threats used, but no attempts made 
 from the 28th to the 30th. They were not 
 turned out on the 26th. On Tuesday, the 30th 
 of August, early in the morning, did four or five 
 men say anything to you ? A little past five 
 o’clock there came five men up and said “ We 
 shall have plenty of conjpany to-day, they are 
 coming to level the premises and the- factory.'' 
 Did he state where the persons would eome 
 from ? From the neighbourhood of Ashton, at 
 Staleybridge. During that morning, did a party 
 of men approach from that direction ? Yes ; 
 about eleven or tvrelve o’clock. Were tiiey 
 armed with anything ? With large sticks. Had 
 you, in consequence of the threat made to you 
 that morning, sent to the soldiers at Glossop ? 
 I had, an hour before. After the mob had as- 
 sembled round your works, did you assent to 
 them that these men should disperse? When 
 the mob came running dowm, making a most 
 dreadful noise, (there were many thousands 
 there at the time), I charged them not to 
 approach. Did you retire to your mill ? Yes ; 
 after they began to throw stones. After you 
 had done so, was an attack commenced on your 
 mill ? The attack was commenced before. After 
 you retired, did they continue that attack upon 
 your mill ? Yes. Were the windows of your 
 mill broke ? Yes ; the piincipal part of the win- 
 dows of my warehouse and house were broke — 
 window-frames and all. I believe you had part 
 of your family in the house at the time ? Yes. 
 I believe you had two daughters in the house ? 
 Yes. Did the mob attempt to force the doors 
 or get into your mill-yard? Yes; they at- 
 tempted to force the doors. I believe, in the 
 end, you found it necessary’ to fire on the ^ob ? 
 I threatened theip repeatedly before; and, at 
 last, I had to fire on them. I fired a double- 
 barrell gun, and it missed : I instantly got ano- 
 ther double-barrell gun, and before I could fire 
 it, six of the hands got hold of it. I fired it, 
 however, and likewise a pistol. The moment 
 the pistol went off, the noise ceased, and we 
 looked out directly, and the mob were running 
 doAvn the road. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :-If I don’t mistake, Mr. 
 Rhodes, who was examined here, is your son-in- 
 law ? He is. And he has part of your mills ? 
 Y’'es. The transaction you speak of occurred on 
 the 30th of Au'gust last ? Yes. Did you apply 
 
148 
 
 to the magistrates for aid ? Yes. An hour and a 
 half before the attack, I sent my son up with in- 
 formation to the magistrates of what I expected 
 to take place. The mob were then nearly two 
 miles from my place. The magistrates sent 
 back to say, “ whether there was a real attack or 
 not" ? Did you apply to Mr. Coppock, the ma- 
 gistrates' clerk at Stockport, for aid ? No. Did 
 the magistrates tell you, that you could have no 
 aid, and they saw no reason why you should re- 
 sist ? No. Now, at this time, was there at 
 Glossop-dale, a meeting announced to be held ? 
 
 I am not aware. Does your mill front the road ? 
 It does. And would the crowd have to pass 
 your mill on their way to Glossop-dalc ? There | 
 was no meeting that day in Glossop. Are you . 
 sure of that ? I am sure of it. You will swear ' 
 there was no meeting there ? I am positive of it. i 
 M’^ell, you fired three shots ? Yes. No mischief i 
 done to you ? I was struck on my shoulder and 
 breast before that. When the last shot was fired 
 they ran off? Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. HILDYARD : — I be- 
 lieve one of the constables was struck in the 
 face ? Yes. And two teeth knocked out of him ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Perhaps, my Lord, the 
 jury might now be discharged in order that ! 
 they might have sufficient time to meet the train ? j 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : -The jury 
 know at what time it is necessary for them to 
 leave, so as to have the advantage of the train. 
 Your Lordship’s indulgence would be wasted if 
 they were not to have the advantage of the train. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — We have two witnesses 
 to examine, and they will occupy a very short 
 time, indeed. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Half-past four is the time. 
 
 HENRY LEES, examined by Mr. WORT- 
 LEY : — Do you know the defendant, John 
 Lewis ? Yes. Have you seen him write ? No. 
 Have you received any letters from him ? I have 
 received papers from him ; I seen them signed 
 by him ; I have had business-transactions with 
 him, and I know his signature. What is the 
 nature of the papers ? He is secretary for a 
 funeral society, and I am the treasurer, and have 
 paid money upon order, signed by him. And 
 settled the accounts with him after ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did you ever settle the account 
 with him afterwards ? Witness : — I cannot speak ' 
 to that. You received oi'ders sent b^' him, to j 
 pay the money, and you afterwards told him ^ 
 .you did? Yes, and I have sometimes paid it into j 
 bis hands. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY Where does Lewis live ? 
 At Wooley hi-idge, ne.ar Glossop. Now look at 
 
 that, [handing a paper to witness] is that his 
 signature? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL Is John 
 Lewis here ? [Lewis was not in court when 
 called, so that the witness could not identify 
 him]. 
 
 The JUDGE : — ^We must take care that we 
 do not take evidence against him, unless we can 
 identify him. This is John Lewis of Wooley 
 bridge. Who is the John Lewis that is in- 
 dited ? 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR ; — John Leach of Manches- 
 ter. 
 
 Mr: HILDYARD ; — Where is Wooley bridge ? 
 Oh, it is on the borders of Derbyshire, near 
 Glossop, where John Lewis addressed a meet- 
 ing. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Who proved that ? 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — John [Joe] Cooper, who 
 was called in the afternoon of yesterday. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — If it was proved that I 
 was addressing a meeting at Glasgow, that 
 would be no proof that I resided there. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY' : — Lewis was a speaker at ji. 
 meeting at Glossop. Joe Cooper, says, “ I live 
 at Chisworth, &c..” and then goes on to speak 
 of Lewis being at a meeting near Glossop. 
 
 The JUDGE : — “ I live at Chisworth, near 
 Glossop.” That is so. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — This is an attempt to 
 prove an admission, on a very distinct ground, in 
 the res gestae. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY: — Well, I wUl carry it a 
 little further. I will satisfy the jury that it is 
 still the same person ; — it may not afford com- 
 plete certainty, but it will be reasonable evidence. 
 
 ROBERT NEYVTON, examined by Mr. 
 WORTLEY : — What are you ? Deputy-Con- 
 stable of Ashton-under-Lyne. Do you know 
 John Lewis ? I apprehended him. Where does 
 he live ? At Wooley Bridge. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Y'ou apprehended him on a 
 charge connected with these disturbances ? 1 
 
 did, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Was he kept in custody, 
 or let out on bail ? I sent him off to Glossop, 
 and gave him up to the authorities there, and he 
 was afterwards let out on bail. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Have you ever seen him 
 sinee ? I have. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— Are there any other Lewis’s 
 of Wooley Bridge ? Not that I am aware of, I 
 have not been there, but he told me himself 
 that he lived there. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My Lord, and we object to 
 that, we still say it is hot proved that there is 
 
I4y 
 
 r\o othor such person ait Woolley Bridge. [To 
 the Witness.] It is a large place ? Not very 
 large. It is a majiufacturing place ? There is a 
 manufactory near, but it it not a large place 
 How many hands in the fae- iry? I don’t know, 
 but I think not many 
 
 The JUDGE : — The Jonn Lewis of Woolley 
 B i Ige, the defendant, was at the head of tliis 
 party, and afterwards let out on bail ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY And ‘Woolley Bridge If 
 near Glossop ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Now, my Lord, we have 
 called a man to show that John Lewis lived at 
 Woolley Bridge, and that Woolley Bridge is near 
 Glossop. The witness who proves the hand- 
 writing says, he knows John Lewis of Woolley 
 Bridge. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The former witness said, “ He 
 lived at Woolley Bridge, and that there was only 
 one John Lewis. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — This witness does not pre- 
 tend to say, there is only one John Lewis. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— No, my Lord, 
 but he does not know more. 
 
 The JUDGE : — There is only one John Lewis 
 there. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — [To witness] — Will you 
 swear there is not another John Lewis ? I 
 don't know of any. Will you swear there is 
 not I don’t know any other there. You are 
 sure ? Well, I am an old inhabitant there. Is 
 there any other John Lewis there ? — Aye or no ? 
 Well, I don’t know any other. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do you know the place well ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE Well, that will do, I think.’ 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Is he 
 a man of good character t Yes, he was secre- 
 tary and treasurer. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — I think, my Lord, that is 
 enough, but I can go further. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, I have no objection ; I 
 am open to observation. 
 
 THOMAS RHODES, re-called. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Have you been in Court. 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — He was examined before. 
 [To the witness] — Do you know John Lewis, of 
 Woolley Bridge, near Glossop ? Yes. Do you 
 know him well } Yes. Is there any other John 
 Lewis there "i No, he acknowledged to me last 
 August that he was a delegate at Manchester, 
 and there voted for the Charter. 
 
 The following letters from John Lewis, were 
 
 then put in and read by the officer of the 
 court : — 
 
 “ Manchester, 16th of Auguit, 1842. 
 
 To the Committee meeting at Glossop : — I 
 have the pleasure to inform you that, at a meet- 
 ing of the different trades assembled this morn- 
 ing at ten o’clock, in the Hall of Science, Camp- 
 field, it took all the day for the different 
 delegates to state the feelings of the constituencies 
 they represented. I can assure you, the people 
 ^^'^Glossop, and the surrounding hamlets, that 
 the delegates assembled there, calmly and coolly 
 discussed which was the best remedy for the pre- 
 sent State in which the country is now engaged, 
 and at the last, arbajority^of the meeting was, that 
 all cease from their worlrtill the Peoples’ Char- 
 ter become the law of the land, and further, the 
 meeting is this evening adjourned till to morrow 
 morning, when some measures will be adopted, 
 as to the means whereby the above resolution 
 can be carried out. Now, ye men of Glossop, 
 and its vicinity, I implore you, as an individual, to 
 stand here to a man. Let ‘ peace, law and order, 
 by your motto, if you only do so, depend upon 
 it victory is yours ; you must also exert your 
 selves in collecting from the well disposed, 
 money or any commodity they may think 
 proper to give, to be distributed among the poor- 
 est among you. 
 
 I remain your’s, in haste, 
 
 JOHN LEWIS. 
 
 P. S. Do your duty, and I promise you to do 
 mine, let the consequences be what they may. 
 
 John Lewis. 
 
 To the Committee, at Glossop.” 
 
 Sherwood Inn, Tibb-street, 
 Manchester, August l^th, 1842.” 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Perhaps we shall hear 
 more of that locality, Sherwood Inn, Tib-street, 
 bye and bye. 
 
 The OFFICER proceeds : — 
 
 ‘ ‘ To the Committee of Glossop and Mottram : — 
 This is to inform you that we, the Executive 
 Committee, are at our post, determined to do our 
 duty if we only get public support. You must be 
 aware that though we was elected by the trades’ 
 delegate meeting, it is not in our power to carry 
 the resolution of last Tuesday into effect without 
 being backed out by public opinion and public 
 support. I have also to inform you, that we 
 called a public meeting of the shopkeepers of 
 Manchester and Salford, this day, at two o’clock 
 in the afternoon, at Carpenters’ Hall, to see how 
 far they are agreed to assist the people in obtain- 
 ing their political rights. I can assure you, that 
 there was a great spirit manifested by some of the 
 shopkeepers, trades, and people, and one Mr. 
 O’Neal made an excellent speech, which you will 
 see in the Mjmehester papers, as there was two 
 1 . 
 
150 
 
 reporters. — The first resolution was, “That a 
 requisition be drawn up and presented to the 
 Mayor for him to convene a public meeting, to 
 be held, as soon as possible, of the shopkeepers 
 and tradesmen of Manchester and Salford.” 
 The second resolution was, “ That, should the 
 Mayor refuse to do so, they themselves would 
 immediately convene one without delay. I have 
 also to inform you, that James Leach has been 
 brought up to day, but for want of sufficient 
 evidence, he is remanded till Tuesday next, 
 and in order that you may see the necessity of j 
 standing true like men, I can inform you that, 
 should a failure take place, Feargus O’Connor, 
 and every one, both of the Executive, and the 
 leaders of the Chartist movement, will become 
 victorious in the land of those who seeks to keep 
 from the people their political rights. — Oh ! that 
 Englishmen and Englishwomen had but the 
 spirit of Irishmen and Irishwomen, there would 
 not be the least doubt of success. I have to at- 
 
 tend a meeting of the four mechanical trades which 
 will be held this evening in Carpenters’ Hall, 
 and the Executive meets early to morrow morn- 
 ing ; and at ten o’clock, a public delegate meeting 
 will be held in the Charter association room. 
 Brown-street, Travis-street, Manchester. You 
 had better convene a public meeting at six o’clock, 
 on Monday morning, we shall then be prepared 
 to lay before you all the* information we are in 
 possession of. It is expected, that there will be 
 reports in to*-motrow’s papers, shewing what 
 j state the country is in. The power loom weavers 
 of Manchester, has come to the determination, if 
 their political rights are not obtained, they will 
 not resume work again, until they have the wages 
 they had in 1839, and issued a list of prices they 
 had in that year. 
 
 I remain, your's, 
 
 In the cause of Political Freedom, 
 JOHN LEWIS.” 
 
 The Court rose at a quarter to five. 
 
 t i\ *■ i I 
 
 END OP FOONTH DAYS TRIAD. 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 FIFTH DAY, 
 
 Monday^ March 6ih, 1843. 
 
 Mr. BARON ROLFE took his seat this morning at the usual hour. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, I wish to make an observation in reference to a 
 violation of the rwle laid down by your Lordship, respecting the keeping of witnesses 
 out of Court. I do not intend to bring the matter formally before your Lordship, 
 but I wish to take an opinion on it. Your Lordship made a rule that all the wit- 
 nesses should leave the Court, and, I take it, that that rule ivas intended for the 
 protection of the parties concerned ; and that nothing should be done to interfere 
 with it. Now, my Lord, I am prepared to show that, invariably, half an hour 
 before the witnesses are brought into Court to be examined, a Mr. Irwin, whose 
 name appears frequently in this cause, gets possession beforehand of the person 
 who is to give evidence, and, having examined him, then instructs the witness about 
 to be called. I wish now, my Lord, to give notice that it is my intention to prefer 
 a charge of subornation of perjury against one of the parties. 1 know, my I^ord, 
 I cannot now bring the matter formally before the Court. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Really it is seldom that the turning of witnesses out of Court 
 is productive of any good. I cannot prevent them from communicating w’^ith one 
 another. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — My Lord, I wish the matter were brouglit 
 formally before your Lordship. It is quite competent for your Lordship to send for 
 that man, and ask him if he has done what Mr. O’Connor alleges. If your LorcU 
 ship sees no objection, I would implore your Lordship, that this may not go to the 
 public without denial. I believe there is not a syllable of foundation for it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I can prove it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I cannot do that. It must not be taken to be either the one way 
 or the other. We have ample enough on our hands, without trying collateral ques* 
 tions as to subornation of perjury. It must not be taken, because I say that, 
 that I would give the least countenance to any such conduct. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — I handed in a paper to your Lordship, and you handed it 
 to Mr. Forrest. The endorsement is proved to be in the handwriting of one of 
 the defendants. 
 
 J'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — I shall reserve that, my Lord, until I call a 
 witness. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I recollect, it is a writing of which I said I should take the charge. 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — Then, my Lord, we won’t read it till it is 
 correctly in your Lordship’s note. 
 
EDWIN SHEPHERD examined by Mr. 
 WORTLEY : — I believe you are Superintendant 
 tf police for the Blackburn lower division ? Yes. 
 Were you in the performance of your duty, in 
 August last ? Yes, sir. On the 15th of August, 
 were you called out to quell any disturbances ? 
 Yes, sir. What was the nature of those distur- 
 bances ? An attack upon a mill. Upon whose 
 mill? Rodgett’s and Brierley’s factory. What 
 time of the day was that ? About eleven o’clock. 
 When you got there, what did you find ? I found 
 a party of from 200 to 300 scaling the gates. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Mr. Wortley, what date? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY The 15th of August. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR At Blackburn ? 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY:— Blackburn. [To wit- 
 ness.] W^hat distance is Blackburn from Man- 
 chester ? Blackburn is fifteen miles to the north 
 west. W’^as there any else beside scaling over 
 the gates ? Yes, they were knocking against the 
 gates with their clubs. What did you do ? I 
 ordered my own men forward, and we took seve- 
 ral of the mob into custody. What became of 
 the military ? They drew up to the end of the 
 street, near the turnpike road, and we went down 
 the street to the gates. W’^hat became of the 
 mob who were attacking the mill ? We took a 
 a great portion of them into custody. Later in 
 ^he day, did you see another mob ? Yes, about 
 two hours after. What size was that mob ? There 
 were from 300 to 1500 or 2000 persons in it. 
 How^ much later in the day was it? About two 
 hours later. Had the military remained there ? 
 When that mob approached, the military drew 
 up from the head of the street. They had been 
 at the head of the street? Yes. Underarms? 
 Yes, under arms. You say the military drew 
 across the turnpike road? ‘Yes. "Was the mob 
 coming up the turnpike road? Yes. In what 
 order ? In no order at all ; they were coming 
 in a body, and there were foxir men in ad- 
 vance of the rest. Is there a toll-bar there ? 
 There is. When the mob came in view of the 
 military; were they coming along the road 
 towards the turnpike ? Yes, I was with the mili- 
 tary, and a magistrate was present. From what 
 road where the mob coming ? From the Hasling- 
 den or the Accrington road. From the direction 
 of Burnley ? Yes. As far as you could see of 
 them, were they Blackburn people or strangers ? 
 They were. strangers ? Now, did one of the four 
 who came in front, speak ? He did. What pas- 
 sed ? He said, when he got near to us, addressing 
 the authorities : — “Now chaps, how is it to be ?’’ 
 That was addressed to the authorities, was it ? 
 It was; — “Are we to go quietly or not, be- 
 cause if not, we will do so by force.” Did some 
 of the others dissent from that ? They did. What 
 did they say ? They said ; — “ Hifeh, hush, that 
 
 is not what we want.” Anything more ? Yes : — 
 “ We want to go quietly into- the town to turn- 
 out the hands, until w’e get a fair day’s wages 
 for a fair day’s work.” What did the magistrates 
 do ? They endeavoured to persuade them to leave 
 the town as they were strangers, and to go away 
 peaceably and quietly, for that all their endea- 
 vours would be resisted. Did they go home, or 
 what did they do ? They would not go home. 
 Then, what did they do? We endeavoured to 
 take some of the ringleaders into custody. Did 
 you see what became of those four men in front ? 
 We did not. What did you do then ? When we 
 went to call those four men forward they disap- 
 peared. Did you succeed in taking some ? Yes. 
 How many ? About forty. But how many did 
 you take at that moment? About five or six. 
 W^hat became of the rest of the mob ? They dis- 
 persed. 'In what direction ? Towards the 
 town, and over the fields. W’'hat number ot 
 persons do you think you saw getting into the 
 town across the fields ? The great majority of 
 them. Now, what did the police and military 
 do ? They returned to the town with the pri- 
 soners which they had taken. Did you come to 
 a mill belonging to Mr. Eccles ? Yes. W’hat 
 did you see when you got there ? A' great num- 
 ber of persons in front of the mill in the street ; 
 I went down and saw one of the overlookers out- 
 side of the gate. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was there a great mob in 
 front of it ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — Were the police with 
 you ? No, only myself and Mr. Hornby, a magu - 
 trate. I believe the mob moved on then ? Yes. 
 Did you afterwards go with the magistrates and 
 military, to Mr. Hopwood’s mill? Yes. What 
 did you see when you got there ? We saw a 
 party of the mob returning from the mill- 
 gates, and a party of the work-people headed 
 by Mr. Hopwcod, Junr. following them out of 
 the gates. Did you find whether any mischief 
 was done at Hopwood’s mill ? Yes, the windows 
 of the lodge and counting-house were broken, and 
 the gates also were much indented with stones. 
 On the following day did the mob come? Yes. 
 From what direction? The same' direction. 
 What number was there? I think there were, 
 (taking into account the number dispersed over 
 the fields), more than there were the day before. 
 Did you take some of them into custody ? Yes, 
 (assisted by the military), about sixty. Then 
 you took forty the first day and sixty the second ? 
 Yes. When were the mills turned out at Black- 
 burn ? Chiefly on the 15th and 16th. Did you 
 see in Blackburn that placard, [handing a pla- 
 card to the witness] circulated or stuck up ? Not 
 stuck up, sir, I saw it in the hands of several 
 persons. 
 
153 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY :—This, my Lord, is the 
 Executive Placard in a small shape. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY You saw it on the 15th ? 
 
 WITNESS No, about the latter end of that 
 week. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY That would be about the 
 Saturday ? Yes. That would be about the 23rd ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — [Handing the placard up 
 to Ihe Court.] This is the same as that we had 
 before, my Lord, with the addition of one word. 
 In the original it is : — “ Englishmen ! the blood 
 of your brethren reddens the streets of Preston 
 and Blackburn, and the murderers thirst for 
 more." In this the word, — “ Halifax" is added, 
 which is the only difference I can detect. The 
 passage thus reads: — "Englishmen! the blood 
 of your brethren reddens the streets of Preston, 
 Blackburn, and Halifax." [To the witness.] 
 Did you take a person name Gibson ? Yes. Who 
 is he ? The secretary to the Chartist association. 
 Did you find one of them on him ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS i — He is not a defendant. I 
 don’t ask the witness any questions. 
 
 WILLIAM GRIFFIN was then called, and 
 the officer of the Court was about to administer 
 to him the oath, when, 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON interposed. — Don’t swear 
 him yet. Griffin, do you believe in the existence 
 of a Supreme Being ? Yes, sir. And in a future 
 state of rewards and punishments I Yes, sir. 
 
 WILLIAM GRIFFIN was then sworn and 
 examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 Where have you lived for the last six or eight 
 months ? In Manchester. Where did you live in 
 August last? In Manchester. Whatwas your occu- 
 pation? A reporter. Who were you chiefly employ- 
 ed by before that time ? In my original trade, sir. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — No, on 
 what newspaper were you employed ? On the 
 Northern Star. Did you report for the Courts 
 of Law ? I reported for the Northern Star the 
 political movement of the country. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — The political movement 
 of the country, my Lord ! 
 
 The JUDGE :— You reported as to the politi- 
 cal movement of the country ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Were you 
 present at a meeting of delegates in conference at 
 Manchester ? Yes, sir. On what day ? On the 
 17th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE :— At Scholefield’s Chapel? Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL:— I don’t 
 know whether you was personally acquainted 
 with any of the people there ? Yes, sir. With 
 whom ? With most of the parties who were there. 
 Then, perhaps, you will tell me, as far as you 
 can recollect, who were there ?— Did you make 
 
 any note of it ? I did not take their names down. 
 Was Scholefield there ? He was there, but not as 
 a delegate. Was he in and out many times during 
 the meeting ? Yes, sir. Was Mr. O’Connor 
 there ? Yes, sir. Was Peter Murray M'Douall 
 there ? Yes, sir. Was Bairstow there ? Yes, 
 Jonathan Bairstow. Was Leach there ? Yes, 
 James Leach was there, and John Leach. Chris- 
 topher Doyle 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was a person there whose 
 name was Arthur ? Yes, there was a person there 
 who called himself Arthur. The Rev. William 
 Hill, William Beesley, George Julian Harney, 
 Parkes, Otley, Railton, James Leach, John 
 Leach, David Morrisson, Arran, Cooper, the se- 
 cretary, and a boy who called himself Ramsden, 
 who was a delegate from the youths, were there. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! under- 
 stand he represented the juvenile population ? 
 Yes, sir. About how old was Ramsden ? I think 
 he was not more than eighteen. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Was John Campbell there? 
 Yes, and Hoyle, M‘Cartney, Norman, two of 
 that name I believe came from Warrington, 
 Skevington, Brooke of Todmorden, and Mooney 
 from Colne were there. Do you remember any 
 others who were there ? I cannot say now. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — I would 
 ask you was there any resolution proposed there ? 
 There was, sir. Who proposed it ? Jonathan 
 Bairstow. Who seconded it? Feargus O’Connor. 
 Did you take a minute of the resolution ? I did 
 not take a minute of the resolution, because L 
 expected to get it from the secretary. Did you 
 ever get it ? I did, sir, in print, the following 
 morning. Have you that resolution ? Not in 
 my possession. I got a printed copy of it the 
 following morning from a person named Gabriel 
 Hargraves. Was that resolution ever. published? 
 Yes, in the Northern Star. Did you see it 
 shortly afterwards in the Northern Star ? I 
 did ; I read it on the 20th. Are you able to say 
 that the statement in the Northern. Star is a 
 correct copy of what you heard read at the meet- 
 ing? I am, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Does the Northern Star 
 come out once a week ? Yes. It was correctly 
 given there ? I believe it was, my Lord. I sav/ 
 no alteration whatever. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Was there 
 any amendment proposed ? There were two ; 
 one by Mr. Hill, and the other by Samuel Parkes. 
 What was Hill’s amendment ? I cannot exactly 
 remember the words ; it was not to recommend 
 the ttrike; it amounted to a negative of the 
 resolution. Did you take any minute of that 
 amendment ? I did not, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE You took a minute of it? I 
 did not, sir. * 
 
154 
 
 The ATT0RNEY.GENE11A.L Is that the 
 paper that was handed about ? — [handing a paper 
 to witness.] This is the resolution proposed by 
 Jonathan Bairstow, and seconded by Feargus 
 O’Connor. Where did you get that ? I got this 
 from Gabriel Hargraves. Who is he ? A person 
 that lives in Brown-street. — A shoemaker who 
 lives in one of the Chartist rooms, Brown-street. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — I doubt, 
 my Lord, whether that makes this paper evi- 
 dence ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I only thought you were 
 mentioning it as showing what the resolution 
 was. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL What were 
 the numbers on the division.^ Twenty-eight or 
 twenty-nine in favour of the original resolution, 
 and eight or nine against it. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY We have not this resolution 
 in evidence. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— You have 
 the substance of it. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — I just want a copy of it. 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-*[To wit- 
 ness] — The resolution was carried ? Yes. After 
 that, was there any proposal about the minority 
 being bound by the majority ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Oh ! don’t ask him that. 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— What was 
 then done ? Yes, the minority was bound by the 
 majority. Did you take any notes ? Not a full 
 report, because they prohibited me from publish- 
 ing anything, except the resolutions. I did not 
 ask you about full notes. Indeed, I don’t want 
 notes at all. But have you anything that will 
 enable you to remember whether such a resolu- 
 tion was passed ? — 1 am not asking you about 
 full notes, sir ? There was no resolution passed, 
 except what I told you. Well, was there any 
 resolution passed binding the minority to go with 
 the majority ? Several speakers who had voted 
 in the minority said they would be bound by the 
 majority ; but it w'as not put in the form of a 
 resolution. 1 understood you to say that no 
 resolution w^as put binding the minority to go 
 with the majority ? No more than an agreement 
 — a general understanding. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What do you mean by a general 
 understanding ? It was mooted, and no one 
 objected to it. Was there any address proposed } 
 Yes, sir. Did you take any note of it ? I did 
 not take a note of it. Why Because (I knew 
 I could not publish the speeches, and that I 
 would get the resolutions and addresses. Was 
 the address read ? it was. Did you afterwards 
 get a copy of it Yes, I wrote two copies of 
 the original address, which was put into my 
 hands by Mr. Feargus O' Connor. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He is now speaking of 
 the address published in the Northern Star? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It was in manuscript Yes. 
 When was it put into your hands t On the same 
 day, the 17th of August, at the chapel. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL You were 
 saying something about William Hill ? Yes, I 
 went with William Hill, and wrote two copies. 
 
 The JUDGE : — After the cdnference was 
 over ? Yes ; I went to his hotel, and wrote two 
 copies ; one of these copies was for the Northern 
 Star, and the other for the British Statesman. 
 Did you see a copy of the address afterwards in 
 the Northern Star? Yes, sir. Can you tell 
 me whether it was a true copy, as far as you can 
 judge, of the address carried at the mee ing } I 
 read it twice, and I saw no alteration. I think 
 you yourself took a copy of it ? I did, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The copy in the Northern 
 Star is correct ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Do you know 
 Thomas Mahon } I can’t say I do. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— My Lord, 
 that is all I ask the witness. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I don’t ask him anything. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES : — I believe 
 you were employed on the Northern Star till 
 the beginning of June last.^ Yes, Sir. And then, 
 for some reason I don’t inquire into, you left 
 that paper, and came over to Manchester ? I 
 did of my own accord. Well, I don’t inquire 
 into that. 
 
 The JUDGE : — When do you say he came ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — About the beginning of June, 
 my Lord. The precise time is not material. 
 He sent some communications afterwards^ but 
 was regularly employed till the beginning of 
 June. Is not that so, Mr. Griffin? About that 
 time ; I can’t tell exactly. 
 
 The JUDGE r — Well, some few months before ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — We need not detain his Lord- 
 ship and the Court by looking for the exact date. 
 Some short time before ? Yes. You then came 
 over to Manchester? I was employed there. 
 Did you apply for relief and assistance to Mr. 
 Scholefield ? Not for relief; I wanted to borrow 
 hs. and he lent it me. However, you did apply 
 to him ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE In a while after you were 
 employed on the Northern Star you applied to 
 Scholefield? Yes. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — You w’ere a painter, origi- 
 nally? Yes. And Mr. Scholefield employed you 
 to do something in that way in his chapel ? He 
 
155 
 
 did, sir. Now, after that, did you become se- 
 cretary to the Committee, which was formed for 
 the purpose of building and opening, on the 16th 
 of August, a monument to the memory of Henry 
 Hunt ? I did, sir. How soon was that, think 
 you, after coming to Manchester in the begin- 
 ning of June? About a week or a fortnight. 
 I don’t understand you about coming to Man- 
 chester, for I did not leave Manchester. How 
 soon was it, after you had applied to Scholefield, 
 and he had given you this job of painting? 
 Somewhere about June. That you became 
 secretary to this committee ? Yes. Now, do you 
 remember yourself suggesting to Mr. Scholefield 
 the expediency of having a meeting of delegates, 
 for the purpose of their being present at the 
 opening of Hunt’s monument ? I do. And was 
 it not another part of your suggestion, that the 
 delegates should also consider the differences 
 existing at that time among the leaders of the 
 Chartist body ? It was. Was it another object 
 the delegates had in view to consider the re- 
 organization of the Chartist body, and see if 
 there was anything in it illegal ? That was my 
 view. And you thought it right to commuuicate 
 that to him ? Yes. No doubt your view was, 
 that there might be a review of the organization 
 of the Chartist body, to s6e if there was any- 
 thing whatever illegal in it ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. BAINES Just so. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is, if there was anything 
 illegal ; I suppose with a view of altering it if 
 there was ? 
 
 WITNESS : — If found necessary. 
 
 Mr. BAINES ; — I believe after you had so 
 communicated with Mr. Scholefield, the Hunt’s 
 monument committee came to a resolution to 
 adopt your suggestion ? They came to resolution 
 to meet and consider the suggestion. And I 
 suppose every means was taken, to make it ex- 
 tensively known that this would be done on the 
 16th of August? Yes. An address was issued 
 by the executive committee, informing the 
 Chartist body throughout the country of the 
 meeting that was to take place? Yes, of the 
 conference. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL What con- 
 ference ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — He has already told you. 
 [To witness.] How long did you continue to 
 act as secretary to the Hunt’s monument com- 
 mittee? About six or seven weeks. Did you 
 continue to do so down to the 16th- of August? 
 Yes, Now, before you go to what passed on 
 
 the 16th August, allow me to asx you a littl«>- 
 about Mr. Scholefield. He, I believe, is a Dis- 
 senting minister, is he not ? He is, sir. I be- 
 lieve he belongs to a sect called Bible Christians, 
 or, from the name Cowherd, their founder, Cow- 
 herdites ? Yes, always, in my hearing, it was 
 Cowherdites. I believe he has long practised, 
 at all events as long as you have known him as 
 an apothecary? Yes, and I understood that 
 Cowherd did so before him. I understood him 
 to be a very moral and abstemious character. 
 I suppose he was before your time ? Yes. But 
 as long as you have known Mr. Scholefield he 
 was acting as Dissenting preacher and apothe- 
 cary ? Yes. He has a chapel attached to his 
 house? Yes. And also a place called a sur- 
 gery? Yes. That is part of the premises in 
 which he carries on his business as apothecary ? 
 Yes. He has also a burial-ground beside Every- 
 street, and this goes into another piece of burial- 
 ground by an arch-way ? Yes. Is it on the 
 j front burial-ground the monument to Henry 
 Hunt was erected ? It is to the left of Mr. 
 Scholefield’s house, as you stand this way, in front 
 of the street. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The burial ground ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. BAINES :-.-you know that Mr. Scholefield 
 gave the ground for the purpose of erecting that 
 monument ? Yes, I understood so. Was the 
 monument ready for being opened on the 16th 
 August ? It was completed. Every effort, I 
 believe, had been made that it should be com- 
 pleted on that day ? Yes, sir. Just another 
 word about Mr. Scholefield’s premises ? Yes. 
 
 I believe there is a passage from his house, 
 through the chapel, to the back premises ? 
 There is. And also from the surgery you could 
 go to the back premises ? We can go either 
 way to the chapel. So that if a person had 
 occasion to go from the house to the back pre- 
 mises he would go through the chapel ? Yes. 
 Now, do you know, that on the 16th August 
 Mr. Scholefield had a person of the name of 
 Brooke, painting, or doing something in the 
 back premises ? I don’t know that he had ; 
 but he might have had him without my know- 
 ing it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What do you mean by the 
 back premises ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — My Lord, I have a sketch 
 here of it, but I don’t wish to be troubling the 
 court with -u-hat, perhaps, is unnecessary. [To 
 witness.] I will ask you another question re- 
 tpecting this matter. You have stated, already. 
 
156 
 
 that Mr. Scholefield did iiot attend this meeting 
 as a delegate? He was not a delegate. Nor 
 was he one of the executive ? He was not one 
 of the executive. Did he sit there and take any 
 part in the proceedings ? He did not. From 
 his passing and repassing do you believe that he 
 was attending to his ordinary avocations during 
 the proceedings ? Sometimes I should think he 
 was. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Part of the time he was pass- 
 ing and repassing ? He went out at one end, and 
 he returned through the chapel occasionally. 
 
 Mr. BAINES . — He did, but did not take 
 part in the proceedings ? He did not, except he 
 put a question as he passed. How long were 
 the delegates sitting in the chapel ? Many 
 hours, perhaps six or seven, it might be more 
 or less. When were you applied to, to give 
 evidence on this subject? Somewhere about 
 the middle of September. Who applied to you 
 on that subject? A police officer — inspector 
 Irwin. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY : — I have 
 a very few questions to ask you, Griffin. Were 
 you acquainted with Cartledge, who was ex- 
 amined here on Saturday ? I know him, per- 
 haps, two years and a-half, and better. Were 
 you ever employed together in literary composi- 
 tions, or in reporting ? We were not employed 
 together; w’e have written together. Are you 
 acquainted with his handwriting ? He writes a 
 sloping hand, and likewise a straight hand. My 
 question is, are you acquainted with the general 
 character of his handwriting ? I think I am. 
 Now, was it your good fortune to have seen the 
 original manuscript draught of the “ Executive 
 Address ?’’ I have not. Have you seen the 
 proof sheet of that address, with corrections on 
 it ? I have seen what was called a proof 
 sheet. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Just look at that, [handing 
 the proof sheet to witness.] Now, whose hand- 
 writing do you believe that to be in ? I can't 
 swear. Did you never, on any occasion, sw'ear 
 any thing about it ? I did not. Did you ever 
 state your belief on it ? I did. I told the bar- 
 rister; but it was forced from me, but I was 
 not sure. Well, 1 don’t care whether it was 
 forced from you or not ; but you once sitated, to 
 the best of your belief, that it was the hand- 
 writing of Cartledge ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, I 
 don’t believe that is evidence. If that is meant to 
 contradict Cartledge, it can only be b^ the witness 
 
 saying,— not that he believed so then, but, that 
 that is his opinion now. If he is required to con- 
 tradict Cartledge, then the witness must be 
 asked, “ what is your opinion now ?” Not what 
 k was some other time. He can only be asked 
 what he said at some other time to contradict 
 himself. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Why it is a very weak con- 
 tradiction. He now says he cannot teU. Whose 
 is it. [To the witness.] Did not yen formerly 
 tell whose it was ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE: — What he said was — “Being 
 pressed much, he said he believed it was Cart- 
 ledge’s.’’ 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Now, do you mean to tell 
 me that any pressure would make you pledge your 
 belief to a thing which you knew to be false ? — 
 You thought it was false, but you pledged your 
 belief it was true, because a Barrister pressed 
 you ? No, I was asked, whose it was, and being 
 pressed, I said I believed it wasCartledge's. Who 
 was the first person that had a conversation with 
 you about giving evidence in this matter ? Mr. 
 James Irwin. Was it shortly after the meeting 
 of this conference of delegates ? It was in Sep- 
 tember. Where? At Mr. Brown’s, Temper- 
 ance Hotel. Were you living there ? I was 
 lodging there. Had you sent an intimation to 
 Irwin, or did he come to you ? He did not come 
 to me, he sent a messenger. Was that in con- 
 sequence of an intimation you had given to give 
 evidence ? Not the least. Had you ever given 
 any such intimation? No. When where you 
 caUed upon to give evidence ? About a week 
 afterwards. Now, have you not been asking 
 others to try and induce them to give evidence 
 as well? I have. You have been inducing others 
 to give evidence as well ? Yes. Had you never 
 had any difference with Mr. Feargus O’Connor ? 
 Not in the least. Had you never any quarrel with 
 him about pecuniary matters ? No. Had you ne- 
 ver any quarrel with him, because, in consequence 
 of your situation as reporter, you were not giving 
 that impulse to the Northern Star which you 
 ought? Not in the least. You will swear that 
 you left voluntarily ? Yes. Then, having left 
 voluntarily, was there no statement made, from 
 time to time, to other parties, as to your leaving? 
 — Did you go away without informing other 
 parties ? — What was your reason for leaving ? 
 
 I gave him notice that I should leave, if he 
 would not tell me who the parties were that were 
 complaining : and he would not give me the 
 names. Then he was complaining ? He said so, 
 but I have a contradiction to that in my pocket. 
 Where were you living since that time ? In Ire- 
 land. What time did you return to England ? 
 Last Suniuy week. You have been with Irwin 
 
[07 
 
 since ? Yes. What was your occupation in Ire- 
 land ? I was not following any profession. What 
 were your means of support ? I was provided 
 for. Provided for by the Government.'* Not 
 that I know of. Well, by some police officer or 
 some person ? Irwin. Irwin — Well, what was 
 the allowance you had from him ? No particular 
 allowance.' Well, what was the average they 
 paid you } Perhaps five shillings a week, or not 
 so much. Was that your sole subsistence while 
 there ? No, sir. Was that your sole support 
 while there ? No> sir. You paid no bills ? Irwin 
 was responsible. Where were you living ? I was 
 living at Armagh, Newry, Clones, and War- 
 renpoint. And all that time Irwin paid for you ? 
 Yes. Go down, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON You 
 spoke about Chartists, and stated that while in 
 Manchester, you were in the habit of mixing 
 with the people who called themselves Chartists ? 
 Yes. Did these people professedly associate 
 together for the purpose of bringing about some 
 political change? They did. That was their 
 professed object? Yes. Now, will you state 
 what was the precise political change, which 
 they professed to have in view ? The Charter. 
 Will you state what the professed doctrines of 
 the Charter were ? There are six points. Uni- 
 versal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual Parlia- 
 ment, no property qualification for members, 
 payment of wages to members, and electoral dis- 
 tricts. Then these six propositions were the 
 political doctrines, which the Chartists professed 
 to be anxious to bring about, as the law of the 
 land ? They are. These they wished to bring 
 about only ? Yes, as far as I was aware of. And 
 that meeting of the 17th August W’as given 
 notice of, that it should take place before the 
 commencement of the strike ? Yes. I think you 
 said, the professed object of that meeting w^as to 
 take measures as to Hunt's monument? I did 
 not say that, I said my view was, I did not say 
 what their view was. But I think you say you 
 were mixing with those people, and on habits of 
 familiarity with them in Manchester, and from 
 that circumstance you are aware that this meet- 
 ing, called a conference of delegates, was projected 
 some time before the strike commenced ? It was. 
 Were you aware, from the same source, of what 
 the professed object of that meeting was — 
 
 I mean at the time it was first projected ? I 
 cannot say what the professed object of the con- 
 ference of delegates was, I know what my own 
 object was. Y^ou mean, the conference of dele- 
 gates about Ilujt’s monument? — You say this 
 
 meeting was projected before the strike ? It was. 
 Well, do you know that the object of that meet- 
 ing before tire strike, w’as professed and generally 
 known ? It w'as. Well, what was it ? To re- 
 consider the plan of organization of the Chartist 
 
 body to do away with difference among the 
 
 leaders, and if there was any thing illegal in the 
 organization of the body to get rid of it. And 
 no other object that you know of was pro- 
 fessed till the meeting took place ? Not that I 
 know of. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O'CONNOR : — 
 Griffin, I think you stated that you gave me no- 
 tice that you would leave my office ? I did. Now, 
 whether was it I that gave you notice, or you 
 that gave me notice? I gave you notice. On 
 what occasion ? I gave you notice at the Hall of 
 Science, at Manchester. Why ? Because you 
 said that parties had made complaints. What 
 did I say that parties complained of ? You did 
 not say what. On one occasion, previous to my 
 addressing a meeting at the Hall of Science, did 
 I not tell you to be more particular in your re- 
 ^rts, because complaints had been made of their 
 ttjaccuracy ? You said I was to report properly, 
 because parties had complained, but you would 
 not give me their names. Did I not say that 
 various complaints had been made to me by par- 
 ties that you had made wrong reports of their 
 speeches ? You said you were quite satisfied, and 
 had everyfconfidence in me. That is one thing, 
 but was not that my reason for making the com- 
 plaint ? You said that parties complained. Did 
 I desire you to be particular in the report you 
 were then taking? Yes, but that was owing to 
 the disputes between the Anti-corn-law League 
 and the Chartists. Did I say that other parties 
 complained that you had not reported properly ? 
 Now, bring your mind to bear on the time when 
 you first gave information to Irwin.— When was 
 it ? I can't tell to a day. Perhaps it would be 
 about the 12th or 14th of September. Can you 
 be three days out ? I might be. Can you be 
 four ? I might be. Can you be five days out ? I 
 might be. Can you be six days out ? I can't be 
 more, I think. Then it was between the 12th, 
 the earliest,^ and the 18th the latest? Yes, I 
 should think it was. Were you in any work at 
 that time ? I was reporting for the Evening Star,, 
 How soon after Mr. Irwin first made the appli- 
 cation to you did you give any information ? 
 Perhaps from four to five days. Did you con- 
 sider yourself offended by the application being 
 made to you ? I did at first. Why were you of- 
 fended at first ? Because Mr. Irwin was not in 
 the habit of coming near me. Then, was it for 
 the purpose he came that you were offended ? 
 Rather so. Why were you offended' Bea’use 
 
158 
 
 I thought he had taken too much upon himself 
 in asking me the question. Did you state to any 
 body that you were offended ? I don’t recollect 
 that I did. Did you mention it to anybody to put 
 them on their guard ? I wrote about it. To whom 
 did you write ? To the Evening Star. When you 
 wrote to the Evening Star, did you state that no 
 one had anything to communicate, and that it 
 was of no use Mr. Irwin asking ? I did not. 
 Do. you swear that ? Yes. Positively? Positively. 
 After Mr. Irwin had been with you, did you 
 write a letter announcing that fact ? I did. You 
 did. After you announced that fact, did you 
 write a letter to me ? No ; not to you. Did you 
 write a letter to the editor of the Evening Star ? 
 Yes. Did you know that I was the editor of the 
 Evening Star? Yes. And yet you did not write 
 to me ? I wrote to the office. You wrote to 
 whom you knew to be the editor, did you not ? 
 
 I wrote Mr. Pardon. Was he the editor ? I did 
 not direct to the editor ; it was communicated as 
 a paragraph. I did not commence it as a letter. 
 Did you not consider Mr. Pardon the editor? 
 No. Did you commence “ Dear Editor” ? No. 
 Was the letter to him ? It was to the Evening,, 
 Star. Was it to me ? Not particularly. Not 
 direct to you. Was there an application in it ? 
 Not directed to you. Was it to the editor? It 
 was to the office. Do you mean to the house, 
 (laughter.) Was there any application in it ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ;-On What ? 
 my Lord, the letter will speak for itself. Let it 
 be produced, and then we need not waste time in 
 considering the terms in which it was couched. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Did you write to me for 
 money to take you to America, out of Irwin's 
 way ? No. You will swear positively that you 
 never wrote for money to take you out of the 
 country, because Irwin was tampering with you ? 
 
 I will. Did you write for money at ail ; I did, 
 because it was owing to me, and you wrote to 
 me, saying, that I should apply to Mr. Hill for 
 it. Why, you know that I had nothing to do 
 with the financial department of the Star? You 
 told me to write to Mr. Hill. Were you paid 
 every week for your services ? While I was un- 
 der you, I was paid for my services. And you 
 did not write a letter for money to fhke you out 
 of the country ? [To the Court.] Your Lord- 
 ship has got enough. He has not denied having 
 written to me for money to go to America, to 
 take hifia out of Irwin’s way. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I object to 
 this mode of examination. If there is any such 
 letter, let it be produced. He cannot afterwards 
 prove a matter in the present transaction ; if 
 there is any letter to be produced, let it be 
 shown to him now. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I take it for granted, 
 that the Attorney-General cannot say, there is 
 no other way of proving it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, this is the proper time. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR^ — Then, my Lord, after I 
 have done with the witness, I shall ask for him 
 to be retained. 
 
 The JUDGE : — When you say to him, M Did 
 you, or did you not write a letter ? ” you must 
 produce that letter, because, when the letter is 
 seen, it will enable him to say whether he wrote 
 it or not. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed : — Were you not 
 in great poverty when Mr. Irwin applied to you ? 
 I was rather short of money. Did you com- 
 plain to Irwin, or anybody else, that you were 
 starving ? — To Bayley, Leach, or anybody } — 
 Did you borrow money from Leach ? I said that 
 if I depended upon the Chartists, I might starve. 
 Did you borrow money from Leach ? No. Never? 
 Not at that time. Did you borrow 16s. to 
 bury your children? No! he paid me 15s. for 
 writing a lecture for him. After the conference 
 you have spoken of had broken up, what did you 
 consider it was that perpetuated the disturbances? 
 A strike for wages. Were you the correspondent, 
 from Manchester and its neighbourhood, of the 
 Evening Star ? I was, sir. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Where is the Evening Star 
 published ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — In London, jny Lord. — 
 How soon did you receive money from Irwin 
 for the services you promised to render him ? 
 
 I cannot say. How much money did you re- 
 ceive from Mr. Irwin prior to going before the 
 magistrates, at Manchester ? I can’t say. Were 
 you burdened with so much money that you 
 cannot say exactly ?— About how much ? Per- 
 haps a sovereign. Was that all you received ? 
 
 I think it was. Will you swear it was ? I will 
 not. Will you swear that you did not receive 
 two sovereigns ? I will not, but I think I only 
 received one. Will you swear that you did not 
 receive three ? — Before I gave in my deposition ? 
 — Yes ? Yes, I will. I did after you gave in 
 your depositions, and before you went out of the 
 country. How much did you receive ? Perhaps 
 three sovereigns. Was that all? I think that 
 was all. How many Chartist meetings do you 
 think you have attended? I can’t calculate 
 them. Have you been in the habit of sending 
 the resolutions passed at those meetings for in- 
 sertion in the Northern Star and British States- 
 man? I have. Now, I ask you, if the general 
 
tenour of the principal resolutions has not for 
 years past been, — “ and we oledge our5oivee' to 
 continue the present struggle untii the Chart -r 
 becomes the law of the land ? " It has for sev. 
 ral years past. 
 
 The JUDGE . — You have got that oefore >ir. 
 O’Connor r 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR ; — ^Yes, my Lord, but I want 
 to get it from a reporter. You were the socro- 
 taryto Hunt’s monument committee -' X wai'. the 
 paid secretary. X'ou took a great interest m 
 having a large gathering on that occasion ? I 
 did. I ask you on your oath, was not Mr. 
 Scholefield, in particular, most anxious that 
 eveiy thing should be given up which had the 
 slightest tendency to bring the people into col- 
 lision with the authorities ? I thought so. From 
 what I heard I thought he would not have the 
 meeting on his premises at all, nor had he. Did 
 you write a letter to the Northern Star, relative 
 to the monument committee, as secretary ? Per- 
 haps I did. Perhaps you did. Did you or did 
 you not ? When ? I don’t know which letter 
 you mean. I have written several. Just show 
 it. On the 11th of August. Here, sir, is a file 
 of the Northern Star of the 13th of August. Is 
 that letter yours ? 
 
 The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 object to this mode of proceeding : — It is not 
 quite regular. I beg it to be understood, that 
 it shall not be an example for letting in every 
 thing. 
 
 The JUDGE What is it ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The witness 
 is asked if he wrote a letter, and what is before 
 your Lordship and the jury is imprint, in a news- 
 paper. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is disagreeable to interfere, 
 to stop a defendant in anything which he may 
 think important to him, but 1 don’t understand 
 the object of this question. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! suppose, 
 my Lord, it is to contradict him. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR handed the file of the 
 Northern Star to the officer of the Court and 
 said ; — Read the letter out. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No, my Lord, 
 
 I object to that. The witness may he cross- 
 examined as to the contents of anything he 
 formerly wrote. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You may cross-examine him 
 as to the contents of anything he has written, 
 and then, putting the document into his hand. 
 
 you may say — “Now, did not you write that 
 letter and now you explain it differently. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Yes, my Lord. The file 
 of the Northern Star was then handed to 
 w'itness, and his attention having been called 
 ! to the letter in question, he said ; — “ That is nay 
 I letter.” [The letter referred to the Hunt’s monu 
 j nient committee, and will be found further on, 
 
 I in the cross-examination of this witness by the 
 defendant M‘Cartney.] 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, Griffin, you say you 
 were correspondent to the Evening Star, up to 
 what period } I cannot recollect. How soon 
 aftei you had been with Irwin did you 
 cease to correspond } After I consented 
 to give evidence, I did not write again. 
 At what time did you give over writing ? I can- 
 not recollect the date. Did you correspond after 
 the 20th of September.^ I don’t think I did. 
 After the 21st ? I don’t believe I did. 
 Did you correspond after the 23rd } I don’t be- 
 lieve I did. Now, then, will you know your own 
 correspondence with the Evening Star ? [Handing 
 W'itness a file of the Evening Sterl now look, and 
 see if on the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, you 
 see any correspondence of yours there } 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I will not 
 consent to this, my Lord. I object more on ac- 
 count of the waste of time than anything else. 
 
 The JUDGE : — -^t is clearly not evidence. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Your Lord- 
 ship will observe that Griffin’s examination has 
 really been limited to the verifying of a written 
 resolution, and an address. 1 had- asked him for 
 nothing more. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Will the Attorney-General 
 say that I should not examine him to credit ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Certainly you can. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, Griffin, you have 
 been an active member of the Chartist move- 
 ment ? Yes. Did you ever yourself recom- 
 mend any means being resorted to except peace- 
 able and quiet means ? I never did. That you 
 swear on your oath ? I swear it on my oath. 
 Do you know Hitchin and Doolan ? Yes. Of 
 what towm are they ? Of Stockport, I think. 
 Do you know w here the workhouse at Stockport 
 is situated? Yes. On your oath did you ever 
 make any application to those two men, or any 
 other two, to burn dov^n the workhouse ? No, 
 sir. That you swear ? I will. Upon your 
 oath did you not propose the establishment of a 
 rifle club for the youths, and that you would 
 procure a sergeant to drill them ? This is the 
 first time I ever heard of such a thing. 
 
160 
 
 The JUDGE You cannot ask a great num- 
 her of irrelevant questions, for the Attorney. 
 General will have to contradict them after- 
 wards, and the examination will then be inter- 
 minable. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Why, my Lord, I thought 
 the witness would have the candour to admit 
 the fact— (laughter.) Do you know Sadler, the 
 constable, of Stockport ? I do. Did you know 
 him in 1839 ? I did. Had you any communi- 
 catioa with him during the riots ? I was sent 
 to him. Did you render any services to him ? 
 Not against the Chartists. Sadler met me in 
 the street, and told me he had taken an active 
 part against the Chartists, and his life was in 
 danger. I then called a meeting of the com- 
 mittee, and passed a resolution not to destroy 
 property or life , and I took this resolution to 
 Sadler. Did you tender your services to Sadler 
 to lo./k out for news for him, and report ? I 
 did not. Now, do you know a person, named 
 Brooke, with whom you worked for Mr. Schole- 
 field ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is not the Brooke of 
 Todmorden ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — No, my Lord. Now, 
 did you ever tell Brooke that you would be a 
 nail in O’Connor’s coffin, and that you had it in 
 your power to destroy me.’ No, but I said I 
 would expose his conduct, and publish the letters 
 I had written to him which he had not answered. 
 I said this on account of the manner in which 
 you had served me. For paying you your wages 
 as long as you had been in my service ? No, sir, 
 but from fetching me from a situation in London, 
 and then leaving me to starve. Did not you 
 give me notice ? Yes. Then how did I turn you 
 out to starve ? The paper was continually praising 
 me before that, and Mr. Hill, himself, said 
 “ The only fault we have to find with our excel- 
 lent correspondent is, that he is too industrious.” 
 (Laughter.) Well, that was an excellent fault. 
 You are finding fault with me for being too in- 
 dustrious. Not in the least, sir. But you swear 
 you had no conversation with Brooks, except 
 that ? No, I said I would expose you through 
 the press, for the manner in which you behaved 
 to me. Did not you say in Hargrave’a house, 
 in Brown-street, that you would be revenged of 
 me before you died .’ No, I never made use of 
 words to that effect. You were told at the 
 Mosley Arms, and I was led to understand that 
 that was the reason why you and I fell out. Then 
 it was before you were dismissed that I was told 
 that Yes. Now, Griffin, you said you nad Lad 
 communications with other persons concerned 
 
 in this trial besides Irwin. — Now, who were 
 they .’ I had no communication with other per- 
 sons. Did you try to induce other persons to 
 ^oin you in giving information ? Yes, Cartledge. 
 Now, sir, when did you try to induce Cartledge 
 first .’ When he was in the “ lockups.” Now, 
 Griffin, what do you call inducement ? I told 
 him there was a long imprisonment before him, 
 and if he thought proper, he could go into the 
 witness box, instead of into the dock. That was 
 when he was in the ” lockups ?” — Did you send 
 any money to Cartledge’ s mother-in-law before 
 you were with him in the “lockups?” No, it 
 was not that sovereign. Then, what sovereign 
 was it you did scud him ? A sovereign I got from 
 my brother ; and ten shillings I got from James 
 Leach for myself. You sent that to Cartledge’s 
 mother-in-law ? No, I did not send it ; I gave 
 it myself. Y'ou gave a sovereign to Cartledge’s 
 mother-in-law, before Cartledge was in the 
 “lockups?” Yes. And after you had induced 
 Cartledge to give information, ®r as you say, to 
 prefer the witness box to the dock, how long did 
 you remain in Manchester ? Till I went to the 
 assizes. After the assizes, did you and Cartf 
 ledge go together? No, sir. You swear that? 
 I swear that. Well, how long rfter the special 
 commission did you remain in Manchester ? Per- 
 haps two days. Now, how often did you see 
 Cartledge from the time you induced him to give 
 evidence, till you left Manchester altogether ? 
 The last time 1 saw him was at Hyde, when he 
 was examined. Now, what took you into the 
 “ lockups” in Manchester ? — You were not con- 
 fined then ? No. Then when did you go to the 
 “ lockups ?” When I saw Irwin. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Mind that, my Lord ; it 
 was after he saw Irwin. [To witness.] Did 
 Irw in desire you to do it ? He left it to my own 
 choice. To your taste ? No, he said if Cartledge 
 went into the witness box, probably the prosecu- 
 tion would be stayed against him. Then, did 
 you tell Cartledge, that if he went into the wit- 
 ness box, the prosecution would not be pressed ? 
 I told him that it probably would not. Did you 
 tell him who sent you ? No. Now, would you 
 be allowed to see any other prisoner? Yes. 
 Then you did not go to induce any other pri- 
 soner ? No, but I have been allowed to see them. 
 Had you any conversation afterwards with Cart- 
 ledge about the trial ? None at all. When did 
 you see him next ? I saw him after I came from 
 Ireland. Then you had not a word of conversa- 
 tion with him about the trial? No. You did 
 not open your lips about the trial ? Yes, about 
 the trial, but not about the evidence. I have 
 been prohibited from having any words with him 
 when othei-s were present. Irwin gave us strict 
 orders to have no conversation with others. 
 
161 
 
 Now, when you were in Ireland, did you look 
 out for work of any kind ? No. Did you do one 
 day's work since you saw Irwin till this moment ? 
 Not except reading and writing. You did no 
 hard work. Now, is it a fifct that you were in a 
 state of the most abject poverty when Irwin first 
 met you ? No. Were you reduced ? I was in 
 poverty, but I was working for the Evening Star 
 when I gave the information. Did you not 
 know that I had nothing to do with the payment 
 of the persons employed on that paper? Mr. 
 Hobson ordered me to write for the Evening 
 Star — you were deceived. Now, Griffin, are 
 you a good Chartist now ? Yes, sir. Do you 
 subscribe to the six points, now ? You told us so. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — No, he 
 only said he knew them. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — So you subscribe to them 
 now ? I do. What was the state of Manchester 
 after the conference separated ? It was in an ex- 
 cited state. Afterwards ? Yes. Did you write 
 to the Evening Star, stating the good work of 
 the conference had been frustrated by the mill- 
 owners ? Perhaps I did. That the good work 
 and good intentions of the conference were frus- 
 trated by the mill-owners ? I won't swear to 
 those words. They may be the spirit of what I 
 said, or something to the same effect. Now, sir, 
 during the many Chartist meetings you have at- 
 tended, what has been your opinion of the dispo- 
 sition of the people generally ? Peaceable. What 
 have been the principles that have been universally 
 inculcated on the people ? Political principles. 
 What has been the tendency of them ? Tending 
 to peace at their meetings. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, Mr. Attorney-General 
 do you put the Northern Star of the 13th of 
 August in evidence ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :—No, but that 
 of the 20th. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNOR : — You say you have attended 
 many meetings which I have attended ? Wit- 
 ness ; — Yes. Now, have you heard me complain 
 at every meeting that there was no man in this 
 world, whose intentions were so much mis- 
 represented as mine, by the press ? Yes. You 
 have ? Yes. Have you not heard me at several 
 meetings tell the people that the very mo- 
 ment an attempt was made to force them 
 into a violation of the peace and they consented, 
 that moment their cause was destroyed ? I think 
 I have beard you say something to that effect. 
 Now, upon your oath, have I not made that a 
 part of iny discourses at all the meetings I have 
 been at ? If those were not your words, they 
 were the spirit of them. Latterly, has it been so ? 
 I have heard you speak strongly but not so ex- 
 
 citing as some. But you say tiie general tenour 
 of all my speeches was to preservo peace, law and 
 order? Yes. Now, Griffin, I ask you have you 
 not heard the Northern Star and myself repro- 
 bated for not allowing the people to go into the 
 “ strike” ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, I 
 must object to that ; it is exceedingly vague. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — The Attorney - General 
 charges the Northern Star with causing the 
 strike. Here is the reporter, and I want to 
 show you what character the Northern Star has 
 gained for itself by the course it has pursued. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What the Attorney-General 
 charges, is not against the Northern Star, but a 
 particular passage in that particular paper, as 
 having a certain tendency. You may take that 
 paper, and show that, taking the whole together, 
 it has quite a different bearing. He only selects one 
 passage from that paper, and shews its tendency, 
 but you cannot set off your exhortations to peace 
 and quietness, on other occasions, as against 
 exhortations to the contrary contained in a par- 
 ticular paper which the Attorney-General has 
 put in. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — It is perfectly competent 
 for me to put all my acts into evidence during 
 the period from the 1st of August to the 1st of 
 October. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— In my open- 
 ing, I gave Mr. O’Connor credit for having, on 
 various occasions, exhorted the people to quiet 
 and peace. What I object to now is, that Mr. 
 O’Connor asks the witness if he has not heard 
 that complaints have been made against the 
 Northern Star for having done so and so. Mr. 
 O’Connor’s general character, or the general 
 character of his newspaper, I should not ob- 
 ject to, but I object to what other people said 
 about it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is going as far as you can, 
 I believe. 
 
 Mr O’CONNOR :— Very well, then, I don’t 
 press the question. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed : — Are you ac- 
 quainted with the newsvenders of Manchester ? 
 Not generally. But you know their position and 
 politics ? I know some of them. Do you know 
 when any society, or any individual, having a pla- 
 card to publish, send them to the shops of news- 
 venders, for the purpose of being placed on 
 boards outside their shops for public exhibition ? 
 
 I believe they are. You know that is the com- 
 mon practice ? Yes, sir. How long have you 
 known James Leach ? Two years. Y^ou have 
 
IG2 
 
 been in constant communication with Mm ? ies, 
 sir. I will venture to put a question to you on 
 his behalf. WTiat is your opinion of his charac- 
 ter? He is a very honest man. Has he at all 
 times been opposed to violence ? In my hearing 
 iebas. Yes, and you are the general reporter of 
 the Chartist body, and he is constantly in the 
 habit of addressing the people.-^Now, I ask you, 
 however others may be opposed to him, is he not 
 a respectable man, on all occasions, and is he not 
 esteemed as an excellent man by all parties ? I have 
 heard all political parties speak highly of him. 
 I believe you are aware, Griffin, that very angry 
 discussions have taken place between the Corn 
 law repealers and the Chartists during the last 
 year and a half? Yes. Were you present on one 
 occasion when you saw me knocked down three 
 times, and taken out of the meeting bleeding, in 
 consequence of a blow on the temple with a 
 stone ? I was nol present, you had sent me to 
 Ashton, but I heard the report. You were aware 
 that a meeting took place ? Yes. Were you 
 before the magistrates when I applied for pro- 
 tection against these parties ? I was not. Is it 
 the general feeling in Manchester, and have you 
 not known it for two years, that the working 
 olpsses feel that the police rendered them no pro- 
 tection ? Not generally. Has it not been stated 
 that the policeman were the bludgeon men of the 
 League ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I must ob- 
 ject to that question. It is really out of all cha- 
 racter. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Were you at a meeting 
 in Stephenson’s-square, at which Mr. Cobden 
 and others attended? Yes. Did you see the 
 authorities there ? I did. Did you see the work- 
 ing-people there ? I did. Did you see the police 
 tliere ? I did. Did you see the magistrates there ? 
 
 1 did, sir. What occurred ? There was a great 
 deal of fighting, and a row. On whose part was 
 the fighting ? I did not distinguish the party, but 
 I understand it was your own countrymen.-^ 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — You have a right to do 
 what you like with your own. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — It seems they thought so. 
 But to which party did they attach themselves ? 
 
 I understood to the League. Then, why did you 
 not say so, sir ? — My own countrymen are always 
 famous fellows for fighting. It was my own 
 countrymen who knocked me down. Did you 
 think we were conspirators when we met ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to 
 the question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He says you met for a very 
 laudable purpose. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Were there many persons 
 there at the conference ?— You don’t know ? 
 
 , Not many. Did you know the youth, Ramsden ? 
 1 I did not. Is be not a child ?— -A mere boy 
 How old is he ? I believe he is eighteen years 
 ^ of age. Is he not quite a growing youth ? Yes, 
 = he is a youth. 
 
 [ Mr. O’CONNOR: — Yes, a small boy; that 
 will do. 
 
 [ Cross-examined by RICHARD OTLEY : — 
 (. Were you ever in Sheffield, Griffin? Once, 
 } prior to the 17th of August. Did you know a 
 . person named Richard Otley ? Only by name, 
 r I understood you to say, in giving in the names 
 I of those you saw at the conference, that you 
 : were personally acquainted with him. 
 
 ' The JUDGE He did not say that. I have 
 it here. He said these persons were there, 
 naming them. 
 
 OTLEY : — And that he was personally ac- 
 quainted with them. 
 
 The JUDGE :---I am not aware of that; but 
 you may ask him. 
 
 OTLEY : — Did not you say you were person- 
 ally acquainted with them ? Witness : — I said, 
 that the parties who were there gave such and 
 such a name. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Is that the 
 Mr. Otley who was there. Witness t — Yes. 
 
 OTLEY : — Did you ever hear of riots taking 
 place in Sheffield about that time ? I don’t 
 know that I did. Did you ever see me at any 
 meeting at Lancashire or Yorkshire, and hear 
 me speak ? I have not. When you saw me at 
 the New Bailey, in Manchester, you said you 
 did not know whether I was the chairman, or a 
 person of the name of Mr. Arthur, or Richard 
 Otley ? I knew that Arthur was in the chair. 
 
 The JUDGE Did you say that ? I said Ar- 
 thur was there, but I could not distinguish him. 
 
 OTLEY : — But you took me for Mr. Arthur? 
 
 I took you for the chairman. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He does not say he took you 
 for M‘Arthur, he took you for the chairman. 
 
 OTLEY: — Then, when you could not distin- 
 guish me from M‘Arthui , and have not seen me 
 since, how is it that you can distinguish me now ? 
 Because I recollect seeing you in the conference, 
 and heard you making a speech. What was the 
 tendency of that speech ? It was against the 
 strike. Do you recollect all that were neutral 
 in that conference ? I do not recollect anybody 
 that was neutral, they were either for or against 
 the strike. Did you ever read anything I have 
 written, recommending the Chartists to join the 
 strike-movement, or recommending physical 
 
1G3 
 
 force ? I never read anything from you recom- 
 mending physical force, or recommending a 
 connection of the Chartist-movement with the 
 strike. 
 
 OTLEY That is sufficient. 
 
 Cross-examined by BERNARD M'CARTNEY ; 
 — Well, Mr. Griffin, we have met once more. 
 You have been in Ireland, I understand ? Yes, 
 sir. Mr. O’Connor has asked you repeatedly 
 how you spent your time in Ireland, I also want 
 to know from you how you spent your time 
 while there } By reading, writing, and moderate 
 exercise. Were you hunting, fishing, and shoot- 
 ing ? I was neither fishing nor hunting. 
 
 The JUDGE : — ere you shooting ? Wit- 
 ness : — Do you press that question ? 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Yes. Witness: — I have been 
 shootingat times. At what small parties for amuse- 
 ment have you been ? You have not been engaged 
 in any way directly or indirectly, with the Irish 
 police establishment ? I have not, sir. To whom 
 did those arms which you have used in your 
 sporting expeditions belong ? I borrowed them. 
 From whom ? I borrowed a little carbine from 
 parties there. It would not be parties there — 
 from whom did you borrow it ? From a man who 
 lives there. What is he ? He keeps a shop. He 
 is not connected with the Irish constabulary 
 force ? Not at all. You have said, in answer to 
 some question connected with the cross-examina- 
 tion, that you were prohibited from taking notes 
 of the address ? No, sir, I was only prohibited 
 from taking notes of the speeches. I was not 
 prohibited from taking notes of the resolutions. 
 
 M'CARTNEY My Lord, if you refer to 
 your notes you wiU find he said he was prohi- 
 bited from taking notes of the address. [To the 
 witness.] Then, if you said that, you have made 
 a mistake ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, he was not prohibited 
 from taking notes of the address, or resolutions, 
 but in consequence of being prohibited from 
 taking notes of the speeches, he took no notes of 
 the address. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Are youaware that, through- 
 out the entire of the counties, which have been 
 the scene of the late disturbances, the slightest 
 anticipation of this strike was entertained when 
 this conference was caUed together 1 I don’t 
 think there was, it never came to my knowledge. 
 It was three months before the strike when this 
 address was first written, and you were aware, 
 that particular care was taken, at the conference, 
 to ascertain that every delegate had been legally 
 elected at a public meeting, held in the locality 
 which he professed to represent ? I thought so. 
 Such was your impression of our mode of con- 
 ducting business. Now, sir, I presume you have 
 
 some recollection of your examination in the 
 New Bailey Court-house in September last i 
 
 M'CARTNEY ; — In October, perhaps. When 
 asked in whose handwriting the corrections in 
 the address, called the “ Executive Address,” 
 were, what induced you to say point blank, “ I 
 will not tell” 1 Because I did not know. You 
 said you would not tell, because you did not 
 know ? To be sure. And why was it necessary 
 for you to say, ” I will not tell,” seeing that you 
 did not know. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Was that 
 examination taken down in writing ? Witness : — 
 Yes. I said ” I will not tell,” and then being 
 pressed, I said, “ Well, I believe it is Cart- 
 ledge’s.” 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Do you remember on the 
 morning of the 16th or 17th of August, having 
 any conversation with John Campbell } 
 
 The ATTORNE Y-GENERAL Is Camp- 
 bell here ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :-No. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Then I 
 think it right to interpose, because one defendant 
 has no right to ask questions relative to another 
 defendant. ^ 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, I thought so, but I 
 thought it better not to stop him. If it has a 
 tendency to implicate the defendant, it is better 
 not to put it. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — It has not the remotest ten- 
 dency to do so. Where was this 1 Witness : — 
 At Brown’s hotel. You then expressed your 
 surprise that I could always appear in a good 
 coat, seeing I was not engaged in a good em- 
 ployment ? No. Did you express to him any 
 suspicion you entertained as to some parties noi 
 being much to be depended upon in the Chartist 
 movement } I had no conversation with him on 
 that subject at all. That will do. You did not 
 walk out with him ? No. Very well. Now, sir, 
 you have sworn that you did not borrow money 
 from James Leach, but you said he gave you 15«. 
 for writing a lecture for him ? Yes, he lent me 
 two half-crowns, but I thought Mr. O’Connor was 
 referring to the 15s. which was not borrowed. 
 
 I did not say I did not borrow money. You 
 said he gave you 15s. for writing a lecture ? He 
 did. Was it before or after Leach’s lecture was 
 delivered at Carpenters’ Hall that your child 
 died } It was before. And you borrowed no 
 money ; that 15^. was given you for writing the 
 lecture } Yes. The 15^. with which you buried 
 your child was paid you for reporting a lecture 
 which was neither delivered nor reported } He 
 gave me the 15«. I think before I wrote it. I 
 
164 
 
 bcVievc be did. I believe you have resided some- 
 time at Stockport ? Yes. Do you know Mr. 
 Saddler? Y^es. Will you swear that Saddler 
 never charged you publicly with having made 
 certain advances to give him information ? Not 
 more than I said before, in reference to the re- 
 solution sent him from the committee. Did you 
 attend many of what were called the “ Trades’ 
 Delegate Meetings,” in Manchester ? Yes. The 
 town, at the holding of the first trades’ delegates’ 
 meeting which you attended, and which, I be- 
 lieve, was the first held, was in a state of very 
 great excitement — probably turbulence? Yes. 
 Do you know of your own knowledge, that when 
 the public got to know that the trades’ delegates’ 
 meetings were taking place that that excitement 
 began to sober down considerably ? I don’t know 
 that. Have you never said so? No; I have 
 heard it remarked, but I never said it myself. 
 You don’t know it of your own knowledge? I 
 did not take that much notice. From the first 
 of the meetings held in Sherwood Inn, Carpen- 
 ters’ Hall, and the Hall of Science, di(J you see 
 any of that uproarious disturbance in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Ancoat’s-lane, or any of those places 
 in which such disturbances had previously taken 
 place ? I don’t know. But were you not passing 
 that New-cross frequently ? Yes, and the town 
 was in a state of great excitement. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY What day ? Witness Per- 
 haps on the 11th or 12th of August. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY From the lOlh and 11th to 
 the 15th and 16th. But did you see the same 
 uproar after the meetings, that was previously in 
 existence? I think the trades’ meetings had a 
 tendency to keep up the , agitation. Do you 
 think it had a tendency to repress the riots 
 out of doors ? Not in the least. Did you ever 
 write so to the Evming Star 1 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I object, my 
 Lord, to the question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You cannot ask that. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Do you remember my being 
 arrested for attending that conference ? I do, sir. 
 You remember visiting me whilst in the prison 
 in Manchester ? Yes. Do you remember sympa- 
 thising with me ? I do. And you remember ex- 
 pressing your gratification for my liberation ? 
 Yes. And accompanying me to the railway, 
 when I was leaving for Liverpool ? I did. You 
 remember us adjourning to a tavern till the train 
 w ould start ? Yes ; but I advised you not to go 
 further with that, because it would injure your- 
 self. 
 
 The JUDGE .—With what ? 
 
 WITNESS .—The conversation at the tavern. 
 
 MACARTNEY: — Did not you then, when 
 shaking hands with me, in an apparently friendly 
 way, know that you had given that information 
 to the authorities, on the strength of which I 
 was arrested afterwards ? Not officially. Had 
 you given information to the officer ? Yes. Just 
 listen to this : — 
 
 ” THE HUNT MONUMENT COMMITTEE. 
 
 ” To the Chartists of Manchester, and the sur- 
 rounding towns and villages. — The committee 
 appointed to superintend the erection of a monu- 
 ment to the memory of the late Henry Hunt, 
 Esq., feel sorrow at having to inform yon, and 
 those other friends who had intended to honour 
 us with their presence at the procession on the 
 16th of August, that after duly considering upon 
 the present awful and truly alarming state of this 
 district, and after every member present had given 
 his opinion upon the matter, the following reso- 
 lution was passed unanimously : — 
 
 ” That, taking all things into consideration, 
 the committee deem it the most advisable, safe, 
 and judicious course to be pursued, under the cir- 
 cumstances, to abandon the procession announced 
 to take place on the 16th of August; and that 
 the Press be requested to insert this resolution 
 and short address in their current publications.” 
 
 ” The district is certainly in a very unsettled 
 state, and the members of the committee believe 
 that if ally disturbance ensued on that day, the 
 enemies to the Chartist movement would snatch 
 at the opportunity, and throw the blame on the 
 committee and the Chartists generally. They 
 perceive that the Manchester Guardian haa 
 already began to charge the Chartists as the 
 originators of, and as taking part in, the dis- 
 turbances already had. A charge as false as it 
 is cowardly and malicious.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, 
 this is a long question. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — It is almost dene now, Mr. 
 Attorney-General. 
 
 “ The meeting, respecting the monument, will 
 be holden on the 16th of August, in the Rev. 
 James Scholefield’s burial ground, Evety-street. 
 The ground is private property; and the meet- 
 ing will, therefore, be strictly safe and legaL 
 The delegates are expected to be here, accord- 
 ing to previous announcement ; likewise Feargus 
 O’Connor, Esq. The tea party and ball will 
 also be holden in the evening, for which all due 
 arrangements are being made. 
 
1(55 
 
 In adopting this course^ the committee feel 
 that they best consult the interest and safety of 
 the Chartist cause. Were they to go on with 
 the procession, and bring upon them the inter- 
 ference of the magistracy, tumult might be the 
 censequence. Life would be endangered, blood 
 spilled, and our righteous movement greatly 
 endangered and retarded. We want to obtain 
 the Charter by moral, peaceable, and constitu- 
 tional means, and not by force and tumult. 
 
 “ Signed on behalf of the Committee, 
 
 “ Wm. Griffin, Secretary. 
 
 « August 11th, 1842.” 
 
 Did you write that, Griffin 1 
 WITNESS : — I believe I did, at the express 
 wish of the Hunt's monument committee ; I 
 wrote it on the 11th of August, the day on 
 which it appeared. Will you please to read the 
 whole of it ? I 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — No, my 
 Lord, whatever the witness wrote, we ought to 
 have the writing here. 
 
 WITNESS : — It states at the end of it, that 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :^Will your 
 Lordship look at the note. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — I have examined my noteS; 
 and can find nothing of the kind. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— You say 
 Mr. Scholefield asked a question, or gave some 
 information. What information did he ever 
 give ? He brought information that Turner, the 
 printer, had been arrested. Mr. Scholefield also 
 brought in a sovereign, and gave it to the chair- 
 man. I cannot recollect the words he used in 
 handing it in, but he either said it was for the 
 j Executive Address, or to carry on the conference. 
 Now, you were asked by my learned friend 
 Murphy, and also by M‘Cartney, about being in 
 Ireland. Have you been out of the way 1 I have* 
 sir. Why did you go out of the way ? Because 
 parties were condemning me through the papers, 
 and made it dangerous for me to remain. Did 
 any parties say anything to you ? It was intimated 
 to me in Manchester, that if I appeared in the 
 box here, I should be assassinated. Now, Griffin, 
 you have been asked another question about the 
 Ji conference being summoned some months before 
 
 it took place ? Yes, sir. What was it summoned 
 it was written at the express wish of the Hunt s u c 3 xt j r ..u 
 
 „ _ _ _i. ^ , about It was summoned for the purpose of re- 
 
 I viewing the plan of organization of the Chartist 
 body, and setling all differences amongst the 
 
 monument committee. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Did you cause it to be prin- 
 ted ? I did not, the Hunt’s monument committee 
 did. 
 
 MACARTNEY : — Did you cause it to be 
 published in the Northern Star ? I sent it by 
 
 order of the Hunt’s monument committee. And . ,, j ^ 
 
 , , „ , X, .1 sir, was there anything discussed at that 
 
 bv order of the Hunt s I , 
 
 leaders. There was a sti-ong controversy going 
 on at the time. Had the summons of the con- 
 ference anything to do with the Hunt’s monu- 
 ment committee ? Not in the least. Now, I ask 
 
 it was published ? Yes, 
 monument committee. What was the date on 
 which the publication appeared } I cannot recol- 
 lect it — I cannot recollect every article that I wrote 
 for the press. It is dated the 11 th, and I pre- 
 sume it would appear on the 13th ? It would — 
 precisely. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Does any 
 other defendant ask him any questions? — [No 
 answer.] 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL: — Mr. Griffin, just attend one moment, j 
 My learned friend asked you with respect to what ! 
 Scholefield did . On the 16th and 17th, do you j 
 know that he went to Carpenters’ Hall ? I 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — I did not ask him about [ 
 Carpenters’ Hall ; what I asked was with refer- I 
 
 ence to the places you took him in the examina 
 tion in chief. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— You asked 
 whether he went to the Carpenters’ Hall, on the 
 16th and 17th ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Certainly not, Mr. Attorney- 
 General. I asked him with reference to the 
 conference, but, certainly, with reference to no- 
 thing else. 
 
 conference, except the resolutions and the ad- 
 dresses you have mentioned ? Not in the least, 
 not in my hearing. Was there one word about 
 settling differences ? Not in the least, the Char- 
 ter or the strike was the whole conversation. 
 Not a word said about Hunt’s monument ? Not 
 a bit. You answered to Mr. O’Connor, that 
 you were not at some meeting in Manchester he 
 spoke of, because you had been sent to Ashton 
 by him ? Yes. What day was that? I can’t re- 
 member the day exactly. Well, you went to 
 Ashton. How long before the conference was 
 that ? About two months previous. Oh, then it 
 was not any meeting which took place during the 
 conference? No. Then the meeting to which 
 he referred, was a meeting which took place two 
 j mouths before the meeting in August,— two or 
 more ? Yes. Did you see after the Ibth, on the 
 16th, or on any other days, any of the Executive 
 Address Placards about Manchester? Yes. 
 When did you first see it ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS :— Does this arise in examina- 
 tion, my Lord ? I object to it. I don’t see any 
 thing to warrant it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I don’t see how it arose. 
 
 M 
 
IGG 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— I will state 
 in one moment how it arose. Mr. O’Connor 
 asked whether the object of the conference was 
 to discuss political opinions. 
 
 Mr. DUN DAS : — I did not hear. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : —Well, that 
 was the answer given. Then Mr. O’Connor 
 asked whether he saw anything except what 
 was tending to peace. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I did not ask any such 
 question. It was in reference to other meet- 
 ings. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Meetings of trades’ delegates. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— He asked 
 wdiether at this meeting he saw anything, except 
 W’hat was tending to peace, and the witness said, 
 “ yes I merely wish to know whether he was 
 aware, that after that meeting, the Executive 
 Address appeared ? 
 
 Mr. DUN DAS: — That does notarise out of 
 it. It is not in the meeting. 
 
 The JUDGE :— No, I think not. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : —Very well, 
 did you take a note of any of O’Connor’s 
 speeches ? I did. I did not take it down verba- 
 tim, but the spirit of his speech. Well, what 
 was it? To alter the resolution, by substituting 
 for the W'ord “ recommend” the word “ approve,” 
 and take advantage of the strike, as the trades 
 w'ould join, and they would be a great auxiliary. 
 Just so. Did he assign any reason for that 
 alteration of the word “ recommend” for the 
 word approve” or approves” } He said it 
 would make it more legal, and evade the law in 
 case of the' failure of the strike. Now, after- 
 wards M'Cartney asked you something about an 
 address ? The first address was oat before. The 
 first address was calling the people together to 
 celebrate the completion of the monument. But 
 that had nothing to do with the address passed 
 at the meeting of the 17th ? Not at all, sir. 
 
 JOHN STANLEY:— Was then called, and, 
 when about to be sworn — 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS asked him : — Have not you 
 been in court during the trial ? I have, sir, with 
 the permission of the Judge. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Speak up ! My Lord, I haye 
 been in court with your permission, as one of 
 the reporters, in w^hose favour, at the com- 
 mencement of the proceedings, an exceptibn was 
 made. 
 
 The JUDGE: — [To Mr. Dundas.] He has 
 merely come to give an account of something he 
 reported. 
 
 Mr. WORTLE Y Just so, my Lord. He is 
 only to speak to what he has in his notes; 
 there was one reporter who was to speak to 
 facts, and his presence in court was objected to. 
 i Mr. MURPHY : — I apprehend it was under- 
 stood, from the beginning, that no witnesses 
 were to be allowed to remain in court. These 
 notes, my Lord, are the most material facts in 
 ' the case. 
 
 * The JUDGE : — The question was asked, in 
 the beginning, whether he should remain' in 
 court, and you all agreed to it. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — My Lord, I submit that for 
 these reasons this witness 
 
 The JUDGE :— I will hear no argument about 
 it ; after what has already transpired in Court, I 
 shall certainly receive his evidence. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I recollect, my Lord, that 
 you made the exception in his favour, and that 
 we assented to it. 
 
 JOHN HANLY, was then examined by Sir 
 GREGORY LEWIN ; — In the month of August 
 last, were you a reporter for the Manchester 
 Guardian? I was, sir. On the 15th of August 
 was there a meeting of the trades’ delegates in 
 Manchester ? There was, sir. Where was it 
 held ? At the Sherwood Inn, Tib-street. Was 
 it in the forenoon ? It was at ten, or eleven 
 o’clock in the forenoon. Who were present ? — 
 Were you ? Y'es. Do you know how it had been 
 convened ? It was convened by a placard issued 
 by the “ Five Trades.” Who was in the chair ? 
 Alexander Hutchinson. Was there a secretary ? 
 There was. Who was he ? Charles Stuart. Were 
 there any persons there called scrutineers ? There 
 were, sir. And what did they do — the scruti- 
 neers ? They examined the credentials of the vari- 
 ous persons representing themselves as delegates, 
 before they were admitted to the room. Well, I 
 believe, after this, there was an adjournment 
 moved to Carpenters’ Hall ? There was. By 
 whom was that moved ? Witness produced notes 
 of the proceedings, in order to ascertain from 
 them who the mover of the adjournment was. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Ai-e these the notes you made at 
 the time ? They are, my Lord. I wish to explain 
 the manner in which these notes were taken. 
 Some of them were taken in the ordinary mode 
 of writing, and such parts of the speeches and 
 proceedings as I thought of importance I took in 
 short hand, and afterwards copied them out. The 
 former are always in the third person, the latter 
 in the first. I have the originals here, of both, 
 and if you wish I shall read either the originals 
 or the copies. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was that in long-hand 
 copied from the short-hand immediately after- 
 wards? Yes, my Lord, and these . [holding up 
 
167 
 
 copies of the notes] are a fuller report than 
 wliat appeared in the newspapers. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWJN : — Were these 
 notes taken at the time ? Witness : — They were. 
 Very well, never mind any further explanations, 
 but go on. By whom was the adjournment 
 moved ? I have a note of w'ho moved it, but I 
 cannot speak to it from recollection — allow me 
 to look. Well, did they adjourn to Carpenters’ 
 Hall? They did. At what time was the chair 
 taken there ? At one o’clock in the afternoon. 
 And by whom ? Alexander Hutchinson. Who 
 was present ? — Any of those whom you knew ? 
 I have a list of the names which I took at the 
 meeting as they were handed in. I know'some of 
 them, but not all. Who were there that you 
 knew ? I knew Bernard M'Cartney and Alexander 
 Hutchinson. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that the defendant M'Cart- 
 ney ? YeS, my Lord, — 1 will read the names of 
 those who were there. I took them down as they 
 were handed in. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL : - How 
 many have you got? Witness: — Upwards of 
 eighty. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— We don’t want 
 them. Was John Leach there ? 1 could not tell 
 from memory ; I will look at the list. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Are you able to swear he was 
 there ? No, my Lord ; I am able to say, that his 
 name was announced as a person that was there. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Are you able to 
 swear that a person calling himself John Leach 
 was there ? Witness : — Yes. From whence did 
 become? From Hyde. How was he described? 
 He, along with George Candelet, represented the 
 factory operatives of Hyde. Was George Can- 
 delet there ? Yes. Was Augustus Frederick 
 Taylor there ? Yes. Where was he from ? From 
 Royton. Whom did he represent ? The power- 
 loom weavers of Royton. Was a pei'son named 
 David Morrison there ? [Witness examines his 
 notes to find if Morrison’s name is in the list.] 
 Was William Woodrufte there? There are so 
 many names in this list, that it requires a little 
 time to ascertain whether any particular name is 
 among the number. David Morrison was there. 
 Whom did he represent ? The mechanics of Pa- 
 tricroft. Was William Woodruffe there? He 
 was. Whom did he represent ? The cordwainers 
 of Ashton. Was Albert Woolfenden there ? He 
 was. Whom did he represent ? A public meet- 
 ing in Ashton. Now, you say Bernard M‘Cart- 
 ney was there ; Who did he represent ? He was 
 from Leigh. Were there speeches made ? There 
 were. Will you tell me the general character of 
 the speeches that were’ made ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — We had better have the 
 speeches themselves. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN What were the 
 speeches about ? Witness ; — The first speech was 
 made by a person named Duffy. What was the 
 character of his speech ? He said the Anti-corn- 
 law League originated the disturbances, and 
 complained 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWHN Never mindabout 
 his complaining. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Go on. Witness: — Perhaps 
 it would be better to read the speech than to trust 
 to my recollection of it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— Read it. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Let us have the 
 substance of it. W^itriess then read the follow- 
 ing : — William Duffy, a delegate from the Man- 
 chester tailors, said, bethought the delegates had 
 at this time a very serious duty to perform. As 
 the representatives of the people, it was right 
 that they should show the world at large, that 
 they were able and willing to do their duty 
 and vindicate their position. On Saturday, a 
 placard was issued by the trades, expressive 
 ' of the sentiments of the delegates. In that 
 placard they called on the working classes to co- 
 operate, for the purpose of preserving property, 
 and preventing violence and outrage, and at 
 the same time, to use every lawful means in 
 their power to obtain their own just rights. How 
 had they been answered? They had been 
 answered by a document emanating from the 
 constituted authorities of this town — a document 
 illegal in its character, terms, and purport, and 
 calculated to excite the public mind. He had a 
 motion to bring before the meeting, bearing on 
 the objects for w^hich they had assembled ; but 
 he thought it necessary to take a preliminary 
 step, in order to convince the government, as 
 well as the authorities of this town, that they 
 (the delegates) were not to be intimidated. He 
 could scarcely believe, that the mayor of Man- 
 chester’ and the magistrates of this district would 
 have issued the proclamation to which he re- 
 ferred. He could not think, that they would take 
 the responsibility on themselves of issuing such 
 a placard as w'as that day exhibited on the walls 
 of the town. It must have proceeded, he at first 
 thought, from some evil-disposed persons. That 
 placard stated, that the authorities of the town 
 would disperse, as illegal, every meeting, no mat- 
 ter for what object It might be called. They had 
 now assembled as the representatives of the 
 trades ; and were the Lord Chancellor of England 
 to enter the door, and command them to leave 
 the place, they should not do so. The autho- 
 rities of this town wished to disperse meelingf 
 of the working classes, in order to st’fi? thL 
 
168 
 
 voice of the people. The working classes, how- 
 ever, were deeply irterested in the preservation 
 of the peace ; and, therefore, it became the duty 
 of the delegates to meet such a hostile decla- 
 ration as that which had been issued as it de- 
 served to be met, and thus to inspire their 
 constituents wdth confidence in their firmness 
 and discretion. The delegates, then, should 
 evince a determination to resist any inroad on 
 their just rights, which were guaranteed to them 
 by the laws and constitution of the country. — 
 The magistrates of this town should have been 
 the last people in the world to talk of force. 
 The men whose names were on that placard 
 were, no doubt; respectable and estimable men ; 
 but in their character as magistrates they had 
 not been so very tenacious as to the means by 
 which the people should express their opinions, 
 when they (the magistrates) had dictated the 
 subject on which those opinions should be ex- 
 pressed." 
 
 “ I am glad" (continued Duffy) “ that I am 
 now in the presence of reporters, who will 
 report, fully and faithfully, who those men are 
 who have their names appended to such a docu- 
 ment as that. We are assembled here for the 
 express purpose of preserving the public peace. 
 I had the honour of making a suggestion, at 
 Carpenters’ Hall, upon which a resolution was 
 founded, and in accordance with that resolution 
 this assembly was called into existence. Could 
 we give a greater proof of our, sincerity and dis- 
 position to maintain the peace of society, than 
 in calling together the heads of the various 
 trades — men whose feelings and sympathies 
 were identical with our own, — to consult on the 
 best means we ought to adopt under existing 
 circumstances. We are the true conservators 
 of honour. But the magistrates, whose names 
 are on that placard, are those who have taken 
 every possible means to raise the public indigna- 
 tion. There are names there of persons, in the 
 character of magistrates, who, only a few days 
 ago, called on us to send an address to the go- 
 vernment to stop the supplies — to take the most 
 revolutionary step that it was possible to take — 
 to take the purse of the country out of the 
 ^ands of the executive, and to set legal autho- 
 rity itself in abeyance, by placing the disposable 
 means of the country — the army and navy, and 
 all the appurtenances of government, in the hands 
 of commissioners. That house did not comply 
 with that threat. Who could expect they 
 would ? Because that house, and the members 
 
 who constitute it, have interests directly op- 
 posed to the interests of the people. But we have 
 taken a hint from Brooks, Cobden, and Robert 
 Gardner — we have taken a hint from the Anti- 
 corn-law League, whose lecturers are, at this mo- 
 ment, carrying staves as special constables. If 
 these men think that they will intimidate us — 
 that now, after having conjured up the public 
 mind to the highest possible pitch, they can 
 allay it at their pleasure — if they can turn round 
 and say, ‘ we are corn law leaguers to-day, and, 
 presto, we are magistrates to-morrow, and if 
 you do not exactly as w^e bid you we will send 
 the special constables upon you’ — they were 
 much mistaken." 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Is that all } 
 There is a little more, but it is nearly to the 
 same purport. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Was there a pla- 
 card there ? Duffy proposed a resolution. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN What was the re- 
 solution ? William Duffy, having advised the 
 delegates to use their influence to prevent dis- 
 turbance, concluded by proposing that the fol- 
 lowing address to the inhabitants of Manches- 
 ter should be printed and placarded : — 
 
 “ Resolved, — That this delegate meeting views 
 with the greatest indignation a placard headed 
 ‘ A proclamation to the inhabitants of Manches- 
 ter and the surrounding districts,’ in the name of 
 the constituted authorities. We, the delegates 
 chosen by the unanimous voice of the great body 
 of the working classes in public meetings assem- 
 bled of their various bodies legally convened, 
 feel called upon, by the urgency of the case, to 
 declare most solemnly our firm determination to 
 stand up in the vindication of our just and con- 
 stitutional right of assembling and discussing all 
 matters in which we conceive our interests in 
 any degree involved — 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN We don’t want any 
 more of that — Answer the questions, and don’t 
 read. Was there a meeting on the 16th at Car- 
 penters’ Hall ? There was not. Was there 
 another meeting on the 16th at Carpenters’ 
 Hall.? Not of the delegates ; there was one at 
 the Hall of Science. Well, did they adjourn 
 from Carpenters’ Hall on the 15th to the Hall of 
 Science .? Yes, and they met there the next day. 
 Did they afterwards go to Carpenters’ Hall ? 
 No. Was there a tea party on the 16th? Yes- 
 Where was that held? At Carpenters’ Hall. 
 Were you present ? I was. Who was there ? 
 The same persons you had seen before — any of 
 
them ? I did not take full notice of that meet- 
 ing. Do you know James Scholefield ? Yes. 
 While you were at Carpenters’ Hall, did he come 
 in ? Yes. When he came in, to whom did he 
 address himself, and what did he say ? I should 
 not like to speak from recollection of what he 
 said. Did you take any notes of what he said ? 
 Yes, I have some notes, but I have not a note of 
 his entire speech. I merely took such notes as 
 would enable me to write a paragraph about the 
 tea party for the Manchester Guardian. Then 
 refer to your notes, and tell me what he said ? 
 When I entered the room, Mr. Scholefield was 
 addressing the meeting — Well, what did he say ? 
 The first I find here in my notes is this — “ Their 
 day was coming, and when it comes it would 
 come with a vengeance — ” 
 
 The JUDGE : — Addressing the meeting, did 
 he say, “ yowr day ?” Yes, your day,. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Well, go on. Wit- 
 ness : — He then told them to enjoy themselves, 
 and to remember what occurred 16 years ago, 
 reminded them of what they endured then, and 
 said, “ After sorrow comes pleasure, and this is 
 one of the pleasurable occasions though mingled 
 with sorrowful sensations.” 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Any thing more ? 
 That is all I have of Mr. Scholefield’s. Now, 
 do you recollect any more that was said } 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — He says he cannot under- 
 take to say from recollection what was said. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN Then I ask, whe- 
 ther he can from memory state any thing else 
 that was said } Witness : — Merely that Mr. 
 Scholefield told them, that Mr. O’Connor and 
 his friends were meeting at some other place, 
 and that he was leaving the meeting to go and 
 join them. Did he say where they were meet- 
 ing, or what they were meeting about. 1 don’t 
 recollect. Did he then leave the meeting ? He 
 then left the meeting. Now go back to the 
 meeting at the Hall of Science, which meeting 
 took place I think on the same day. Was there 
 a resolution moved there ? There was. What 
 was the resolution about ? Who moved it ? The 
 first resolution was moved by Benjamin Stott. 
 
 The JUDGE : — When was this ? Witness : — 
 On the 16th, at the meeting in the forenoon. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— What was the 
 resolution? Witness:—” That this meeting do 
 strongly recommend to all trades’ societies, that, 
 from henceforth, they make political discussions 
 lawful and necessary in their assemblies ; and that 
 they embody in their rules a law for the adoption 
 of this great principle.” This resolution vt^as 
 
 seconded by Higginbotliam, and ultimately with- 
 drawm, as unworthy the notice of the body. Was 
 there another resolution proposed by William 
 Stott ? The next resolution I see, was moved by 
 Duffy. Well, were there one or two moved? 
 Yes, but it is better, perhaps, to take them as 
 they come, in order to prevent confusion. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — You had 
 better answer the questions. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN: -You had better 
 go on as we ask them. Will you give us the 
 resolutions that were moved ? Witness : — [Turn- 
 ing over his notes] I see one here that was pro- 
 posed by William Stott 
 
 . Sir GREGORY LEWIN Yes, read that. 
 Witness: — William Stott then proposed the fol- 
 lowing resolution : — ” That, from the statements 
 made before this delegate meeting, it is evident 
 that a tremendous majority in these great manu- 
 facturing districts are in favour of the People’s 
 Charter becoming the law of the land ; and, in 
 conformity with that opinion, it is at this stage 
 of the proceedings necessary that a definite de- 
 cision should be come to relative to the future 
 course of action to be immediately adopted by 
 the working classes, stating definitely whether 
 labour be further suspended, or again resumed.” 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Does it stop 
 there? Yes. This motion was seconded and 
 agreed to. Well, was there another resolution 
 moved and carried ? Y’'es. Joseph Manary then 
 moved: — “That the delegates here assembled 
 recommend their respective constituencies to adopt 
 all legal means to carry into effect the People’s 
 Charter, and that they send delegates to every 
 part of the united kingdom, to endeavour to get 
 the co-operation of the middle and labouring 
 classes to carry out the same ; and that they 
 stop work until it becomes the law of the land.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — [Handing 
 in a paper to the Court.] Your Lordship will 
 find that to be a copy of both the resolutions. — 
 This will save your Lordship the trouble of writ- 
 ing them. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Manary — is that the name of 
 the mover ? Yes, my Lord, Frederick Taylor of 
 Royton, seconded the motion. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Is his name 
 Augustus Frederick Taylor, or Frederick Augus- 
 tus Taylor, or Frederick Taylor ? He is some- 
 times called Frederick Taylor, and sometimes 
 Frederick Augustus Taylor. But Frederick is 
 his most usual name ? Yes, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES: — Just a 
 word with you, Mr. Hanly. You say this tea 
 party was on the 16th, at Carpenters’ Hall? It 
 was. Was that tea party advertised on the 6th 
 of August. 
 
170 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is in evidence that there 
 M'as a tea party on that evening. 
 
 Mr. BAINES Is not that [Exhibiting a 
 placard] the placard by which the tea party was 
 advertised ? I have no recollection of seeing that 
 placard before, nor in the way in which the tea 
 jiarty was advertised, nor do I know at present 
 how I discovered that there was to be a tea party 
 on that occasion. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is in evidence, that there 
 was but the one tea party on that evening— [To 
 the witness.] I suppose there was but the one tea 
 party ? Witness : — There was only one tea party 
 that evening in Carpenters’ Hall, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Allow me to look at your 
 notes which you took on that occasion. You 
 said at first you took no notes. Allow me for a 
 moment to look at the notes. Witness hands a 
 note book to Mr. Baines. 
 
 iMr. BAINES : — You got in after the meeting 
 began ? Yes. Where then do your notes of the 
 meeting begin ? Just where you see the pencil 
 marks. Why, it is in short-hand ! Yes. Where 
 were you when you took these notes.’ — Were 
 you near the chairman ? Yes, I was on the plat- 
 form. And Mr. Scholefield was speaking when 
 you arrived ? Yes. And that is what you beard 
 Yes. Tlie context you did not hear.’— He was 
 speaking you say at the time you entered .’ He 
 was. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — I have no question to ask 
 the witness. 
 
 Cross-examined by M‘CARTNEY : — Have 
 you been reading that portion of the evi- 
 dence respecting the meeting at Carpenters’ 
 Hall, and the Hall of Science, from your own 
 votes, or from printed extracts from the Man- 
 hester Guardian ? I have the original notes 
 /lere, [Witness lays his hand on his note books] 
 but, for the sake of facility, I have been reading 
 from a copy which I have carefully made from 
 the notes. But that you gave in evidence, you 
 were reading from the printed slips ? Partly so. 
 
 1 have availed myself of them wherever I found 
 them correct. The report in the Guardian was 
 furnished by myself. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He has been reading from the 
 notes — the written notes — and he has got the 
 originals. 
 
 WITNESS ; — I will read tlie same thing from 
 the original short-hand notes, if you desire it. 
 
 MACARTNEY ; — On the 15th, the meeting, 
 you say, was held at Carpenters’ Hall? Yes. 
 You attended .’ I did. At what time of the 
 morning ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the first meeting at 
 Carpenters’ Hall. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY^.-Yes, my Lord. 
 
 WITNESS : — At one o’clock the chair was 
 taken at Carpenters’ Hall. The Hall was pretty 
 well crowded, I believe .’ No ; there were none 
 there except delegates, as far as I could learn. 
 You were on the speaker’s gallery, or platform .’ 
 Yes. Did you see another gallery at the opposite 
 end of the hall ? I did. Now, was that gallery 
 crowded, or occupied .’ — Whether was it crowded 
 or not .’ If I have an account of it in my notes, 
 [Turning over the notes] I will rely on them'; 
 but, speaking from recollection, I think there 
 were some parties representing themselves as de- 
 legates, and their credentials not being deemed 
 satisfactory, it was agreed that they should be 
 admitted to the gallery, but not allowed to take 
 any part in the -proceedings. I find a passage 
 here which says: — “A discussion arose as to 
 whether those from the country, who neglected 
 to bring credentials, should be admitted to the 
 meeting ; and it was finally agreed, that they 
 should be allowed to sit in the gallery, but should 
 not be pennitted to take any part in the proceed- 
 ings.” There were very few persons in the gal- 
 lery. Do you remember a motion being made 
 that all should be admitted whom the Hall could 
 conveniently hold .’ I recollect you making that 
 motion at a meeting on the following day. You 
 said there was a dependence to be made on the 
 newspaper press, and that they might as well let 
 in the public to witness the proceedings. That 
 motion however was not agreed to. I am ques- 
 tioning you with regard to the meeting on the 
 15th ? Well, there was no such motion made at 
 that meeting, as far as I can recollect. You 
 were then in the capacity of reporter for the 
 Manchester Guardian ? I was. Did you feeldt 
 to be your duty as a reporter of tliat paper, to 
 take down verhatim all that transpired in your 
 presence .’ I did not. I felt it to be my duty as 
 reporter to give, in substance, a fair and impar- 
 tial expression of what was done at the meeting, 
 but not, exactly, what w^as said, because I knew 
 the editor would not allow a verbatim report of 
 all the speeches of the delegates to be inserted. 
 My duty was merely to give a fair and stibstan^ 
 tial account of what was done. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — Of what was done ! But were 
 you not aware that speaking was all that w-as 
 done ? I am aware of that, and I gave the sub- 
 stance of the speaking. But so -many go^ up and 
 said the same thing over and over again, that I 
 could express in six lines, and have done so in 
 this report, what was said in tw'O hours. (Laugh- 
 ter.) Do you remember in the Carpenters’ Hall, 
 an application being made by the manager of that 
 Hall, for some person to go outside, and tell the 
 people who surrounded the Hall, to disperse and 
 go away, least their assembling might lead to a 
 breach of the peace, or to tumult, or disorder of 
 
171 
 
 any kind, which the delegates were desirous of 
 using their influence to prevent ? Yes, I do. 
 
 The JUDGE: — At which meeting was that ? 
 Witness : — The meeting on the 15th, at Carpen- 
 ters’ Hall. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — And was the object of such 
 dispe^ion, lest the gathering outside might lead 
 to, or have a tendency to lead to, anything like 
 a breach of the peace, or tumult? Yes, that was 
 the object. It was in consequence of a letter 
 from the mayor, calling on the meeting to dis- 
 perse. This is a copy of the letter: — “ Great in- 
 convenience and danger to the public peace hav- 
 ing arisen from the large bodies of persons who 
 have, on several occasions, assembled round the 
 Carpenters’ Hall ; and these assemblages having 
 been caused by the meetings held within the 
 Hall ; the magistrates deem it right to draw your 
 attention to the effect of such meetings, and re- 
 quire you to discontinue all proceedings which 
 are necessarily attended with such illegal conse- 
 quences. “Yours, &c., 
 
 “William Nicild, 
 
 Mayok..” 
 
 “ Town Hall, Manchester, 
 
 15th August, 1842.” 
 
 Are you aware, that, at some time of that day, 
 the magistrates and constabulary or some of the 
 officials connected with the magistracy, whose 
 duty it was to see that all riotous and tumultuous 
 assemblies should be instantly dispersed, are 
 you aware that they were in the vicinity of the 
 Hall that day ? I believe that that was the case, 
 though I do not know it of my own knowledge. 
 
 The JUDGE: — You don’t know it? Wit- 
 ness : — It was so stated, my Lord. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Are you aware that all the 
 speeches on that occasion, invariably inculcated 
 the preservation of property, the conservation of 
 the peace, and respect for the constituted autho- 
 rities ? Yes, as far as I recollect I believe that 
 was the case. Do you remember an application 
 being made at tnat meeting by any party ? 
 
 WITNESS : — What was the nature of the ap- 
 plication ? Perhaps that would lead it to my re- 
 collection. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Do you remember any par- 
 ties coming into the Hall and requesting permis- 
 sion to say something relative to some intention 
 of some parties on the railings ? No. You did 
 not ? Did. not notice a number of females at the 
 meeting? No. In the gallery? No. Now, the 
 meeting of the 16th was at the Hall of Science ? 
 Yes, I will turn to that meeting ? That was a meeting 
 adjourned from the 15th ? Yes. And the meeting 
 of the 15th, on its adjournment, broke up peace- 
 ably and quietly, and all w^ent publicly through 
 the streets from that meeting without any indi- 
 cation of disturbance being manifested at their 
 
 breaking up ? They left the room quietly, and I 
 did not see them afterwards ? Yes, but as far as 
 you saw, every thing w^as quiet and peaceable ? 
 It was. Then we come to the meeting of the 
 16th. At what hour did you attend at the Hall 
 of Science ? At half- past ten o’clock in the fore- 
 noon. Had the chair been taken on your ar- 
 rival ? Alexander Hutchinson took the chair. 
 I was there at the commencement of the proceed- 
 ings. You remember, I presume, (without re- 
 ferring to any particular address, speech, or 
 sentiment) that all the speeches delivered during 
 the meeting of the 16th, in the Hall of Science, 
 were of such a character as to preserve peace, 
 hold sacred property, and even to respect the 
 opinions of others ? No, they w'ere not all of that 
 character. Generally ? Yes, generally they were, 
 but I remember one exception. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — What was 
 that ? George Candelet advised them to go to the 
 hills and take the crops. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is George Candelet here ? — 
 Is he a defendant ? 
 
 MACARTNEY : — I know^ not, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Oh yes, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What do you mean by getting 
 the crops off the hills ? 
 
 WITNESS : — To take them into their pos- 
 session and live on them. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — I think you remember no 
 such recommendation emanating from Mr. Can- 
 delet, which the general feeling of the meeting 
 went not to discountenance if not reprobate? 
 Witness : — I do not recollect any such circum- 
 stance, but I will refer to the place and see, 
 and give you the benefit of any such disclaimer 
 on the part of the meeting. If there was any- 
 thing of the sort I should certainly have no- 
 ticed it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL : —Was he 
 turned out of the room ? No. Witness then 
 turned to his notes and read as follows: — 
 
 “ Candelet, from Hyde, said, there was plenty 
 of provisions for them on the hills — plenty of 
 good crops, with which they might supply their 
 wants ; and he therefore implored the delegates 
 to resolve upon holding out until they obtained 
 the Charter. There were plenty of persons who 
 did no work, and yet they lived in affluence. 
 There were plenty of provisions in the country, 
 and no cause for fear in that respect.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — I don’t think that goes the 
 length of advising them to take the crops. 
 
 WITNESS : — My Lord, this was in reply to 
 an observation made by other parties, as to how 
 
the turn-outs should support themselves. I 
 shall read the context ; — “ The people of London 
 manifested great sympathy with the working 
 classes engaged in the present movement. When 
 the military were leaving London the people 
 were so clamorous that the band were ordered 
 to strike up, in order to drown the noise of the 
 p.opulace. He recommended the working classes 
 to imitate the ancient Romans, who retired to a 
 hill, and refused to return to their labour until 
 their political rights were conceded to them. 
 Charles Stuart, the secretary, stated that many 
 of the proprietors of mills were favourable to the 
 movement, and willing to subscribe to support 
 those engaged in it, provided they looked for 
 their political rights. He did not approve of 
 confining the agitation to the question of an ad- 
 vance of wages. — Jenkinson, from Lees, stated 
 that the body he represented were willing to 
 cease from labour, until the wages w^ere ad- 
 vanced; but, if the agitation were employed 
 for political objects, they were determined to 
 return to their work. — A delegate stated, that, if 
 they once agreed to go for the Charter, though 
 he could not say from what source they might 
 derive assistance, he w'as confident they would 
 be well supported. — Robert Gardner, represen- 
 tative of the engravers and printers of Man- 
 chester, denounced as foolish and insane the 
 recommendation to the working classes not to 
 return to their labour till they obtained the 
 Charter. He was a Chartist to the backbone ; 
 hut he thought the people could not maintain 
 themselves for a period sufficiently long to ena- 
 ble them to obtain the Charter. He believed, 
 that our commercial restrictions were not only 
 the cause of the prevailing distress, but also the 
 great hindrance to the obtainment of the Char- 
 ter ; and concluded by moving an amendment 
 to that effect, which was seconded by Neild, a 
 hatter." Candelet then used the language I 
 have read. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY : — Read Candelet again ? — 
 Witness : — “ Candelet from Hyde, said, “ there 
 were plenty of provisions for them on the hills, — 
 plenty of good crops, with which they might 
 supply their wants ; and he therefore implored 
 the delegates to resolve upon holding out until 
 they obtained the Charter. There w'ere plenty 
 of persons who did no work, and yet they lived in 
 affluence ; there were plenty of provisions in the 
 country, and no cause for fear in that respect." | 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — I submit that that bears i 
 no such construction, my Lord. I 
 
 The JUDGE ; — We cannot hear any speech 1 
 
 from you now, but it will v)e a matter of observa- 
 tion for the jury. 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — Were there any reporters 
 present besides you ? There were.— I think Grif- 
 fin was there. Mr. Grant was also present. And 
 some others connected with the Manq^ester 
 press, I suppose ? Yes. Do you remember the 
 dispersion of the meeting that evening by the 
 magistrates ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE — Beswick came Yes, my 
 Lord. You were present then ? I was, my Lord. 
 On the 16th, he came to the Hall of Science, I 
 believe.’ Yes, my Lord, at the afternoon meet- 
 ing ; there were two meetings that day. At what 
 time? About five o'clock in the afternoon, as 
 nearly as I can recollect. The meeting broke up 
 at six in the afternoon ? 
 
 M'CARTNEY : — As soon as the meeting 
 ascertained, that it was the opinion of the magis- 
 trates that the delegates should disperse, they 
 manifested a desire to depart instantly ; the men 
 got up, took their hats, and prepared to leave the 
 Hall ? As soon as their business was done, they 
 left, but the chairman objected to go away, and, 
 declared distinctly, that the magistrates had no 
 authority to disperse them. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL; — The ma- 
 gistrates had no authority to disperse them ! 
 
 WITNESS : — They were allowed ten minutes 
 to go away. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL;— What did 
 they do in these ten minutes ? They passed those 
 resolutions which I have read respecting the 
 Charter. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — What resolutions ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL;— Did they 
 pass the resolutions you before mentioned ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — In the five minutes ? About 
 that time, my Lord. 
 
 M‘CARTNEY ; — The meeting quietly dis- 
 persed you say, and walked away, without any 
 indication of disturbance in the neighbourhood ? 
 They did as far as I know. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL ; — ^Those are your original notes, (Pointing 
 to them) and I believe this is a copy ? Witness ; 
 — Yes, this is a copy, and I have the original 
 notes here for any one that desires them. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ;— I will now 
 call a few witnesses to show what took place after 
 the 17th and 18th. 
 
 MATTHEW MAIDEN, examined by Mt. 
 HILDYARD: — What are you? I am a consta- 
 ble of Ashton. Were you at the Town Hall of 
 Ashton, the 18th of August ? I was. Did a 
 mob of persons come into the Town Hall ? Yea. 
 Were they armed ? Yes. When was that ? On 
 Thursday, the 18th of August. Do you know 
 
173 
 
 Kobert Lees ? Yes. Where was he ? He was 
 heading them up. They went to Mr. Barrow's 
 new buildings, where there were some brick- 
 layers and lal>ourers at work. Did they desire 
 them to desist? Tes. I believe there was a per- 
 son of the name of Meath at the head of the 
 bricklayers? Yes. Did Meath refuse to suffer 
 the men to desist from their work ? A brother of 
 the master of the buildings was there, and he re- 
 fused to let the men give up working. In con- 
 sequence of that did a riot ensue ? There did. 
 
 enough here ; let’s go and fetch the others.” 
 When did they come back again ? Some came 
 about twelve o’clock, and others about two 
 hours afterwards. How many came the second 
 I time? I think there could not be less than 
 nine hundred ; they came up in a body. What 
 did they say the second time they came ? They 
 walked forward up to the mill, and insisted on 
 its being stopped, and the hands turned out. 
 Were the hands turned out? Yes. After the 
 hands were turned out, what did you see ? 
 
 Did they succeed in making the men desist from 
 their work ? They did give up. W'as the riot 
 act read ? It was. Was Lees armed with a 
 stick ? He had a stick in his hand. 
 
 Cross-examined by JOHNSTON : — What do 
 you mean by a riot ? There Was a disturbance. 
 You mean by a riot a disturbance ? Yes, the 
 shopkeepers began putting the shutters up. Do 
 you call that a riot ? Yes, they brandished their 
 sticks, and requested the people to give up work- 
 ing and come down, or they would fetch them 
 down. And that is what you call a riot ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by WOODRUFFE : — Did they 
 brandish their sticks previous to the riot act 
 being read ? Yes, they brandished their sticks, 
 and said if they would not come down they 
 would make them come. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, 
 will you take a note of that ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I have already done so. 
 
 WOODRUFE : — Did you see any distur- 
 bance, or any person injured previous to the 
 riot act being read ? No. 
 
 SAMUEL NEWTON, examined by Mr. POL- 
 LOCK: — W'ere you at Ashton on the 18th of 
 August i I was. Were you at Otho Hulme’s 
 mill there ? Yes. Do you remember seeing 
 any people come to it ? I do. What time did 
 they come first ? About ten o’clock in the fore- 
 noon. How many people came ? I should 
 think about three hundred came altogether. 
 Had they anything in their hands ? They had 
 sticks, and other weapons of various kinds. 
 Was the mill at work when they came ? It 
 was. What did they say ? They desired the 
 master and overlooker to stop the works. The 
 overlooker said the old master was not there 
 (that is the eldest brother,) and they could do 
 nothing — they could not stop the works. Was 
 the mill, in fact, stopped there, or not ? Not at 
 that time. Did the people go away ? They 
 did. Did they say any t’ ing as they were going 
 away ? Yes — ” come on, we have not force 
 
 They wanted the young master to promise that he 
 would not start working any more ; and he said, 
 as long as the hands were willing to work the 
 mill must run. Now, after that, what did you 
 see the mob do ? They began to pull the fires 
 out, and there was a call from the mob to pull 
 the plugs from the boiler, so as to let the water 
 out. Did they do so ? They did. They pulled 
 the plugs out. They drew one plug, and one 
 fire, and then the soldiers came up and dis- 
 missed the mob. 
 
 JAMES WHITHAM, examined by the AT- 
 TORNEY-GENERAL Where do you live? 
 In Carleton. Where is that ? Near Yorkshire. 
 Is that near Colne ? Yes, ten miles from Colne. 
 Is that near Skipton ? Yes, about two miles 
 from Skipton. On the 1 6th of August did any 
 persons stop any works at Skipton ? Yes. 
 Were you there ? Yes. Did you see them ? 
 Yes. How many were there ? Two or three 
 thousand. Whose works did they stop ? Mr. 
 Duhert’s and Mr. Sedgewick’s. Did Sedge- 
 wick’s make any resistance ? Yes. For how 
 long ? An hour, or better. When did it end ? 
 — What became of it ? The special constables 
 stopped the mob, till another reinforcement of 
 the mob came up, and then they stopped the 
 works by force. Did they overpower Sedge- 
 wick’s people ? They did. What did the mob 
 do ? They stopped the mills when the rein- 
 forcement came up, they pulled the tap out of 
 the boiler, and turned out the hands. Was the 
 riot act read before that w'as done? It was. 
 Do you know a man of the name of Mooney ? 
 Yes, very well. Where does he live ? At 
 Colne. Did he ever tell you any thing about 
 his going from Colne to Manchester ? Yes. 
 What did he tell you ? He told me, that be 
 had been at the Manchester conference, as a 
 a delegate. As a what? As a delegate. Did 
 he mention where they met ? At Carpenters’ 
 Hall. Any where else ? They broke up from 
 there, he said, and went to Scholeficld’s place. 
 
174 
 
 Did he ever mention any meeting at Chat-Moss ? 
 Yes, he mentioned a few of them, who met 
 there, in an outside place. Did he say on what 
 day it was ? It was some time after the meet- 
 ing broke up at Scholefield’s place. Did they 
 tell you what they had with them } Yes, they 
 said they were all prepared, and if any thing 
 had gone to break them up, they would oppose 
 force to force. Had they any means of doing 
 so ? Yes, they said tliey had four double- 
 barrelled guns, and two or three single ones. 
 
 JAMES MOONEY, a defendant : — My 
 Lord, I wish to ask the witness a question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought Mooney had 
 counsel. 
 
 MOONEY” I only want to ask a question. 
 
 The JUDGE — I cannot permit you ; Where 
 is your counsel ? 
 
 MOONEY^ He is not present. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, if you wish to ask any 
 questions I will not hinder you. 
 
 MOONEY YMien w'as it I told you this? 
 In the latter end of August. Can’t you recollect 
 the day ? No. It is a strange thing you can’t 
 recollect the day ?. Don’t you i-ecollect when 
 we came out together from the news room ? 
 
 MOONEY’’; — Was there anyone with us? 
 Witness : — There was no one with us except one 
 person who told you something about Scotland. 
 At what time of the day was it ? 
 
 The JUDGE:— [To Mooney.] Your coun- 
 sel IS ncre now, out you may go on if you like. 
 
 MOONEY : — As my counsel is here, I w'ish 
 him to ask some questions too. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Y'^ou must leave that to his 
 own discretion. Y''ou may go round to him if 
 ymu please. His Lordship then read to Mr. 
 McOubrey (Mooney’s counsel) what had been 
 given in evidence by the last witness. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. McOUBREY :— How 
 came Mooney to say such a thing to you ? We 
 were talking together. Had you been particu- 
 larly- intimate ? Y’’es, I had known him a long 
 time. Now, what was it that led to such a dis- 
 closure as that ^ — Were you a Chartist yourself? 
 Y’es ; I once was. Did you say, at one time, you 
 were ? Y’^es, I was joined at one time. How 
 have you been getting your living ? — What trade 
 are you ? I am a weaver, sir. Have you been in 
 employment lately ? Y"es. Are you still a w^qaver ? 
 Yes, I am a weaver now. Do you do anything 
 else ? No, I don’t do anything else. In what 
 employment were you at the time you say you 
 had this conversation with Mooney ? I had gone 
 over to Colne for a reed. I dare say you have a 
 great respect for the ,Hws ? Witness : — Respect 
 for the laws ? 
 
 M« McOubrey =—Ye.s'. have you?-Did 
 
 you never sell tea? Never, in my life time. 
 Come, sir, will you swear that you were not en- 
 gaged in selling tea' at that time ? Yes, I will 
 engage to swear, that I never was engaged in 
 selling any tea in all my life time. 
 
 CHARLES SLORACK, examined by Mr. 
 WORTLEY : — Were you employed in August 
 last as a designer, in Messrs. Wanldey’s works ? 
 Y''es. Where were you so employed ? In Ashton. 
 Now, on the 8th of August, do you remember a 
 mob coming to your premises ? Yes. Did they 
 turn your hands out on that day ? Y'es, sir. How 
 long did they continue out ? They went to work > 
 on Tuesday morning again, and about half-past 
 eleven o’clock they stopped us again. After 
 Tuesday the 9th, we stopped out till Monday the 
 22nd of August ; and we w'orked Mondaj’’ and 
 Tuesday quietly, but on Wednesday the mob 
 came on a sudden to the factory, broke open the 
 gates, and ran down the yard ; the hands were 
 greatly alarmed. How many were there in that 
 mob, that came on Wednesday the 24th ? , Up- 
 wards of 400 or ,500 came to the' gates, but there 
 were thousands about. Were the gates fastened ^ 
 Y^es, sir. Was anything done to them? They 
 were broken down. Did they do any other mis- 
 chief? Theydid the other two besides that. What 
 other two? Two smaller gates. Where there' two 
 sets of gates broken ? Y’’es, and ohe small door. 
 Were these gates broken down that evening? 
 Yes. Did they get to the mill at all ? They did 
 not go into the mill on Wednesday, thei*e was a 
 shout got up not to go in. They attempted to 
 go into the engine house, but the doors of it were 
 locked. When they got round to it, they began 
 to throw stones through the windows, and some 
 stones got into the wheels of the engine through 
 the windows. While they were doing that what 
 happened ? the magistrates and constables came, 
 and they were stoned by the same mob. Did 
 the military come up ? Yes, about ten minutes 
 after, the military came, and then the mob ran 
 off and dispersed in all directions. Tha.t was on 
 the 24th, was it? Yes. And they dispersed? 
 Y’”es. Was that the last time they came? Y^es; 
 [The foreman, on behalf of the jury, requested 
 permission to retire for refreshment, and were 
 told that they would be allowed to do so at two 
 o’clock.] 
 
 GRATTAN M‘CABE, examined by Sir 
 GREGORY’’ LEWIN : — You were Superinten- 
 dent of police at Burnley, I understand ? Yes, sir. 
 Did you apprehend Beesley ? Y’’es. Where did 
 you apprehend him ? In Burnley. When ? On 
 the 3rd of September When you apprehended 
 him did you search him ? I did, sir. Did you 
 find anything upon him ? I did. , What did you 
 find ? A resolution of the delegates. Have you 
 any copies there? Y’'es. [Witness producing a 
 
175 
 
 small hand-bill.] Open it out. Witness then 
 handed the bill to the counsel, who put it in, and 
 it was read by the officer of the court. The fol- 
 lowing is a copy : — “ Resolution of the delegates. 
 — That whilst the Chartist body did not originate 
 the present cessation from, labour, this eonference 
 of delegates from various parts of England, ex- 
 press their deep sympathy with their constituents, 
 the working men now on strike ; and that we 
 strongly approve the extention and the continu- 
 ance of their present struggle till the People’s 
 Charter becomes a legislative enactment, and 
 decide forthwith to issue an address to that effect ; 
 and pledge ourselves, on our return to our re- 
 spective localities, to give a proper direction to 
 the people’s efforts. (Signed) James Arthur, 
 Chairman ; J. Arran, Secretary.” I found 
 seventeen copies of this resolution on Beesley, I 
 have fifteen copies here, and I gave two to the 
 solicitor. The whole of my division, comprising 
 forty-five townships, was then in a very agitated 
 state. When was that ? From the 10th to the 
 20th, previous to the apprehension of the pri- 
 soner ; about the time of the strike. The mill- 
 hands were turned out in Burnley on the 13th, 
 and an attempt was made, on the 15th, to stop a 
 coal pit, — the Habergham Eave’s coal pit. I 
 understood that two magistrates and some dra- 
 goons dispersed the mob. Were there any pla- 
 cards exhibited on the walls ? There was. There 
 is one here which is a copy of the Executive Pla- 
 card. It was hanging on a lamp-post in the 
 centre of Burnley. [Witness produces the pla- 
 card.] When did you take that down ? On the 
 18th. Were there any others similar to that on 
 the walls? None others. This is the only one 
 you saw ? Yes. It was surrounded by a lot of 
 men, and I tore it down. There was one of these 
 resolutions posted up (on the 19th or 20th, I 
 think,) on a wall, a number of men were reading 
 it, and I tore it dovyn. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR : — Do you 
 recollect large meetings being held previously to 
 these in Bnrnley? Yes. Did you attend any 
 meeting that I attended at Burnley? No, sir, I 
 did not. Were you not at a meeting which I 
 addressed in a tent ? I stopped outside the tent 
 for about ten minutes. Did you hear anything \ 
 that I said? I did not hear you say anything. 
 You did not hear the tenour of my address ? No. 
 Upon your oath ? No, I went to seethe consta- 
 bles, and just passed by the tent. You mean the 
 pavilion that was erected for the tea-party ? Yes. 
 Do you mean to say that you did not go in to 
 hear the addresses ? Yes. Are you aware, Mr. 
 M'Cabe, that the shopkeepers of Burnley bad a 
 meeting there called by placard ? I know there 
 
 was a placard calling a meeting. Did you at- 
 ■ tend that meeting? I did not. Did you attend a 
 j meeting where the shopkeepers of Burnley adopt- 
 ed the People’s Charter? I read something of 
 ^ the resolutions adopted at that meeting ; I saw 
 j them posted on a wall. Have you any recollec- 
 tion of what passed at those meetings ? I have 
 not a perfect recollection of what passed. Did 
 not you get some of these meetings reported ? Yes, 
 I had most of the other speakers reported but not 
 you. Oh , then you had reported the others but not 
 me ? No, not you. Did you report them yourself? 
 No, not myself, when I attended the Chartist 
 camp meetings, it w^as more for the purpose of 
 seeing the numbers in attendance than reporting 
 the speeches. Then you attended the other 
 meetings, but you did not report my speech ? 
 Oh ! no ; I got others to report the speeches. 
 And why not report my speech ? It was too 
 difficult. Did you put your nose in at all to 
 hear me ? No. Don’t blush ; you are an Irish- 
 man and don’t blush. Did you ever see a greater 
 inclination on the part of any meeting to pre- 
 serve the most perfect order ? To tell you the 
 truth, the impression on ray mind was, that the 
 procession in Burnley was really a contemptible 
 one to what I was led to believe it would be. 
 That is, you thought it w’as small in number ? 
 Yes. Are you in the habit of seeing larger pro- 
 cessions in Burnley ? That procession did not 
 come up to my ideas. Then no procession you 
 ever saw there came up to your ideas of what a 
 Chartist procession ought to be ? No. We ex- 
 pected the meeting would be a much larger one. 
 We expected more disturbance and were pre- 
 pared for it ; but when we saw how they entered 
 Burrdey, we were perfectly satisfied that there 
 would be no disturbance.- You are constable of 
 Burnley ? Yes. And you were prepared for the 
 disturbance ? Yes. Then why not go and hear 
 what was heard ?— Now, on your oath, were you 
 not outside the meeting on horseback ? No ! 
 not there on horseback during the day. And 
 you got reports of what everybody said but me ? 
 No, I did not get it taken down. Nor you did 
 not receive it from any of those who sent in re- 
 ports ? No. 
 
 I'SSACCIIAR THORPE sworn 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL -.— The object 
 of calling two or three witnesses now is merely 
 to prove, that licenses were given on certain 
 occasions to parties to carry on their works, I 
 wish to apjuise my leruned fiicnds that that is 
 the last point. 
 
176 
 
 Examined by Mr. IIILDYARD : — Are you 
 the manager of Print-works in Stalybridge, be- 
 longing to Neild and Company ? Yes. Were 
 your works stopped on the 8th of August last ? 
 
 Yes. Our works are in Duckinfield, and not 
 
 in Stalybridge. Had you reason to believe that 
 a party of persons were sitting in Stalybridge 
 granting authority under particular circumstances 
 to the masters to w ork for a particular time ? 1 
 did not see them myself. Had you reason to 
 believe from information you received, that such 
 a body was sitting ? Y"es. Did you, in conse- 
 quence, on Wednesday, 10th August, go to Staly- 
 bridge, and ask an interview with a party there, 
 which you understood was granting this permis- 
 sion ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Pray speak out. You went to 
 them on the 10th of August ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. IIILDYARD Did you go on horseback ? 
 No, sir. Did you see any one there when you 
 made this application ? Yes, I saw a room full 
 of people. And saw a person there very busy 
 going about to whom you addressed yourself? 
 Yes. What did you ask him ? I asked him if he 
 w as one of the committee. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY Who was that ? 
 
 Mr. IIILDYARD : — A person that hesawmore 
 active than the others. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What did you ask him ? 
 Witness ? — I asked him, was he one of the com- 
 mittee. What answer did you receive ? He 
 said, he was. Did you tell him what object you 
 had in seeking an interview with the committee ? 
 1 did ; I told him we wanted to gain the power 
 of working up the cloth. Did he tell you that 
 he w^ould see the committee and then return to 
 you again? Yes. Did you in consequence wait 
 at a house called “The Moulders’ Arms”? 1 did. 
 After waiting a certain time, did that person 
 together with three others come to you ? Yes. 
 What did they say ? They brought me a small 
 piece of paper, which purported to grant us per- 
 mission. Just look at that paper, [handing a 
 paper to witness] and see if that is the paper 
 which was brought to you ? Y’'es, sir, this is the 
 same paper. 
 
 Mr. HILDYARD : — ^Very well, sir. Perhaps 
 it had better be read t \ ow . The paper was put in 
 and read. It was as follows ; — “ Y'Ot the Com- 
 mittee of Stalybridge, think it our duty to allow 
 you every protection in our power to finish the 
 pieces already in danger, but we will not go be- 
 yond that point.” 
 
 “ On behalf of the Committee, 
 
 *‘ To the Duckinfield Bleach Works.” 
 
 Mr. HILDY'ARD Now, after you received 
 that paper, did you go away ?— And were yoiir 
 works allowed to go on till the pieces were finish- 
 ed ? Yes. When you finished the pieces, did 
 your works cease ? Y^es. For how long were 
 your works suspended ? For seven or eight days. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr O’CONNOR -What 
 do you mean by this committee that were sitting ? 
 I don’t know what they were. You went to this 
 committee yourself, not knowing what this com- 
 mittee was ? No. Do you recollect what this 
 committee said to you ? No. Well, I will refresh 
 your memory. — “He was astonished at the 
 apathy ol the Metropolis on this subject. Would 
 the people never learn to rely upon their own 
 energy, and demand to be fed themselves, while 
 they feed others ? It appeared to him, that the 
 time was passed for talking. The time was come 
 to do something, and he thought they ought to 
 proceed at once to appoint a committee of public 
 safety.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is all this ? Witness : — 
 I don’t know what you are referring to. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Then you went to a 
 committee of public safety, and you don’t know 
 w'hat it is ? 
 
 PETER JAMIESON, examined by the 
 ATTORNEY - GENERAL Where do you 
 live ? In Stalybridge. What are you ? A Tailor. 
 Do you remember, at the latter end of July, 
 discharging some of your working men ? Yes ; 
 some men I had taken into the house to work, 
 who had been previously working in their own 
 houses. On the 10th of August, did any number 
 of persons come to your house? Yes. How 
 many do you think ? I suppose their might be 
 from sixty to seventy. What did they do ? They 
 ordered me to turn out my men. Now, at that 
 time, had you any particular work that was 
 wanted very much ? I had some mourning. You 
 say they ordered you to turn off your men. Did 
 they do anything besides ? No. Did they come 
 into your house ? A number of them ca*e into 
 the shop. And what did they do ? They told me 
 I must turn out my men. Did you do so ? Y es, 
 I did. What became of you ? Well, I went to a 
 place that was reported either to be an operatives’ 
 meeting room, or a committee room. Where 
 was it held ? In Duckingfield ; in a house at the 
 back of the Moulders’ Arms. Did you see a 
 horse there ? Y’’es, there was a horse at the door 
 when I went in. How many persons did you 
 find in the room ? There might be from forty to 
 fifty. Now, did you tell them what work yoU 
 w’ere upon ? I went and told them that I had 
 heard that cur shop had been reported, at the 
 meeting held on the Haigh, as bating the w-ages, 
 and that such a report was false ; and I wished 
 them to call my work-people there, and 1 would 
 
177 
 
 answer for it. Who do you call your work 
 people ? Them that I had discharged at the latter 
 end of July. Did you say anything about the 
 mourning? Not at that time. Did you after- 
 wards, on the same day, in the afternoon ? Yes. 
 What did you say ? I told them I should like 
 them to go on with the work'. Was this in the 
 same room ? Yes. But I could not swear it was 
 the same people when I went the second time. 
 Tell me whether you knew any of them either in 
 the morning or afternoon ? I could not swear 
 who was on the committee. — There was one of 
 the name of Fenton there — What Fenton is he ? 
 James Fenton ; he is a shoemaker by trade, and 
 lives at Stalybridge. Did you see a man of the 
 name of Durham there ? I did. Was he in the 
 committee room ? Yes. Now, what Durham is 
 that ? — What is he ? He is a shoemaker, and 
 lives in Stalybridge. Did Fenton take any part 
 in the matter ? — Did he say anything ? Yes. 
 Was your business settled that day, or did you go 
 the next day ? I went on the morning of the 
 11th. Did you see Fenton there ? I did. Was 
 he taking any part in the business ? Witness 
 What ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Did you 
 hear him say or do anything ? He said on the 
 morning of the lOth, he could not enter into any 
 business, as they had business of importance to 
 transact. Well, was that the reason why he came 
 the next day ? No, I ordei-ed them to call my 
 men there. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Nevermind 
 speaking about your men. I am speaking about 
 the morning of the 11th. Did you see any other 
 person come when you were there ? — Did you see 
 any other person come about the print works ? 
 There was a person brought in a message, from 
 a man who waited at the door, wanting some 
 further time about finishing his work. Was that 
 stated in the committee room, in the hearing of 
 all the people there ? Yes. That there was a man 
 wanting longer time to finish his work? Yes. 
 What kind of work was it ? I don’t know. How- 
 ever, you heard that message delivered ? Yes, 
 that message was delivered. Did you ever get a 
 piece of paper from the committee ? I did not get 
 it, I had it sent to me. You had it sent to you ? 
 Yes. Who brought it? A man in my employ- 
 ment. What is his name ? William Barker. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I shall call 
 him next, to prevent any objection being taken 
 now. [To Witness.] A paper was brought to 
 yen ? Yes. What became of that paper ? It was 
 lost. Have you been able to find it? No. Do 
 you recollect what was the contents of it ? I could 
 not say, I only read it once. Well, what was it 
 about ? That our men were to go on with their 
 work, and finish the mourning. Was the mourn- 
 
 ing mentioned? Yes. Did any jjcrsons after- 
 wards come to your premises to see what you 
 were doing ? Yes, there was. What did they do ? 
 They sent persons to examine the work th it the 
 men were “agait" upon, to show them that it 
 was mourning. Did they challenge him, that be 
 was getting work done that was not mourning ? 
 Yes, they told him that there was a jacket there 
 that some one had been recently sowing. Did 
 any of them make any observation on that, that 
 it was not mourning? No, nothing more. After 
 that, did any other persons come ? No, my master 
 said it would be better to turn them off, and let 
 the work be taken home to be finished, and have 
 no more disturbance. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — You 
 are now a master tailor ? Yes. You had of course 
 been a journeyman tailor? Never in England. 
 Did you ever belong to the union of the trades ? 
 Not in England. Are you aware that there were 
 unions of your own trade in England ? Yes, but 
 they struck against the jaen in my employment, 
 because I considered they had men who used me 
 badly. Well, it was a tailor, and one of your 
 own men, that took back this hit of paper? Yes, 
 Now, do you know Durham ? Yes. Have you 
 not often praised him for his kindness, mildness, 
 and quietness? Yes, and I have assisted him in 
 his distress. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — That is all, my Lord. 
 [To Witness.] You did not stop a man from 
 working at this jacket that was not mourning ? 
 No. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — Did they make any objection to working 
 at that jacket ? The man was not at work on the 
 jacket then, but they said there was some person 
 recently at work at it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— And that 
 it was not mourning ? Yes. And did they object 
 to that work being done ? 
 
 The JUDGE That is a matter of inference. 
 WILLIAM BARKER, examined by the AT- 
 TORNEY-GENERAL :— Were you in the ser- 
 vice of Jamieson last August ? Yes. Do you re- 
 member going to a committee room, and getting 
 a bit of paper? Yes. What day was it? On 
 Thursday morning. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is the morning of the 
 11th of August? Witness: — 1 don’t know, it 
 was on Thursday, I recollect perfectly well. The 
 Thursday after you were turned out ? Wit- 
 ness : — We were turned out on Wednesday 
 morning. 
 
 The JUDGE Well, that is the Thursday 
 afterwards. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL -.—Where did 
 you get the paper ? From the committee sitting at 
 the Moulders’ Arms. Did you say anything 
 
178 
 
 about it ? I told thorn my muster had a suit of 
 tuourning to be made for a person. I told them 
 to give us a note to allow us to make this 
 mourning. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — I object to this. I under- 
 stood from the Attorney-General, that none of 
 the defendants were present at that meeting 
 at all. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — No, my 
 Lord, the witness did not say that. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, he says, “ two of the de- 
 fendants were present.” 
 
 WITNESS : — My master had a suit of mourn- 
 ing to make for a funeral. I took his compli- 
 ments, and said, he would be obliged if they 
 would allow him a note to show the mob when 
 they came to the door, to allow us to make them. 
 The answer I got was, that the present com- 
 mittee agreed to give him their note. Well, did 
 they give you a bit of paper ? Yes, sir. Did you 
 read it? I don’t know whether I read it or not. 
 
 I gave it to Jamieson. ^Well, the paper you got 
 you took to Jamieson ? A'es, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — You 
 say you went into a room at the back of the 
 Moulders’ Arms ? Y^es. Was that called the 
 Operatives’ Committee room ? I believe it was. 
 Was it a room used from time to time, by the 
 Operatives for their committee meetings ? I don’t 
 know that, sir. Did you know anything about 
 that room, or the use to which it was applied be- 
 fore this time ? No, I can’t say. Are you and 
 your masters on good terms? For anything I 
 know, w'e are. You have always been on good 
 terms ? Yes, always. A'ou w'ere never found 
 fault with by him for anything ? No. You never 
 got 21. 5s. from any one lately ? Yes, I got it for 
 being in Liverpool. Did you get any since ? No. 
 You never had any falling out on that score ? 
 No. Have you ever been charged with any 
 offence by him ? No, not by him. Then it was 
 not the master, but the men who accused you ? 
 Yes. What did they accuse you of? For put- 
 ting two or three rags in my hat. Is that w'hat 
 they call “ cabbage ?” Yes. Some of the men 
 charged me with taking two or three “rags” 
 from the shopboard, but they couldn’t prove it. 
 Is that all ? Yes, I have never been brought to 
 justice yet for it. Well, you are brought to 
 justice now for it. Is not that what they call 
 cabbage ? Yes. Then you had got some of this 
 cabbage in your hat ? Yes. Now, what did you 
 take these rags for ? To put in my hat to carry a 
 small bundle on. What ! was your hejad soft ? 
 
 I put ’em in to carry some swill on. (Laughter). 
 What sort of swill? Swill for pigs. Was it your 
 own swill ? — Was it your’s ? — (laughter). It was 
 bought and paid for. Now, these rags. What 
 were they ? — The other men say they were “ spare 
 
 trimmings.”- (laughter). Is that what you cal! 
 “ caiZ-a.ye.!”’— (great laughicr). No, now’t so 
 good. — (laughter ) But your master being a 
 “swell,” you wanted something soft on wljich to 
 carry the S7cill ? I defy you or any other man to 
 charge me. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He put rags in his hat to keep 
 the swill from pressing his head. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Who charged you with 
 that ? A man who said I was taking spare trim- 
 mings away. Jamieson never charged me with 
 it. Were you threatened to be brought before 
 the IMagistrates for it ? I was threatened to be 
 brought before an attorney. But you see I am 
 not brought to justice yet. (laughter) 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Why that was worse than 
 to be brought before all the justices in the coun- 
 try. Now I will let you know,that as you are in 
 the Attorney-General’s hands, you maygo down. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : 
 — Is Jamieson, your master here ? Yes, sir. Did 
 he ever make any complaints of that sort against 
 you ? Not yet. Are you in his employment 
 now ? No. When did you leave him ? A week 
 last Monday. 
 
 JAMES ROTIIWELL, examined by Sir 
 GREGORY LEWIN: — Are you in the employ 
 of Messrs. Hollingworth, of Dalton ? Yes. I 
 believe on the 10th of August their mill was 
 stopped ? Yes. On the 12th, in consequence of 
 anything you heard respecting Mr. Potter, did 
 you go to make any application to anybody for a 
 license? Yes. Where did you go to, and to 
 whom? I went on the 11th to a meeting at 
 Whinberry Hill, in the parish of Glossop. And 
 when you got to this Whinberry Hill who did you 
 see, to make an application to ? The Chairman. 
 Do you know who he w'as John Lewis. Do 
 you know where he belongs to ? Woollybridge. 
 What did yoii say to him ? I told him we had 
 some work spoiling. Yes. I asked him for per- 
 mission for two days to work it up. On making 
 that request what did John Lewis do? He put 
 it to the meeting. Was it carried in your fa- 
 vour ? Yes, it was carried in our favour. Did 
 you obtain any written license ? No. Did you 
 work the two days ? Yes. And did you then 
 cease ? We then ceased. The works in the 
 neighbourhood, I believe, were standing ? I be- 
 lieve they were all standing. 
 
 GEORGE ROBERTS, examined by Mr. 
 WORTLEY : — I believe you are the book-keeper 
 of Messrs. Potter ? Yes. They have print works ? 
 Yes. Were your hands turned out in August 
 
last ? Yes. In consequence of something you 
 heard from Issachar Thorpe, did you go to Sta- 
 lyhridge on horseback.^ Yes. Did you go up- 
 stairs at the Moulders’ Arms ? I did. Did you 
 tie your horse at the door ? I did. The Mould- 
 ers’ Arras are at Stalybridge,' are they } Yes. 
 What did you do when you went up-stairs ? I 
 asked for the committee room, and was shown 
 into it. What did you see there I saw a num- 
 ber of persons sitting in the room ; perhaps one- 
 t lard of the room was full. Very well; what 
 ajiplication did you make to them ? I made an 
 application for leave to finish some v/arps we had 
 then in press, the same as Jamieson. What was 
 said ? 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON My learned friend. Wort- 
 ley, is asking this witness what was said when he 
 went into the room ? Now, I object to that evi- 
 dence being given, unless before the evidence is 
 given, some of the defendants are shewn to have 
 been present. Undoubtedly, the former witness 
 spoke to some of thepa, and said there was a 
 horse at the door. But that is no proof that the 
 meeting spoken to by the former witness is iden- 
 tical with this, or that it was held on the same 
 question. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It does not signify whether 
 the defendants were there or not, it is enough to 
 prove that there is a committee sitting to grant 
 licenses. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have shown 
 that two of the defendants were on that commit- 
 tee, and on that day. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — You applied for permission 
 to finish the w'ork you had in process ? Yes ; 
 a great part of the committee I was informed 
 were then out at a large meeting, which was be- 
 ing held at Stalybridge, and I was told if I came 
 in an hour and a half I should get my answer ; 
 
 I w’ent again in an hour and a half, I went to 
 the upper part of the room, where there was a 
 chairman and a secretary ; the latter w'as finish- 
 ing a paper he was then writing, I received that 
 paper [handing a paper to the counsel]. Is 
 that yours? It is. In consequence of that did 
 you proceed with the goods in process? Yes, 
 we began the following morning (Friday). After 
 receiving this license you began to work, did 
 you ? We began to work on the following morn- 
 ing. Were you afterwards interrupted in working? 
 Not particularly so ; we expected a mob to come 
 about noon the following day. Well, what hap- 
 pened then? Wc commenced again the following [ 
 
 morning. How came yon to commence again ? — • 
 Did any one come to you? No, not the mob; 
 another person carne from the committee. Had 
 you seen him before ? No, 1 had not seen him 
 before. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You then w'orked up what 
 you had ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — During the time you were 
 working it up, did you see John Lewis ? Yes. 
 Do you know him ? Yes. Where did you see 
 him ? About half a mile from the place. 
 
 The paper obtained by witness from the com 
 mittee was then put in and read ; the following 
 is a copy “ This is to certify, that the Staly- 
 bridge committee of operatives have, upon the 
 representation of Messrs. Potters and Co. of 
 Dinting-vale print works, that a quantity of cloth 
 is in process ; we, the committee, give them 
 leave to finish the present cloth, but no fresh to 
 be entered up. (Signed) The Committee. — 
 Aug. 11th, 1842. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTON : — Did 
 you know’ anything before the time you went to 
 this committee room, of the coYnmittee room 
 itself, or how it had been used previously ? No, 
 I did not. 
 
 HENRY RHODES, examined by the ATTOR- 
 NEY-GENERAL Where do you live? In 
 Duckeiifield. Are you a steam-loom weaver ? I 
 was so in August last. Do you remember having 
 anything to do with the works of Mr. Robinson, 
 of Duckinfield ? Yes. Were you employed 
 there ? Yes. When were they stopped ? On 
 Monday, the 8th of August, the mill was stopped. 
 How are Robinson’s mills worked ? They are 
 turned by two engines and a water-wheel. Did 
 this w'aterwheel do any other service besides 
 turning Robinson’s works ? It did, at that time. 
 What did it do ? It pumped water up for the 
 inhabitants of Duckinfield. Well, on Thursday, 
 the 11th of August, did you set the water-wheel 
 to work for the purpose of supplying the inha- 
 bitants with water ? Yes. At what time of the 
 day was it ? A little after breakfast-time, it 
 might be nine o’clock. Did you go on pumping 
 up water? No, the wheel was stopped. Who 
 stopped it? Well, it was stopped by persons 
 concerned in these disturbances. I was told the 
 wheel was employed in furthering the mechanics’ 
 work, and the mob would have it stopped. The 
 people came and insisted on our stopping it. Is 
 that so ? Yes. Did you go to any committee ? 
 
 I went down to the mi'll to see what it was 
 slopjjcd for, and the master and manager told 
 
raft that 1 should go on no more till such time 
 as I got a note from the committee ; I asked 
 them, what committee I should go to, and the 
 master told me, that I should go to the com- 
 mittee at Hall-green. How far is that ? About 
 one mile. Did you go to the committee ? I 
 did. Were they sitting in a room ? Yes. Who 
 did you find there ? There was about a dozen of 
 men there. Did you know any of them ? I knew 
 about five of them. They suffered at Chester ? 
 Were they people concerned in the strike ? Yes. 
 Did you know any of them as being concerned 
 in the turn-out } I can’t speak to their being 
 concerned in turning out hands, but I can speak 
 to their being in that room. Did you know a 
 person named Wilde } Yes. What Wilde is that } 
 William Wilde, who is now in Chester Castle. 
 Did you make an application t Yes, I made an 
 application. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is this a different committee ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENEUAL:-It is, my 
 Lord, a different committee from the previous 
 one. 
 
 Mr. McOUBREY : — None of the defendants 
 are there, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL None of the 
 parties there are defendants ; this committee, my 
 Lord, stands apart from the other, and is not 
 charged with any act of violence. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think, then, it is as well not 
 to give their acts in evidence as none of the par ties 
 there are defendants. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL I am ex- 
 tremely happy to say, my Lord, that that is the 
 case for the prosecution. 
 
 The JUDGE : — As to some of the defendants, 
 no evidence has been adduced to convict them in 
 some of the counts in this indictment, especially 
 as to the counts for riot ; if you wish to press 
 for a joint conviction, on all the counts, then 
 there is no evidence to show that some of the 
 defendants did as is here charged, unlawfully 
 conspire with divers other evil disposed persons, 
 unknown between the 1st of August, and the 1st 
 of October last, and caused to be brought to- 
 gether divers unlawful assemblies, and, in a for- 
 midable and menacing manner, compel divers of 
 her Majesty’s peaceful subjects then employed in 
 their respective trades to desist, and depart from 
 their work, &c. i 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Allow me to 
 suggest, my Lord, that in a case of misdemeanor 
 it is not at all necessary that all the defendants 
 should be convicted upon every count in the in- 
 dictment. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No ; but you cannot have an 
 indictment for a misdemeanor against J., B. C'., 
 — say for obtaining money by false pretences, and 
 upon that indictment convict A. of one offence, 
 B. of another, and C. of a third. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, I 
 will just state what did occur before Lord Den- 
 man, when I took this very objection. Some 
 persons were indicted for a conspiracy to obtain 
 money, and there was also a count for obtaining 
 false evidence ; and some of the defendants were 
 convicted upon one count and some upon another. 
 Lord Denman certainly ruled, that, in a case for 
 misdemeanor, it was perfectly competent to 
 convict on separate counts. Take, for instance, 
 the case of a riot and assault. Suppose there 
 were two counts in the indictment, one for riot, 
 the other for assault, and a number of defendants 
 were brought before the court charged with both ; 
 his Lordship ruled, that some might be convicted 
 upon the first, and some upon the second count ; 
 that it was not necessary that they should be all 
 convicted of both. I brought that before the 
 court afterwards, and Lord Denman’s ruling was 
 approved of. 
 
 The JUDGE : — But suppose that some who 
 were convicted on the first count were convictwl 
 on the other also. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— My Lord, 
 that was exactly the case. Some were convicted 
 of all. Others were convicted along with the 
 first (who participated in the whole) upon the 
 first count only ; and others on the second count 
 only ; and I think this present case furnishes a 
 strong illustration ’ of the importance of that 
 ruling. One of these counts is for a riot. You 
 know, my Lord, that a riot is essentially different 
 from attending unlawful meetings and conspiring, 
 and the punishment may be different. I take it, 
 my Lord, that some of these defendants may be 
 found guilty on that count, and others not. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Which is the count for riot ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHY :— The last count, my Lord, 
 the 9th. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! admit, 
 my Lord, at once, to take a prominent case, 
 that as to Mr. Scholefield for instance, there is 
 no pretence for saying that he took part in a 
 riot ; yet I apprehend, that some of the defend- 
 ants may be guilty of riot under that last count. 
 
 The JUDGE —There is plenty of evidence 
 against some of them for an unlawful assembly. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — Give me leave to state how 
 this case opened. My learned friend, the At- 
 torney-General, expressly said, in his speech, on 
 opening the case, that the real question in this 
 case was, whether all or any of the defendants 
 
181 
 
 wei’e oir were not engaged in the common pur- 
 pose of endeavouring to effect a change in the 
 laws and constitution of this land, by taking ad- . 
 vantage of the strike, and causing others to turn, 
 out who would otherwise have stayed in. We, 
 on the part of the defendants, heard that, and 
 believed it to be the case, and we were confirmed 
 in that belief, by what was stated by your Lord- 
 ship, and acquiesced in by the Attorney-General, 
 the other day. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I beg to 
 say, that I acquiesced in nothing of the kind. I 
 was told that something passed while I was out 
 of Court. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — This fell from your Lord- 
 ship, that, if these parties were to be convicted, 
 they were to be convicted of one and the same 
 offence. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN My Lord, so far 
 from acquiescing in that, I said, that it might be 
 a question for consideration hereafter, but that 
 we woujd not discuss it then. 
 
 I'he JUDGE : — Yes, I said so. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :~I thought 
 this was the first and proper time to call your 
 Lordship’s attention to the question. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — But, surely, when the At- 
 torney-General opened his case in that way, he 
 ought to have stated, that we, the defendants, 
 ought to take notice, that he meant to depart 
 from the views he took in his openuig speech. 
 
 The JUDGE . — ^What he now says is, that it 
 is competent to convict some of them (to take 
 the case he put) as guilty of riot, and others not 
 guilty of riot, to be, nevertheless, guilty of an 
 assault. If, Mr. Attorney, you tell me that Lord 
 Denman has decided that, and that the Court of 
 Queen's Bench has so decided, 1 must of course 
 bow to that decision at once. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I beg to 
 state distinctly to your Lordship,' that this very 
 indictment was framed expressly upon that au- 
 tliority, and with a view to that particular decision. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — What was the case there ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think, my 
 Lord, it was an indictment for a conspiracy for 
 some purpose, coupled with the bringing of some 
 false evidence. Some of the counts charged it 
 simply as procuring false evidence. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — So far from acquiescing, 
 your Lordship will remember that I said that 
 that might be a question hereafter ; but I would 
 not discuss it then. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Perfectly certain I am of this, — 
 that, whatever I may have said respecting some- 
 thing that was then going on, there was nothing 
 of. a decision ; but 1 shall be glad to hear your 
 case. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY ; — I would call your Lord- 
 ship’s attention to a case under the special com- 
 ' mission at Liverpool, before Mr. Justice Cress- 
 • well. The names of the defendants w-ere Cully 
 and others, and the indictment w'as very similar 
 to this, containing counts for conspiracy, riot, 
 and unlawfully assembling. There was no evi- 
 dence of conspiracy in that case. The facts 
 were these : — There had been a large meeting 
 at Ashton, in the morning, amounting to au 
 illegal assembly ; they proceeded from Ashton 
 in a body, to a mill, w here they committed 
 a riot. At first, Mr. Justice Cresswell, con- 
 ceiving that they were two se})arate transactions, 
 refused to allow one set of defendants to be 
 convicted upon one count, and another set on 
 another count. But when we showed, by the 
 evidence, that we traced all the mob from one 
 place to the other, and that it was all one 
 transaction, then he allowed us to take a con- 
 ; viction for a riot, in one case, and for an unlaw- 
 ful assembly in the other. Those whom we 
 could not show' to he present at the riot were 
 convicted of the unlawful assembly. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL t-I can assure 
 your Lordship, that the indictment was very 
 anxiously considered indeed; and framed ex- 
 pressly with a view to this decision. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS ; — It may have been the same 
 kind of case as that to which Mr. Wortley 
 alludes. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — In that case there were 
 three counts in the indictment, and each de- 
 fendant was convicted on a separate count. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — The case of the King v. 
 Butterworth, shows that you may convict one 
 man for a riot, another for a burglary, and ano- 
 ther for something else, being part of the charge, 
 because that was in the same count. 
 
 The JUDGE: — That is where one is more 
 guilty than another. I do not see why you may 
 not have three indictments against three per- 
 sons ; one for assault, one for obtaining money 
 under false pretences, and one for nuisance; 
 you may charge them as all being guilty of the 
 same offences ; though A. has nothing to do 
 with the assault, B. with the nuisance, or C. 
 with obtaining the money. Here the defendants 
 do not know to what to direct their attention ; 
 that is the difficulty. Is it not a hardship on 
 the defendants that they do not know against 
 what they are to defend themselves ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If there is 
 no connection between the offences, it is a dif. 
 
182 
 
 ferent thing. But, my Lord, I put this case 
 A number of persons assemble outside Man* 
 cliester, and there do certain things ; they come 
 into Manchester, and coalesce with certain other 
 persons to do certain other things ; then a por- 
 tion of them go away from Manchester, and 
 do something else ; and some of them are pre- 
 sent from beginning to end of the transaction. 
 I apprehend, you may indict those who are part 
 and parcel of the whole, along with other per- 
 sons who take a subordinate share, and by 
 proper counts, so as to meet the case of those 
 who take a share, may include the whole upon 
 one indictment, and may convict some upon the 
 first count, others upon the second, and others 
 again upon the third, as in the case before Mr. 
 Justice Cresswell. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The case at Liverpool, before 
 Mr. Justice Cresswell, was all one transaction. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — The question for argument 
 resolves itself into two distinct sets of charges. 
 On every one of these counts all these persons are 
 charged with conspiring together. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No, not with conspiring to- 
 gether. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — They are charged with con- 
 spiring together in all those counts where con- 
 spiracy is mentioned. Suppose that twelve 
 persons merely met to conspire to abet the 
 cessation of work, and that twenty others took 
 advantage of that cessation for the purpose of 
 making a change in the laws ; should it be said 
 that those who merely met to abet the cesssation 
 of labour, carrying out the combination for pro- 
 curing an advance of wages, under the act of 
 George IV., were to be held to be guilty, because 
 other persons conspired for a different and illegal 
 object ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — That is a different question ; 
 because they would not come within the counts. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY:— Then I say that the of- 
 fences here are clearly different. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The only thing that staggers 
 me is the case Mr. Wortley put as occuring at 
 Liverpool. The case you put, Mr. Attorney, as 
 beginning outside Manchester, is different. It 
 only goes to show, that all might be included in 
 one indictment. I do not say that there is any- 
 thing unreasonable in that ; but this is not so. 
 This includes in the first set of counts, a conspi- 
 racy to cause riots ; and, in the others, the actual 
 perpetration of riots ; which are perfectly differ- 
 ent acts. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Yes, Afferent acts and dif- 
 ferent punishments. 
 
 The JUDGE All I can do, I fear, as the 
 record is before me, and I don’t know how to 
 
 get rid of it otherwise, is to take the opinion of 
 the jury upon every count as to every defendant. 
 But then comes the question, as to whether any 
 judgment can be come toon such a record ? Some 
 may be guilty on one count, and some on another J 
 some may be convicted on one count, and some 
 on another. Some may be found guilty on the last 
 count who are not on the first, and some on the 
 first who are not on the last. There is no doubt 
 that it is the commonest thing in the world, that 
 were a party is charged with a felony, he makes 
 his election, and I confess I don’t see the differ- 
 ence between a felony and misdemeanor on such 
 a subject. The difficulty is, that the defendants 
 win have great difficulty in knowing which charge 
 is intended to hit them. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-My Lord, I 
 state very distinctly that that very difficulty was 
 very anxiously discussed by all those who were 
 consulted on the subject of the prosecution ; and 
 the present indictment was framed expressly with 
 a full sense of that. At the same time, allow me 
 to state this ; that, if there be any mode that can 
 abridge that labour for your Lordship 
 
 The JUDGE: — I do not complain for a moment 
 of the labour ; but, when that is done, I feel ex- 
 tremely doubtful whether I can give any judg- 
 ment upon the present record. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— My Lord, 
 the difficulty I have is in seeing what objection 
 there is to it ; because, at all events, there is not 
 any one of these counts, upon which a large num- 
 ber of defendants may not be found guilty. Even 
 abandoning the rest of the counts, it seems to 
 me, that the crown can proceed upon the one at 
 all events. 
 
 The JUDGE :— The party is put to his elec- 
 tiom 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-That is the 
 practice of the Court. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It seems to me, that the 
 defendant is put to unreasonable and impropei' 
 difficulty in arranging his defence. I confess 
 I do not see the difference in this respect be- 
 tween felony and misdemeanor. I have not 
 had an opportunity of considering the case, 
 it comes upon me so far entirely by surprise ; 
 but, looking at the indictment, it did occur to 
 me that there was that difficulty in it. But, 
 upon the Attorney-General’s telling me that 
 the thing was discussed, I dare say it is very 
 likely that I have taken a wrong view of it. At 
 all events, I have made up my mind that I must 
 proceed with it here, and take a verdict upon 
 each count as to each defendant, if none of the 
 counts are abandoned. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: -My Lord, 
 
 I will state at once what I will do. I will abandon 
 at once the count for a riot. 
 
183 
 
 The JUDGE : — That implies the four last counts. 
 . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Your Lord- 
 ship knows that there is an obvious reason. 
 
 The JUDGE: — That will absolve the defen- 
 dants from any difficulty. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL YourLord- 
 ship is aware that the punishment in cases of riot is 
 different, and may proceed to a length to which I 
 have no desire to expose some of the defendants, 
 against whom that charge cannot be established. 
 
 The JUDGE I think you will see, that that 
 applies to all the last four counts. 
 
 The Sixth count charges the defendants with 
 unlawfully causing divers persons to assemble 
 and meet together, and by threats and violence 
 unlawfully to force, and endeavour to force, 
 divers of her Majesty’s peaceable subjects to der 
 })art from their employment and work, against 
 the peace of the Queen, See.— Seventh, for unlaw- 
 fully inciting and stirring up, and endeavouring to 
 incite atid stir up, great numbers of her Majesty’s 
 liege subjects, with force of arms, unlawfully, 
 riotously, and tumultuously, to assemble together, 
 vnd by threats, violence, and intimidation, unlaw- 
 fully to force, and endeavour to force, divers of 
 her Majesty*s subjects to depart from their hiring 
 and work.— ~ Eighth, that the defendants and 
 divers others did unlawfully meet and assemble 
 together, with clubs, sticks, and other offensive 
 weapons to disturb the tranquillity, peace, and 
 good order of this realm, and in contempt of her 
 Majesty the Queen, and against her peace, her 
 crown, and dignity. — Ninth, (the common count 
 for riot), that the defendants and others unknown 
 did unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously 
 assemble and continue together for a long space 
 of time, to wit, for six hours or more, to the great 
 terror of her Majesty’s lieges, then and there being 
 in contempt of the Queen and her laws, and against 
 the peace of the Queen, her crown, and dignity.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL t -I will take 
 any course your Lordship thinks proper. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I confess, I think, you will do 
 much wiser to abandon the last four counts, which 
 really relate to actual riot, of which, as against the 
 bulk of the defendants, there is no evidence at all. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My Lord, 
 I put Mr. Scholefield forward as a prominent 
 .mstance of one of the defendants who was cer- 
 tainly not within that ; and it is but fair to say, 
 that I should not purpose, or at all desire, to deal 
 so very differently with some, as compared with 
 others of the defendants, as to expose them to a 
 punishment so very different. 
 
 The JUDGE : - The question we may take to 
 be in the five first counts. In these the defend- 
 
 ants are all charged either \<’ith conspiring ?o 
 cause an alteration in the laws and constitution, 
 by making the people cease from labour, or in- 
 citing them to do it, which will be nearly ilir 
 same thing? Then, as to the fifth count, another 
 question must arise about that. This count charges 
 the defendants for conspiring togetherwith others 
 unknown, to excite her Majesty’s lieges to disaf- 
 fection and hatred of her laws ; and unlawfully 
 to endeavour to persuade and encourage the said 
 liege subjects to unite, confederate, and agree to 
 leave their several and respective employments 
 and to produce a cessation of labour; with intent, 
 by so doing, to bring about certain great changes 
 in the laws of the realm. It does not charge 
 them with conspiring to do anything by violence, 
 but with an endeavour to persuade the people to 
 confederate together and leave their employments, 
 so as to produce a cessation of labour, and thereby 
 to bring about a change in the laws and consti- 
 tution. I know there are different opinions in 
 very high quarters as to whether tha>t constitutes 
 a crime or not. It then becomes a question 
 whether you will confine them to the first four 
 counts. Therefore, we may consider the riot as 
 entirely out of the question. 
 
 The ATTORNEY GENERAL :~Perhaps 
 your Lordship will allow me to look at the in- 
 dictment. My recollection of the counts is not 
 sufficiently strong to enable me to make a distinc- 
 tion between the sixth and seventh, but I do not 
 think the sixth and seventh counts involve an ac- 
 tual riot. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No ; they do not. You may 
 choose to go on with them ; but it seems to me 
 very desirable to limit the number of counts as 
 much as possible ; and think you will find that, 
 substantially, the first four counts comprise all. 
 
 [The indictment was then handed to the Attor- 
 ney-General for inspection, and at this time the 
 jury retired for refreshment.] 
 
 Mr. O CONNOR : — [To the Attorney Gene- 
 ral.] Give up the whole charge altogether 
 against the defendants, and it will be doing an 
 act of grace of which you may never have such 
 another opportunity during your life,— 
 
 The jury having returned,— 
 
 The ATTORNEY GENERAL said: — I 
 thought your Lordship would give me till to- 
 morrow morning to consider this matter. I 
 shall only say now, that I abandon all charge of 
 riot, because! cannot make it out against all the 
 defendants. I think this will relieve your Lord- 
 ship, and come to the same thing. 
 
 The JUDGE : — That leads us substantially to 
 know what you will do; and I think, if not in 
 point of form, at least in substance, that limits 
 
184 
 
 it to the offences as charged in the early counts. 
 Besides, we are not going on an actual riot ; the 
 substance of the counts is : — a conspiracy by 
 causing unlawful assemblies of seditious persons, 
 and by seditious speeches and placards, &c., to 
 bring about a change in the constitution. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL I believe 
 that the offence of riot subjects the parties con- 
 victed of it to hard labour. I have no desire to 
 make any distinction between one set of persons 
 and another, with respect to anything of that 
 sort ; and I beg that that may be distinctly un- 
 derstood. ■ 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS, then rose to address 
 the jury on behalf of one of the defen- 
 dants. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Who do you appear 
 for ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I appear for Robert 
 Brookes, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 I now beg leave to put in all those pla- 
 cards, my Ijord, which were read, some 
 of them at one stage of the proceedings, 
 and some at another. I presume my 
 learned friends don’t want to have them 
 read over again. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS: — There was one 
 read (the conference address) from Mr. 
 O’Connor’s paper ; that is the only way 
 it was read. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 It was proved to day that the statement 
 in the paper of the 20th of August, was 
 a coiTect statement. Does anybody wish 
 it to be read over again ? 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I don’t desire *it. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 Your Lojxlship has Brooke’s notes also. 
 
 The JUDGE Yes, I have. I have 
 not got the paper headed Run for 
 Gold” yet. 
 
 Mr. WORTLEY : — The placard, 
 “Run forGold,” I think your lordship has. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— It is 
 amongst those papers. 
 
 The JUDGE Was it read ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— It was 
 read on Saturday, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — May it please your 
 Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury, the 
 case for the prosecution being now closed, 
 the Attorney-General in his discretion 
 calling no more witnesses on the part of 
 the prosecution which he is here to con- 
 duct, it becomes my duty to present my- 
 self now to you as counsel for Robert 
 
 Brooke, and to state to yon fairly, as a 
 freeman ought, what are the grounds on 
 which he says “ not guilty ” to this 
 charge. But, before I proceed to enter 
 into his case, allow me to remind you, as 
 in common conscience to the other de- 
 fendants I ought to remind you, that I 
 appear but for Robert Brooke alone. The 
 other defendants are, some of them, re- 
 presented by learned friends of mine, 
 whom I rejoice in having associated with 
 me in this work of privilege, defending 
 those persons entrusted to our charge. 
 Other defendants appear here by them- 
 selves, to receive at your hands what they 
 claim for them ; that fair and liberal con- 
 struction of evidence, which I have not 
 the slightest doubt you will pay them all, 
 even the humblest, as much as if they 
 were represented by the liighest advocates 
 in my own profession, whom I have the 
 honour of sitting by at this moment. Al- 
 low me to add one more fact, which, I 
 trust, from the beginning to the end of 
 this case you will bear in mind — that 
 each and every of those defendants, though 
 joined in one common charge in this in- 
 dictment stands, severally, upon his own 
 deliverance. And therefore, your charge 
 is not, in the first place against them all, 
 but it is in the first place with respect to 
 each, to see whether, by the force of 
 truth — by that necessity which ought to 
 weigh on just-minded men, you find 
 yourselves compelled by what has been 
 given in evidence to find any one of them 
 guilty upon this indictment. I think it 
 right to say that, because my privilege to 
 address you first arises in point of senio- 
 rity only, and not because of any elo- 
 quence I possess. It is simply on this 
 account, that I rise to address you for 
 Brooke, before any one is heard on tlie 
 part of the other defendants ; or before 
 any of them is heard in his own defence. 
 Gentlemen, having made these prelimi- 
 nary observations, which I trust you will 
 not consider ijl-timed, I will proceed with 
 your leave, to say something on behalf of 
 my client. I think you will remember 
 that in the calm and formal opening of 
 this case, which was made by the Attor- 
 ney-General last Wednesday morning, 
 that the name of my client never tran- 
 spired — that though I sat longing, and 
 waiting to know upon what grounds Ro- 
 bert Brooke was to be found guilty of this 
 
change — altliougb, as it was my duty to 
 do, I watched the Attorney-General from 
 the moment he first opened his mouth till 
 the time he concluded his address, I ne- 
 ver had my attention pointed at all to my 
 client. I do not complain of my learned 
 friend for that ; the multiplicity of the 
 defendants make it no such easy matter 
 to point out to the jury, the particular 
 evidence to be applied to each ; but I 
 confess I found it a difliculty, and, at this 
 moment, I find it not only a griev- 
 ance, but a considerable burden on 
 my hands, that I had not at first an op- 
 portunity of knowing what it was, that 
 was to be immediately pressed on my 
 client, and by what species of evi- 
 dence it was that they for the prosecu- 
 tion sought conviction at your hands. 
 I knew by the indictment the nature of 
 the charge they were going to bring 
 against him, but when I tell you that that 
 indictment contains nine counts, some of 
 them different from others,why, gentlemen, 
 you know as well as I do, that if it does 
 not open a door to vague and undefined 
 accusations, it makes it fast against the 
 defendant’s defence. The Attorney-Ge- 
 neral, in his opening puts the issue on 
 this single point. And it is in your re- 
 collection — you are my witnesses that 
 this is the single charge which he makes 
 against all those defendants, including 
 my client. He charges the defendants, 
 that by large assemblages they have en- 
 deavoured, by force, threats and intimi- 
 dation, to breed such alarm in the coun- 
 try as to produce a change in some of 
 the great features of the Constitution. 
 That is the general charge which the 
 Attorney-General has heaped upon all 
 the defendants ; and, gentlemen, on my 
 client — that poor lame man who lives at 
 Todmorden, who is thus, with all the 
 strength of the crown to be borne down 
 on this single issue. I say for him, (hat 
 he has done no such thing ; but that his 
 intention, and his act, (if you take the 
 whole evidence which touches him at all) 
 w'ere to induce the people out on strike 
 to adopt the principles of the People’s 
 Charter. And I say, in the presence of 
 the Court, that that is quite a different 
 thing from saying, that by threats and 
 intimidation he intended to breed such 
 alarm in the country, as to produce a 
 change in some of the fundamental points 
 
 of the Constitution. 1 declare it for him, 
 that his object was to induce the people 
 who were out on strike, by reasonable 
 means: — by such means as I say, when 
 you come to apply your' minds to tlie 
 evidence, you will see these means were 
 to induce them to adopt the six points of 
 the Charter. That is' quite a distinct 
 thing. It is quite consistent with the 
 law to endeavour to induce persons out 
 on the strike, to adopt the Charter. Gen- 
 tlemen, what was the strike ? I first ask 
 what was the strike, and then we will 
 see what was the Charter; and I will say 
 that if the men were out on strike, that 
 I, if I were a Chartist, might take ad- 
 vantage to induce them to accomplish 
 that, by legal enactment, which they think 
 will cure the mischiefs which brought 
 that strike about. I know that is a bold 
 proposition, but it is one which in a free 
 country a freeman has a right to make, 
 and my client is determined to abide by 
 it. He is determined to show that he 
 had no intention by force, threats, or in- 
 timidation, to do anything to induce those 
 people who are out on a strike, to come 
 into the principles of the People’s Char- 
 ter. If he had sought by bayonet, by 
 pistol, atid violence of that kind, to bring 
 about the Charter, no doubt it would 
 have been illegal ; but they would find 
 that he had done no such thing. You 
 will find, in respect to my client, that he 
 had no intention to do so. He did by 
 moral, not physical force, endeavour to 
 brin^ about the enactment of the 
 six ^ints of the Charter. Now, gen- 
 tlemen, I ask you what was the strike ? 
 you remember, all of you who live 
 in this part of the country, the be- 
 ginning, and the origin, very likely, of 
 the differences between the working men 
 and their masters. I am not here, curi- 
 ously, to dive into the particular causes, 
 which, in this part of the country, or in 
 any other, brought about the disagree- 
 ments between the working men and 
 their masters ; enough for me that the 
 working men were, in many parts of the 
 country, extremely dissatisfied with their 
 wages; that they were, indifferent parts 
 of the country, under an expectation, 
 (whether well or ill founded it is not for 
 me to say,) that their wages were still to 
 be more reduced ; — and that the working 
 men of the country had, at that time, as- 
 
186 
 
 sembled together (as they were entitled 
 to do under the law made on that hehalf ) 
 to consider for themselves that question, 
 u liich has, again and again, met our ears 
 in the course of this inquiry — whether 
 for a ** fair day's work they could not 
 have a fair day’s wages.” I say that hy 
 law they had a perfect right to it. Every 
 workit^g man in England, has a right to 
 sell his labour to the best advantage. As 
 the masters are protected, so are the men. 
 The masters may meet together and 
 combine to see what wages they may 
 give, and so may the men in order to de- 
 termine what wages they will accept from 
 the masters. My learned friend has 
 thought that it was -no affair of his to 
 mention that, hut the jury are cognizant 
 of this, that the law is, that the working 
 men may meet together without fear of 
 consequences to consider what is best for 
 them on the subject of wages, I refer 
 to the 6th of Geo. IV. cap. 129, made 
 in July 1825, which I say bears me out 
 fully in that particular. I refer especially 
 to the 4th section of that act w^hich pro- 
 vides that the act ** shall not extend to 
 subject any persons to punishment who 
 shall meet together for the sole purpose 
 of consulting upon, and determining the 
 rate of wages at prices which the persons 
 present at such meeting, or any of them, 
 shall require or demand for his or her 
 Avork.” There is a protection there for 
 every person, the working man w'hoever 
 he be, whether wisely or unwisely, w^he- 
 ther reasonably or unreasonably dissa- 
 tisfied, has a full right, under the sanction 
 of this law, to meet his fellow-workmen, 
 and to consider in what manner they 
 might bring about a better rate of wages. 
 And you will find that at all those meet- 
 ings which were held in different parts of 
 the country, Ashton, Stalybridge, Roy- 
 ton, Baccup, and other places which were 
 alluded to before — what is called the 
 invasion of Manchester, (and, I am 
 not going to defend any violence or in- 
 temperance of conduct that may have 
 been used at those meetings.) — You 
 will find that the working men, whether 
 they turned out at their own , accord, 
 or joined others who forced them out, 
 had invariabl}^ held these meetings for 
 the purpose of discussing the question of 
 wages, though very often Chartists were 
 ] resent ; and the question was frequently' 
 
 put, whether it was a wage or a Chartist 
 meeting. But does any one doubt, that 
 the original object of those meetings, 
 was to eflect a better remuneration for 
 labour ? Does any doubt, that the per- 
 sons then assembled, might not consider 
 whether they could be better paid for 
 their labour, or that they thought, w'he- 
 ther reasonably or no, I shall not stop to 
 enquire, that they Avould not have better 
 pay for their work, — that the working 
 man’s w’ages would always have a ten- 
 dency to depression until that was granted, 
 namely, the Charter, w'here by the work- 
 ing men would, as they thought, be ulti- 
 mately a gainer. I am no Chartist, but I 
 differ immensely from many persons who 
 think the Charter contains in it nothing 
 of truth. I have strong opinion in poli- 
 tics, but for the life of me, I never could 
 look down on a man as a bad man or a 
 bad subject, because he diflered with me in 
 politics. I have lived to see some of those 
 opinions which, when young, and I am 
 riow old, were reprobated and denounced 
 as hereti(;al and dangerous, and adopted 
 as government measures, and that by the 
 very people, whose language was ever 
 readily employed in besmearing those, 
 who dared to indulge them, with every 
 expression of contempt and abomination, 
 as bad subjects, and as open enemies to 
 the constitution. There is one of the 
 points of the Charter to which I shall 
 call your attention ; it is the vote by bal- 
 lot. Who does not remember, that 
 tAventy years ago, any person advocating 
 the ballot, wmuld have been looked upon 
 almost as a Avild man, and put down by 
 the common consent of all parties, as a 
 madman ; whereas now, it is impossible 
 to go into any company or society, where 
 you do not find people saying, either 
 that they are for the ballot, or that it is a 
 matter, which, when more duly consi- 
 dered, they may fall into. You can go 
 no Avhere in w^hich this much maligned 
 mode of voting does not find defenders. 
 I know that many honest and Avell mean- 
 ing men are opposed to the ballot, just 
 as very honest men have withstood for a 
 time, and afterAvards yielded a reluctant 
 assent, to a great deal of the constitution 
 as it now is. But, for all that, if there 
 be truth in a political principle, depend 
 upon it, sooner or later, it Avill become a 
 • part of the constitution, in spite of all 
 
187 
 
 opposition that might he raised against 
 iL I have thrown out these observa- 
 tions, because it seemed to have been 
 taken for granted, during the greater part 
 of my learned friend’s address, that, to 
 be a Chartist, is to be a dangerous man,, — 
 that a man who sought any change at 
 all, wished to upset the constitution. 
 Just as if a man could not put forth his 
 views, and promote them by moral 
 means — by argument, and by taking 
 advantage of the generally expressed 
 opinion of the country, without having 
 a desire to overturn the constitution of 
 the country. My learned friend seems 
 to have thought, that a man could not 
 be a Chartist, or such a thing as a Char- 
 tist, without being dangerous to the state, 
 and without endeavouring to make a fun- 
 damental inroad on the principles of the 
 constitution. Now, gentlemen, this strike, 
 as I said , was upon wages; my client was a 
 Chartist. He thought, among other 
 things, that it was not necessary that mem- 
 bers of parliament should have any pro- 
 perty qualification when they sat there. 
 I am sure I should be a very unworthy 
 Scotchman if I were to say, that I did not 
 think that a very bad law which makes a 
 property qualification necessary. There are 
 fifty-six members that come from Scotland, 
 and notone of them has any qualification at 
 all — ( Laughter) — and also the members of 
 our Universities. So you see, there are in 
 this Charter some things not so absolutely 
 reprehensible but that honest men may be 
 persuadedof theirtruth,andmaythinkthat, 
 if carried into effect, the working men may 
 be better off than they are at present. Now, 
 then, there being a strike, the men who 
 took part in it, thought they never would 
 be better off till they got the Charter. I 
 say a Chartist has a right to stand by 
 and say to the working people, or to any 
 people who are discontented with their 
 wages, if lawfully discontented, — I ap- 
 prove of your staying out of your work 
 till such time as the Charter, by becom- 
 ing the law of the land, makes you better 
 in respect of your wages.” Just cast 
 your eye back for a moment, to what was 
 the condition of the country from the end 
 of July up to the 15th or 16th of August. 
 In different parts of the country there 
 were thousands of persons out of work. 
 I think you have it in evidence, that 
 some of those persons could not get into 
 
 work again ; that whether it be true or 
 false of many, it certainly was true of one 
 or two mill-owners, that they shut their 
 doors for a month, and w'ould not take 
 the work people in again though they 
 applied for work. That was the account 
 of one w'itness called by the prosecution. 
 You will find, gentlemen, no great dis- 
 approval on the part of the shopkeepers, 
 of those parties out on strike; but you 
 will find that those persons out on strike 
 were taught to believe that it would be a 
 good thing not only for the working 
 classes, but even for the shopkeepers 
 themselves, if the Charter could be con- 
 stitutionally earned, and, therefore, those 
 persons who were Chartists — I am not 
 defending their intemperance, but leading 
 your minds to a point where my client is 
 brought into the field — many of the 
 Chartists who attended those meetings 
 always ended their speeches with, a fair 
 day’s wages for a fair day’s work,” and, 
 we will keep out until the Charter be- 
 comes the law of the land.” I maintain, 
 that that was perfectly lawful for them. 
 The strike having continued, and this 
 view of Chartism having been, no doubt, 
 strongly entertained by the working peo- 
 ple; what happened, it is a most astonish- 
 ing thing, that so many people in so 
 many different parts of the country, with 
 no particular leader, but under some 
 benign influence, — under the influence 
 of what may be called the love of peace, 
 law, and order,” although they broke the 
 peace here and did not keep order there, 
 yet, generally, under some such influ- 
 ence, though out of work for many and 
 many a day, they congregated in great 
 numbers without doing any great vio- 
 lence to person or property. It is 
 certainly a very remarkable circumstance. 
 My learned friend, the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral, gave his full admiration to many of 
 the parties so engaged, and I believe that 
 it could not have happened in any other 
 country ; that thousands of persons should 
 be in the greatest necessity, and yet do 
 no act of violence to life, and that acts of 
 violence to property, for their own pri- 
 vate gain, were almost nothing at all. 
 It is true that some provisions were taken, 
 and some pounds of money demanded ; 
 but there is no proof of any man having 
 been actuated by motives purely selfish. 
 It is a most surprising and astonishing the 
 
188 
 
 iliing, and one cannot help wondering 
 at, the conduct of those men, who, under 
 no other guidance than that of “ peace, 
 law, and order” — words which the At- 
 torney-General says, were only put into 
 their • mouth — that this large body of 
 men should he so long on the face of the 
 country, without doing any damage at 
 all, either to life, or limb ; and scarcely 
 any to the property of any individual. 
 However, they got to Manchester, and I 
 will take them from the time, when 
 Manchester is first spoken of, (I think 
 the 9th of August,) you will find that 
 there was a great meeting at Ashton, from 
 wliich the people proceeded to Manches- 
 ter. On the 16th or 17th of that month 
 there was to be a meeting of delegates in 
 i^Ianchester. But what was the evidence 
 ol that meeting at Ashton going to Man- 
 chester .i* You have the evidence of 
 Turner, that Pilling, one of the defen- 
 dants, said he wished to go to Man- 
 chester with the men, to meet the masters, 
 as the masters would not meet them ; to 
 obtain a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s 
 work, and not resume labour till they 
 got the wages of 1840. Now, these are 
 parties that advanced on IVIanchester, 
 that is the first time we hear of any parly 
 going into it. At this time, also, some 
 mills weie stopped, but no damage was 
 done to life, limb, or property, by that 
 body of people which advanced on Man- 
 chester. Before tins time, there can be 
 no doubt that the Chartists intended to 
 have a great meeting in Manchester, on 
 the 16th or 17th of August, on several 
 grounds. First, there had been some fall- 
 ing out in the body, and they thought it 
 desirable to have a meeting of delegates, 
 so that they should, in some way or other, 
 settle these things among themselves ; to 
 take their oiganizatioii (for they had a 
 right to be organized, if they kept the 
 peace) into consideration, in order to see 
 whether it required alteration. Secondly, 
 those persons were to meet as delegates, 
 were to celebrate the 16th of August, the 
 day when Mr. Hunt’s monument was to 
 be fairly opened to the public. My client 
 Brooke, who lives, as you have heard, at 
 Todmorden, he was appointed a dele'gate 
 at Manchester. Is there any thing un- 
 lawful in being a delegate ? I appre- 
 hend there is mailing unlawful in being 
 a delegate fiom any particular narty , ot i 
 
 Chartists, to meet other Chartists, to cli^ 
 cuss those subjects to which I havejjP 
 ferred. The first time we hear of him^ — 
 the first notice we have of Robert Brooke, 
 at all, in this case is, the evidence you 
 have of his being at a conference meet- 
 ing on the 17th of August, in Mr. 
 Scholefield’s chapel, in Manchester. 
 Now, gentlemen, there cannot be a 
 doubt, if you take the evidence of Cart- 
 ledge and Griffin, both of whom have 
 been put forward, on the other side, as 
 parties who must know the truth o*f the 
 matter — there cannot be the least doubt 
 but that assemblage, at Manchester, was 
 wholly irrespective of, and unconnected 
 with, the turn out in different parts of the 
 country. F’or weeks and weeks before 
 the strike took jilace, it had been arranged 
 that they should hold that meeting in 
 Manchester. In the first place, I will 
 refer to Cartledge’s evidence. He says, 
 “ I was a delegate ; I did not intend to 
 do any thing illegal. There was a con- 
 ference to be held between the delegates 
 and the Executive committee. It was 
 to meet about Hunt’s monument.” 
 You have afterwards, gentlemen, evi- 
 dence from Griffin to the same effect, — 
 that the meeting was projected several 
 weeks before the strike, and therefore the 
 delegates might he reasonably there, ac- 
 cording to the projected plan of meeting 
 together for the purpose of looking into 
 the concerns of their body, to see if there 
 was anything unlawful in it, to settle the 
 differences existing between their leaders, 
 about opinions, and, at the same time, to 
 have a meeting in reference to the cele- 
 bration of the opening of Hunt’s monu- 
 ment. But was Mr. Hunt’s monument 
 a reasonable thing that the delegates 
 should meet at Manchester, on the 16th 
 of August, or was it only an excuse for 
 their being there ? Why you have it in 
 evidence from Mr. Mullen, a policeman, 
 in Manchester, that for years and years 
 before, there had. been always meetings 
 on that day ; that the year belore last, 
 he witnessed an assemblage of 2,000 
 persons in honour of the memory of Mr. 
 Hunt; and that, on the last 16th of 
 August, a similar manifestation was in- 
 tended. That is Mr. Mullen’s testimony ; 
 he said notices were put up that there was 
 to be this meeting. I will remind you 
 of one of these notices which were read. 
 
189 
 
 publishing to all the world, that Hunt’s 
 raonument was to be opened the IGth of 
 August. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Were these notices 
 put in ? 
 
 Mr. BAINES: — I shall put these 
 placards in. I shall take care that your 
 Lordship is furnished with them. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — I shall now read a 
 placard which will certify beyond all 
 manner of doubt, that the delegates did 
 not go there for the purpose of taking- 
 advantage of any strike, or do anything 
 that was illegal ; hut they went there for 
 the purpose, as proved by Cariledge and 
 Griffin, for their own particular interests; 
 and, in the next place, for the'}>urpose of 
 celebrating the monument of Hunt’s anni- 
 versary Here is the placard that was 
 put out, what the authorities read, what 
 every one who had eyes in his head could 
 have seen, and, which was seen by 
 M‘Miillen and Beswick. This is supposed 
 to have been published on the 1st of 
 August. 
 
 “ HUNT’S MONUMENT. 
 
 “ Men of Manchester, Salford, and the sur- 
 rounding towns and villages, be at your posts! — 
 In conformity with the announcement of the 
 committee in the placards previously issued, we 
 hereby give instructions to be observed on the 
 16th of August, 1842, when 
 
 “A GRAND PROCESSION 
 “ Will take place to celebrate the completion of 
 the monument, in memory of the late 
 HENRY HUNT, ESQ. 
 
 “ Those trades who resolve to join in the Pro- 
 cession, are requested to meet the members of 
 the National Charter Association, and other 
 friends of Henry Hunt, in Stephenson's-square, 
 precisely at ten o’clock in the forenoon, where 
 the procession will be formed, and thence march 
 in due order, headed and conducted by two 
 Marshals, through the following streets ; — 
 namely. Lever-street, Piccadilly, London road, 
 to Ard wick-green, there to meet the patriot 
 “O’CONNOR. 
 
 and the delegates from various parts of the 
 country will address the people.” 
 
 “ Gabriel Hargreaves, 
 “Thomas Railton, 
 
 Marshals.” 
 
 And then there is a postscript, which is 
 very much to be remarked for the pro- 
 priety of its langnage. 
 
 “ The committee most urgently and respect- 
 fully beg that all who join the procession will 
 observe the same sobriety and decorum for which 
 our former gatherings have been so admirably 
 distinguished, and thus give another indication 
 of our regard for peace, law, and order.” 
 
 Now, on the 1st of August, was there any 
 indication of this outbreak ? — Was there 
 any indication that the delegates W'ould 
 take advantage of the strike, to upset tlie 
 government and the constitution ? It 
 was stated, that on the 17th of August. 
 Feargus O’Connor, and the delegates of 
 the Chartists, were to meet for that pur- 
 pose, It appears there was to be a ball 
 in Carpenters’ Flail, and the announce- 
 ment of it was placarded over Manches- 
 ter, and then arose the strike. The 
 workmen of the neighbouring towns 
 advanced on Manchester, and those 
 difficulties and breaches of the public 
 peace, of which yon have heard, ensued. 
 And what did these men and Chartists 
 do ? Why, they desired nothing like 
 overturning the constitution, or breaking 
 the peace, or upsetting the civil govern- 
 ment, and, thereby introducing that law 
 of disorder and destruction, which the 
 learned counsel on the other side would 
 have you believe. They intended to do 
 nothing more than that which I say they 
 had a right to do,' but which right they 
 waived, rather than endanger the public 
 peace ; for, to their honour, be it said, 
 they issued placards, announcing their 
 intention to postpone the opening of 
 Hunt’s monument, least any breach of 
 the peace should occur. 1 am obliged 
 thus to introduce this matter, in order to 
 show why my client was at the confer- 
 ence. 
 
 “ After which to move down Rusholme-road, 
 Oxford-road, Peter-street, passing which the 
 bands are instructed to play-‘ The Dead March.’ 
 It will next move along Deansgate, St. Ann’s- 
 square, Market-street, Oldham-street, Oldham- 
 road, Butler-street, to the Rev. J. Scholefield’s 
 burial-ground, where Feargus O’Connor, Esq., 
 
 “ Procession and Meeting prohibited by the 
 Authorities. — The committee for the erection of 
 Hunt’s Monument respectfully inform the pub- 
 lic, that, in consequence of the very unexpected 
 excitement of the town of Manchester and its vi- 
 cinity, occasioned by a turn-out for an advance 
 of wages, they have decided that the procession 
 
190 
 
 and meeting in Mr. Scholefield's premises, as an- 
 nounced in former bills for the 16th of August, 
 1842, will not take place, lest it should give an 
 opportunity to increase that excitement, the 
 odium and consequences of which have been at- 
 tempted to be fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 “ The Tea-party and ball, as by former bills* 
 will take place in the evening, at Carpenters’ 
 Hall. 
 
 “ N.B. A number of very neat china models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day, at from Is. 4<f. to 
 Is. 6d. each ; the profits of which are for the 
 funds of the monument. 
 
 “ J. SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.” 
 
 I'hat was an announcement which the 
 authorities saw with their eyes. It was 
 issued by the Chartist body, in order that 
 peace might be kept, and order promoted 
 in that part of her Majesty’s dominions. 
 Well then, the strike continued ; the men 
 had a right to talk about w'ages ; many 
 of them, no doubt, behaved tumultuously. 
 The meeting of delegates took place, and 
 I see no reason why they should not 
 meet. Brooke was appointed a delegate 
 from Todmorden, and he went, as the 
 evidence of Cartledge and Griffin tells us, 
 to the conference of Scholefield’s chapel. 
 He was none of the executive, he issued 
 no address; it is quite clear that the ad- 
 dress issued by the executive committee, 
 was in no way brought home to him. He 
 might be, for anything we know to the 
 contrary, at Todmorden when that ad- 
 dress was issued. We have nothing to 
 show that it ever was in his hands. He had 
 nothing to do wdth the concocting, writing, 
 or amending of it. It was on the 16th 
 of August he came to Manchester. The 
 first time we hear of him at the conference 
 is on the 17th of August. Well, on the 
 17th of August what do we find him 
 doing ? not one single word is proved to 
 have fallen from his lips ; neither Cart- 
 ledge nor Griffin speak one single syl- 
 lable of evidence, which affects this man, 
 except, that he was in the conference. At 
 that conference the delegates came to a 
 resolution which I shall read with confi- 
 dence, as being quite consistent with the 
 case which I set up for my client ; that 
 he had no hand in that strike, but that 
 he did approve of the people making use 
 of that strike for their own benefit; it ap- 
 pears there was a difference of opinion. 
 
 as to whether that resolution to which I 
 am about to draw your attention, should 
 be adopted or not. Twenty-seven or 
 twenty-eight voted for the resolution — 
 seven or eight voted in the minority. We 
 do not know who they were, but we know 
 that certain persons to the number of 
 seven or eight, thought it right to vote 
 against the resolution. They had their 
 own reasons for doing so ; but the majo- 
 rity carried it, and the resolution was 
 come to. And what was the resolution ? 
 — I pray you attend to every word of it, 
 for if I understand the meaning of lan- 
 guage, and taking it as proved that the 
 delegates were there for the purpose of 
 looking after the affairs of the Chartist 
 body, I say yon cannot extract from this 
 resolution, any thing prejudicial to my 
 client. The following is the resolution : 
 
 That whilst the Chartist body did not origi- 
 nate the present cessation from labour” 
 
 I say, they did not originate it, it was 
 originated by the working men in all 
 arts of the country. The working men 
 ad a right to cease from labour, and they 
 had a perfect right to stay out, till they 
 got a proper remuneration for their 
 labour : — 
 
 “ This conference of delegates, from various 
 parts of England, express their deep sympathy 
 with their constituents, the working men now 
 on strike, and that we strongly approve the ex- 
 tension and continuance of their present struggle 
 till the People’s Charter becomes a legislative 
 enactment, and decide, forthwith, to issue an 
 address to that effect, and we pledge ourselves, 
 on our return to our localities, to give a proper 
 direction to the people’s efforts.” 
 
 Had the conference of delegates no right 
 to express their sympathy with their con- 
 stituents, the working people. I say they 
 have, both as men, and, according to 
 law, as subjects. I know of no law which 
 can prevent these men from expressing 
 their deep sympathy wiih, and commis- 
 seration for, the turn-outs, on account of 
 the wrongs, if they sufiered any, and the 
 inconveniences, if any, to which they w^ere 
 exposed. And they did express "" their 
 deep sympathy with their constituents, 
 the working men now on strike.” — And 
 had they no right to ‘"approve the exten- 
 sion and continuance of their present 
 struggle ?” — Yes, I say I have a right as 
 an independent man in this country to 
 
191 
 
 stand by any party out on strike, and 
 approve of their conduct in holding out, 
 till they considered themselves redressed. 
 I have a right to do so, provided I do 
 not by force, or intimidation, or unlawful 
 means do that which is charged in the 
 indictment against my client. — ‘"We 
 strongly approve of the extension and 
 continuance of their present straggle, till 
 the People’s Charter becomes a legislative 
 enactment — till such time as the wrongs 
 of those people are remedied by the par- 
 liament — by a legislative enactment. 
 That is the meaning of the resolution. 
 “We delegates stand by and see you 
 woikmen out on strike, and we approve 
 of your standing out till your grievances 
 are removed, and the evils under which 
 you sutler are remedied, and they won’t 
 be remedied till the Charter is obtained.” 
 — That may be wrong. I don’t say the 
 Chartists are right. I have my own 
 opinions, whether universal suffrage be a 
 good thing, or whether any general ex- 
 tension of the franchise, could possibly 
 be a remedial measure for the working 
 classes. That is another question. We 
 live in a free country, and the working 
 men have a right to consider these points 
 in politics for themselves, and if they do 
 not break the law, which, in this instance, 
 I submit to you, under his Lordship’s 
 direction, they have not done, they 
 have a right to meet and consider the 
 question of wages, or the principles of the 
 Charter, and to express their opinions 
 upon them, although, in doing so, the}'^ 
 may be laughed at by some, and looked 
 down upon, attacked and denounced, by 
 other portions of the community. This 
 resolution was come to by the delegates ; 
 and will any one say that Brooke, of 
 Todmorden, who has never been heard 
 of, in connection with this outbreak, in 
 other parts of the country ; who has never 
 been spoken to till the 17th of August, 
 when he was concurring in that resolu- 
 tion, — will any one say he committed a 
 crime ? — He was not the author of that 
 address. I think no one says it was 
 mentioned before the meeting of dele- 
 gates. But it was quite clear that he 
 was at the conference, as a representative 
 from a different part of the country. All 
 he had to do was, to approve of, or 
 dissent from the resolution. I sub- 
 mit to you f])cvc is no eiirne in tliat. 
 
 He had a perfect right to be there. 
 And though you or I may think his 
 opinions extremely bad ones, yet, the 
 law has not set any seal on him, that ho 
 should not hold those opinions. 1 think 
 the Chartist opinions, as I said before, 
 are, some of them, perfectly wild, bad, 
 and dangerous. But then the law does 
 not say that men are not to hold and 
 express them. They are only to take 
 care that they do so lawfully ; if my client 
 voted with the minority on that resolution, 
 he was doing what was perfectly legal. 
 He also had a right to vote in the majo- 
 rity; the resolution itself being legal, and 
 expressed in a perfectly legal manner 
 Now, what is the next thing you hear of 
 Brooke, of Todmorden ; you hear of him 
 next day down at Todmorden. You hear 
 of him at a meeting there, where he is 
 spoken to by one witness. At a meeting 
 where there was a good deal of disturb- 
 ance — a good deal of noise ; where, no 
 doubt, considerable excitement prevailed ; 
 as always will be the case in England, 
 particularly where there is no person to 
 lead — no person to keep order, and where 
 every person is trying to get his word in. 
 You hear of him no where after this, 
 until the time he is taken in September. 
 Now attend to what you hear of him in 
 Todmorden, on the 18th of August. 
 William Heap says, he was at Bassin- 
 stone, where there was a meeting and 
 that Brooke was there ; and that Brooke 
 said, he had been at a delegate meeting ; 
 and there came three letters from a man 
 whose name he would not tell. He men- 
 tioned a great number of persons that 
 were to back him. He said, they were 
 gone to Leeds, and had driven the bar- 
 racks, and were masters of the town at 
 that minute. If he said that, it was a 
 foolish thing ; but was it illegal to say 
 that he had heard so ? But, gentlemen, 
 do you believe that all he said at that time 
 was told to you .5* Why, gentlemen, there 
 is nothing so difficult, or so dangerous, 
 as to rely on the evidence of a man, 
 who, undertaking to report what he hears, 
 tells you only a portion of it. I think 
 we heard one mgn saying he could not 
 tell, whether the word was a “ bloody 
 resolution,” or a "" bloody revolution,” or 
 a ‘"bloodless revolution.” When you 
 come to measure^ man’s guilt by what 
 lie says, and that all vou have of liis Ian- 
 
192 
 
 guage is what a person going in the 
 midst of a crowd can carry away with 
 him, you have a very delicate task to 
 perform indeed. It is very difficult for 
 the jury to rely on the report of a man 
 who has not brought you the wdiole of 
 the argument, or who makes it more or 
 less than the exact truth. There was an- 
 other example of this in the course of the 
 case. Another witness said he w^as not 
 sure whether it was “ Hoole” — the name 
 of a magistrate in Salford — and “ Dick 
 or fool ” and Dick,” meaning Mr. 
 Cobden. What a difl'erence this makes ! 
 Why it gives a different character to the 
 whole thing. Now, if this person was 
 the only witness to the whole transaction, 
 what reliance could be placed on his ac- 
 curacy ? But had the witness in this case 
 wdth him some otlier persons in order to 
 corroborate his testimony.^ It stands on the 
 uncorroborated testimony of the man whose 
 report of what occurred at this meeting 
 3 ’ou have heard. It is for you to say, 
 whether he is not mistaken. On the 0th 
 of September, Brooke (who was sitting at 
 home at the time, where he w^as always 
 ready to be found if any one came after 
 him,) is apprehended b^" a constable. 
 Great stress has been laid upon whatBrooke 
 then said : “ If I had known you were 
 coming I would not have had any books 
 or papers to be seen.” Why, scarcely any 
 person connected with politics would like 
 a domiciliary visit paid him by a friendly 
 policeman — his next neighbour, perhaps, 
 — no one would like such a visitor to 
 come into his house and take all his pa- 
 pers. It was not only those miserable 
 scratches of paper that were laid before 
 jmu alread}’^ that were taken, but a whole 
 bundle of papers. It was natural, then, 
 for this man to say, If I had known 
 that you were coming I should not have 
 had either books or papers in the house.” 
 But what were those papers ? Why, they 
 gave us a diary of all that occurred at the 
 conference as affecting him and his con- 
 stituents. Again and again, as the evi- 
 dence show’s, “ no violence,” no phy- 
 sical force ” had been inculcated by him; 
 and the constable w’ ho told us what passed 
 at Bassinstone, stated that Brooke, at the 
 termination of his discourse, many a time 
 advised the people to behave peaceably. 
 Now, that is the case^gainst him. He 
 is never mentioned at all except W’hen 
 
 Cartledge and Griffin speak of him. And 
 wdien the constable’s brother (Heap) 
 speaks of the meeting at Bassinstone,. 
 I want to know’ if any fair person, w'ith a 
 candid mind, will say, “ There is a person 
 conspiring w'ith, and aiding and abetting 
 others who are assembled in large and 
 tumultuous bodies to effect a change in 
 the constitution, by urging the six points 
 of the Charter.” Gentlemen, I hope bet- 
 ter things for Brooke. But my learned 
 friends, feeling that the case was w'eak as 
 against my client — knowing that he had 
 not been seen in any part of the country 
 doing any word or act, what did they do ? 
 They put in the Executive Address in 
 order to lead you to believe, that, if 
 found at Todmorden, it must have been 
 brought there by Brooke, the schoolmaster. 
 But the witness .says the Executive Ad- 
 dress W’as posted up on the 17th of 
 August, at which time, it is in evidence,, 
 that Brooke was in Manchester. He had 
 no more to do with the introduction of 
 that address into Todmorden, than the 
 constable himself. It was posted up 
 there by some other person, and is 
 Brooke to be answ erable for other persons 
 acts ? A man has enough to do now’ a 
 days, to look after himself, and I trust 
 3 ’ou w’ill not, by such accumulative 
 evidence as you have heard, press down 
 a man against whom nothing has been 
 proved beyond his attending a conference 
 on the 17th, and his attending a meeting 
 at Bassinstone. But I think it is right to 
 have a look at this Executive Address, and 
 see whether it wdll bear this terrible in- 
 terpretation w’hich my learned friend the 
 A ttorney -General h as put upon it. Wh e ii 
 you come to look upon it, you may see it 
 is a foolish proclamation, but we live in 
 the days of foolish proclamations — it 
 may be a silly thing, but if you believe 
 that the intention of the person who wTOte 
 it was a good intention — if you believe 
 that my client w^as at other times a peace- 
 able person, then I say that, as it respects 
 him, you are bound to give it the most 
 liberal construction you possibly can. 
 But, let us see it, gentlemen ; I submit to 
 you, that it is, in fact, an argument for 
 better wages, until such time as the 
 Charter was lawfully carried. And if 
 tliat is the fair construction to put upon 
 it, although there ma^’ be a hard wmrd 
 here, and a nonsensical word there, you 
 
193 
 
 -are not to consider it seditious. Any 
 man reading it with the common eyes 
 which nature has given him will see that 
 it is merely a proclamation of strong 
 views a!bout a strike for wages at the time 
 it was published. The Attorney-General, 
 you will remember, read a great portion 
 of it in his address, and I think it proper 
 to introduce it to your notice on this side 
 before T sit down. 
 
 “ Brother Chartists, — The great political truths 
 which have been agitated during the last half 
 century, have at length aroused the degraded 
 and insulted white slaves of England to a sense 
 of their duty to themselves, their children, and 
 their country.” 
 
 White slaves ! I confess, T think there are 
 many oftheworking classes in England very 
 much in the condition of white slavery. 
 I think there are a great number of per- 
 sons indeed, who may be well called 
 *•' white slaves whose wages are wretched, 
 whose condition is miserable, who, by 
 reason of the meanness of their condi- 
 tion, were destitute of that, which con- 
 stituted the best solace of Englishmen — 
 that which might be said, even to make 
 life itself desirable — domestic comfort ; 
 who are poor, ill-clad, and have little or 
 no education. I do not put the blame 
 on any one. Perhaps we ought all of us 
 to take a little of the blame on ourselves, 
 but, however that may be, the fact is un- ! 
 questionable, that a large portion of the | 
 working classes are steeped in the deepest 
 poverty, and their education is at the 
 very lowest condition — they are, at best, 
 
 white slaves.” I should not have i 
 called your attention to that, if the At- '■ 
 torney-General bad not appeared to have j 
 expressed so much astonishment at the I 
 term, white slaves,” as an expression | 
 of almost ferocity. The address goes | 
 on : — Tens of thousands have flung I 
 down their implements of labour.” They | 
 have.: — Your task-masters tremble at | 
 your energy, and expecting masses | 
 eagerly watch this, the great crisis of our I 
 cause.” By task-masters are meant, 
 those masters by whose reduction of 
 wages, the turn-out was caused La- 
 bour must no longer be the common 
 prey of masters and rulers.” That is the 
 language of proclamations, they are al- j 
 ways grandiloquent, in a style half-Os- ' 
 sian, — half-Buonaparte — a sort of flourish ' 
 
 with which high-sounding proclamations 
 are sometimes heralded in. In common 
 sense, we make out the meaning of these 
 words to be this : — For the last half cen- 
 tury a struggle for wages has been going 
 on, but the working men have effected 
 little by their exertions. But now the 
 question appears to have taken hold of 
 the public mind, and we are in a posi- 
 tion to achieve the object we have in 
 view, if we only make a proper use of 
 this favourable opportunity. That is a 
 fair construction to put on these words, 
 and I leave it to yourselves whether it is 
 a natural construction. 
 
 “Labour must no longer be the common prey 
 of masters and rulers. Intelligence has beamed 
 upon the mind of the bondsman, and he has 
 been convinced that all wealth, comfort, and 
 produce, every thing valuable, useful, and ele- 
 gant, have sprung from the palm of his hand.” — 
 
 I beg leave to say that it is true. It is 
 from the palm of the working man’s 
 hand and the sweat of his brow — it is 
 from the industry of our population, that 
 this great nation has grown up to what it 
 is — a nation of great power — of indepen- 
 dent men of large property, and all this 
 results from the industry of the common 
 people. 
 
 “ He feels that his cottage is empty, his back 
 thinly clad, his children breadless, himself hope- 
 less, his mind harassed, and his body punished, 
 that undue riches, luxury, and gorgeous plenty 
 might be heaped in the palaces of the task-mas- 
 ters, and flooded in the granaries of the op- 
 pressor.” 
 
 Large, grand, eloquent words these — 
 strongly putting a difference between the 
 poor and the rich, but the meaning when 
 fairly taken is — ** You have not enough of 
 wages — you have a right to have more — 
 you have a right to have your case well 
 considered by the parliament, and you 
 never will have it well considered by par- 
 liament till the Charter be the law of the 
 land.” You may not be that way of 
 thinking, but they are, and if they speak 
 their opinions like men, they may be out 
 argued or laughed at, if you please, but 
 they should not be prosecuted for hold- 
 ing those sentiments. 
 
 “ Nature, God, and reason have condemned 
 this inequality, and in the thunder of a people’s 
 voice it must perish for ever.” 
 
194 
 
 That is Ossian again 
 
 ** He knows that labour, the real property of 
 society, the sole origin of accumulated property, 
 the first cause of all national wealth, and the 
 only supporter, defender, and contributor to the 
 greatness of our country, is not possessed of the 
 same legal j)rotection which is given to those 
 lifeless effects, the houses, ships, and machinery, 
 which labour have alone created.’’ 
 
 Gentlemen, I can understand a work- 
 ing man having that view — I can under- 
 stand that the working man, who gets up 
 early, goes to bed late, and eats the bread 
 of carefulness, who is thinly clad, and 
 destitute of home, of all those things 
 which form the comforts of domestic life. 
 — I can easily imagine that man believ- 
 ing that labour, which forms his only 
 property, is not enough respected and 
 protected by the law. — I can easily un^ 
 derstand him looking on the great inters 
 ests of the merchant — looking at his pro- 
 perty in ships, in houses, and machinery. 
 — I can easily imagine him saying, these 
 things are protected by the law% more than 
 the sweat of my brow is protected ; he 
 may be wrong, but if it be his true sen- 
 timent, — if he believes in his consience 
 that is wages are not protected, I say, 
 that if he sets to his seal as a truth, that 
 he has wrongs that ought to be redressed, 
 and rights which ought to be preserved 
 to him by the government, he ought not 
 to be punished for holding that opinion. 
 — He knows that if labour" — "(This is 
 the proclamation still) ‘*has no protection, 
 wages cannot be upheld nor in the slightest 
 degree regulated, until every workman of 
 twenty-one years of age, and of sane mind, 
 is on the same political level as the em- 
 ployer.” Then comes on universal suffrage. 
 Here is an argument by persons who 
 think universal suffrage is a cure for all 
 disorders. I do not think so. But I 
 think a very honest man may think so. 
 These are matters about which honest 
 men may differ wddely. I have lived to 
 see an extension of the franchise, which 
 people twenty years ago would have died j 
 to think it would go so far. And in all ] 
 parts of England, whether, or in your own 
 county before me, I find that the fran- 
 chise has extended very much within the 
 last few years. And I think it would be i 
 too much for any one to say, that he is a 1 
 bad subject who sought a further exten- i 
 
 sion of it, or who held opinions, howevet* 
 • erroneous, on this point. 
 
 “ He knows that the Charter would remove* 
 by universal will, expressed in universal suffrage, 
 the heavy load of taxes which now crush the 
 existence of the labourer and cripple the efforts 
 of commerce.” 
 
 Some of us may differ much with the 
 author of the address, as to the mode in 
 which commerce is to be relieved, but 
 every person may have his own view in 
 that matter without being guilt}'^ of crime. 
 One hears the strongest opinions on that 
 point ; some parties say, that a repeal of 
 the corn-laws would introduce peace and 
 plenty in a moment, while others lift up 
 their eyes and laugh at them for avowing 
 the opinion ; but a man has a right to 
 his opinions, and it would not be worth 
 while living in England one hour longer 
 if ever the law allowed one man to smite 
 another for his opinions. God forbid, 
 that we should be living in England un- 
 der such a state of things. I think that, 
 if any man fairly avows his opinions, 
 however erroneous they may be, he is 
 entitled to respect. 
 
 “ That it would give cheap government as 
 well as cheap food, high wages as well as low 
 taxes, bring happiness to the hearthstone, plenty 
 to the table, protection to the old, education to 
 the young, permanent prosperity to the country, 
 long-continued protective political power to la- 
 bour, and peace — blessed peace, to exhausted 
 humanity and approving nations.” 
 
 Now, my learned friend, the Attorney- 
 General, during the course of his address 
 to you, had two or three times on his lips 
 the expression, that you were not to trust 
 to those words, “ peace, law and order,” 
 although used by the parties engaged in 
 those proceedings. Gentlemen, I had in 
 ray view what passed during the riots, 
 and I defy any man to tell ine what it 
 was that protected the country from vio- 
 lence except it was that love of ** peace, 
 law and order,” which seemed to have 
 supervened all other sentiments whatever 
 in the minds of the working classes, and 
 kept them from doing things which they 
 would be very sorry to have done : — 
 
 “ Therefore it is that we have solemnly sworn, 
 and one and all declared, that the golden oppor- 
 tunity now within our grasp shall not pass away 
 fruitless, that the chance of centuries afforded 
 
195 
 
 lo us by a wise and all-seeing God shall not be 
 lost ; but that we now do universally resolve 
 never to resume labour until labour’s grievances 
 are destroyed, and protection secured for our- 
 selves, our suffering wives, and helpless children, 
 by the enactment of the People’s Charter.” 
 
 1’hat is to say- -""You have struck for 
 \vages> and we think this a great oppor- 
 tunity to carry the Charter. The strike 
 is almost universal. We say there 
 never has been such an opportunity in 
 the world before. It ought not to be lost ; 
 now you have, by reason of the inability of 
 any thing to stop it, an opportunity to carry 
 the six points of the Charter, which will 
 cure the grievances of which you have so 
 long complained The complaint is long. 
 
 “ Intelligence has reached us of the wide- 
 spreading of the strike, and now, within fifty 
 miles of Manchester, every engine is at rest, and 
 all is still, save the millers’ useful wheels and the 
 friendly sickle in the fields.” 
 
 That is very poetical, and very near 
 what tvas the case, but there is no wicked- 
 ness in it. These parties did not put the en- 
 gines at rest. Brooke of Todmorden did 
 not put them at rest. But the engines were at 
 rest,there was nothing at all illegal in say- 
 ing that within fifty miles of Manchester 
 every engine was at rest. They were at rest. 
 
 , But who nut them in that position, not 
 he meeting of delegates — not the Execu- 
 tive Committee — not my client. It was 
 the result of a proceeding w^hich I do not 
 appear here to defend, but which has no 
 connection whatever with my client 
 Brooke : — The passage which I have read 
 simply means; — The engines are at rest, 
 and you, the people, now on strike, have 
 an opportunity of putting those things to 
 rights. The strike is so universal, that 
 parliament will gi’ant the Charter. 
 Gentlemen, that may be a wrong view, 
 but if you judge a man by his honesty, 
 and not (by reversing the order of things) 
 by the consequence which may result 
 from his opinions, you will not blame 
 those who recorded that sentiment. I 
 am not going to defend every word in 
 this proclamation as reasonable ; far from 
 it ; but, take it all together, and if you 
 put that construction on it, which I think 
 you fairly can, you will not think it a 
 part of a general conspiracy to alarm all 
 the people in this neighbourhood : — 
 
 Englislimen ? the blood of your brothers red- 
 dens the streets of Preston and Blackburn.” 
 
 A very great misfortune, indeed, that in 
 order to maintain the peace those per- 
 sons were put to death at Preston. This 
 passage has been commented upon, with 
 much severity, by the Attorney-General. 
 No man can regret more than I do the 
 unfortunate events that have happened at 
 Preston, and which have led to a loss 
 of human life ; but is it not a most ex- 
 traordinary fact, and we have it told us 
 hy the officer who witnessed that lament- 
 able transaction, that a small civil force, 
 not exceeding eighty persons, and a few 
 soldiers, had been able to drive back a 
 body of men, composed of some thou- 
 sands ? This shows that it was the de- 
 sire of the people not to try to put the 
 authorities to extremities. You never 
 find, in this strike, that any arms were 
 worn by a single man ; things called 
 bludgeons and sticks were used, but 
 arms, whereby civil commotion, or a 
 revolution, is brought about, were never 
 employed. For instance, we have heard 
 nothing of the employment of guns, pis- 
 tols, or sabres, which would undoubtedly 
 have been used, had the people intended 
 to carry their object by physical force. 
 You will see, from what passed at Pres- 
 ton, that the people were not at all dis- 
 posed to go to extremities with the 
 authorities. Instead of offering any re- 
 sistance to the authorities, or seeking to 
 place themselves in collision with the 
 soldiers, by which blood might have been 
 spilled, the people peaceably retired, — a 
 fact which, I think, affords the strongest 
 possible evidence that they had no inten- 
 tion of employing physical force for the 
 attainment of their object — 
 
 “ And the murderers tliirst for more.” 
 
 I don’t say that that is a very proper 
 word, but it is an allusion to friends of 
 their own, who were put to death at 
 Preston, and therefore should be taken 
 without serious observation ; and when 
 we take into consideration the circum- 
 stances under which the address was 
 written, and the station in life of the 
 parties, it may be looked upon with some 
 degree of excuse. 
 
 “ Be firm, be courageous, be men. Peace, 
 law, and order, have prevailed on our side — let 
 ! them be revered until our brethren in Scotland, 
 
196 
 
 Wales, and Ireland, arc informed of your reso- 
 lution ; and when a universal holiday prevails, 
 which will be the case in eight days, of what use 
 will bayonets be against public opinion ?" 
 
 Of course, of no use ; if the people were 
 not going to fight there would be nothing 
 to fight withal ; if a universal holiday 
 were to take place, and parliament 
 would take the matter into considera- 
 tion, there would be no use in forcing 
 the people, at the point of the bayonet, 
 to work for Id. or 8i/. a-piece. None 
 at all. If the strike continues for eight 
 days, depend upon it you will cany the 
 Charter. Not oy bayonet ; mark ! — but 
 by ** order.” ** Peace, law, and order, 
 having prevailed on our side,— let them 
 be revered” — they will carry it through 
 the rest. That is my construction, is it 
 not a fair one ? Peace, law, and order 
 have prevailed on our side,” — let them 
 be revered ; and mark my words, said 
 the proclamation, you will carry the 
 Charter. I submit to you that that is 
 the reasonable construction to be put on 
 it, by persons in your situation. 
 
 “ What tyrant can then live above the terrible 
 tide of thought and energy, which is now flowing 
 fast, under the guidance of man’s intellect, which 
 is now destined by a Creator to elevate his peo- 
 ple above the reach of -want, the rancour of 
 despotism, and the penalties of bondage ?” 
 
 That is Ossian again — The same argu- 
 ment is used again. If you do not return 
 to your work, those that hold out against 
 you — 
 
 “ The trades, a noble, patriotic band, have 
 taken the lead in declaring for the Charter, and 
 drawing their gold from the keeping of tyrants. 
 Follov/ their example, lend no wip to rulers 
 werewith to scourge you. Countrymen and 
 brothers, centuries may roll on, as they have 
 fleeted past, before such^ universal action may 
 again be displayed We have made the cast for 
 liberty, and we must stand, like men, the hazard 
 of the die. Let none despond. Let all be cool 
 and watchful, and, like the bridesmaids in the 
 parable, keep your lamps burning ; and let your 
 continued resolution be a beacon to guide those 
 who are now hastening far and wide to follow 
 your memorable example. Brethren, we rely on 
 your firmness ; cowardice, treachery, and wo- 
 manly fear, would cast our cause back for half a 
 century. Let no man or child break down the 
 solemn pledge, (That is, of going to work again,) 
 
 and if they do, may the curse of the poor and 
 the starving pursue them — they deserve slavery 
 who would madly court it.” 
 
 This was Ossian again — a nourishing 
 proclamation, very poetical and very 
 pretty, but surely not seditious. 
 
 “ Our machinery is all arranged, and your 
 cause will, in three days, be impelled onward by 
 all the intellect we can summon to its aid ; there- 
 fore, whilst you are peaceful, be firm, and whilst 
 you look to the law, remember that you had no 
 voice in making it, and are, therefore, the slaves 
 to the will, the law, and the caprice of your 
 masters.” I believe it is the opinion of many 
 high authorities that taxation and representation 
 ought to go hand in hand, and they often heard 
 that — 
 
 ” Laws grind the poor, and rich men make the 
 laws.” 
 
 I think that is a line which is in every 
 body’s mouth. It may be, that as the 
 influence of rich men increases, they may 
 have a desire to make laws of that cha- 
 racter ; and the working classes of this 
 country are inclined to make the law for 
 themselves. They may be wrong, but, 
 if they express their opinion in a peace- 
 able manner, and use neither threats, 
 intimidation, nor violence to bring other 
 persons over to their own views, they 
 have a right to do so. I now come to the 
 last sentence. The Attorney-General * 
 relied upon it. I think he relied upon it 
 by mistake, and as that mistake is liable 
 to do great harm, I think in justice to 
 my client, it ought to be removed. 
 
 “ All officers of the Association are called 
 upon to aid and assist in the peaceful extension 
 of the movement, and to forward all monies for 
 the use of delegates, who may be expressed over 
 the country. Strengthen our hands at this crisis. 
 Support your leaders. Rally round our sacred 
 cause, and leave the decision to the God of Jus- 
 tice and of Battle.” 
 
 My learned friend, the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral, has put upon the last word of this 
 sentence, a meaning which I humbly 
 submit to you in perfect confidence, it 
 ought not to bear — that it was calling 
 upon the people to take arms, and . do 
 battle against those wdio might oppose 
 them.” I believe this word, battle, in 
 this place is applied exactly in the self 
 same sense as you find it applied in the 
 address of the nati' lud conference to the 
 
197 
 
 Chartist public, which was read out of 
 Mr. O’Connor’s paper : — “ The battle of 
 justice against injustice of right against 
 might and of the poor man against the 
 rich, if he be an oppressor. It is not an 
 appeal to the sword. It has no reference 
 to any violent conduct as the learned At- 
 torney-General seemed to understand ; 
 it means a moral battle, and not a physi- 
 cal battle. What does the address of the 
 conference, read from the Northern Star 
 of the 20th of August, say ? Our’s is 
 the battle of labour against capital— of 
 right against might— of justice against 
 injustice — and of knowledge against bi- 
 gotry and intolerance.” You see the 
 appeal to God, was an appeal to Him 
 as the God of Justice — and not as the 
 God of battles, as he is called in our 
 Bibles. Not to Him as that great Being 
 who guides the wars of the world, but 
 as that just Being who knows that those 
 contentions between man and man, ought 
 to be settled, and will be settled, and 
 when they are settled, they will be settled 
 in favour of right. I know I am not 
 fit to speak on such high matters, but 
 when you read these words, the reason- 
 able man — the candid mind, will put that 
 interpretation on them which is put upon 
 them, by those persons with whom I am 
 associated in this defence. Gentlemen, I 
 have read through that address, only be- 
 cause it was proved to have been posted at 
 Todmorden, where my client lives. Had it 
 not been posted at Todmorden, I should 
 not have troubled myself on the subject. 
 It is evidence. Against whom is it evi- 
 dence ? Brooke had nothing to do with 
 the concocting, the printing, or the posting 
 of it. He had no connection with it in 
 any way whatever. But, because it was 
 found at Todmorden, I would rather take 
 that way of explaining it to you which I 
 have done. Now, gentlemen, I have 
 spoken of the address mentioned by the 
 conference. I wonder whether it will 
 fatigue you, but it must be read at one 
 time or the other, and, with your leave, 
 I will read it without much observation. 
 I shall show to you that it was not an 
 argument at all in favour of strife and 
 confusion, but an argument in favour of 
 those rights which the people thought 
 had been violated. It Was an argument 
 of peace and order, which it inculcated 
 rorn beginning to end. Gentlemen, it 
 
 was found in the JVorthern Star of th e 
 20th of August, and is, in fact, the only 
 evidence against Mr. O’Connor. It is 
 not evidence against any of the other de- 
 fendants ; but, having alluded to it by 
 way of explaining the last clause of this 
 address of the Executive, I will ead it 
 now, and direct your attention to^It sen- 
 tence by sentence. 
 
 “ Brother Chartists, — Those who have steeped 
 you in poverty, and accumulated vast incomes 
 by your labour, have turned upon you even in your 
 distress, and would plunge you yet lower in the 
 gulph of misery.” 
 
 A man named Wilcox stated in his 
 evidence that the turn-out was attributable 
 to the owners of certain manufactories, 
 who forced the work people out, having 
 first refused them those terms of accom- 
 modation which they had a right to 
 expect. That shows the meaning of the 
 first sentence. Wilcox’s evidence ex- 
 plains it. 
 
 “ Failing to purchase your aid for the accom- 
 plishment of their own sordid ends, they have 
 effectually put into force the doctrine that ‘ man 
 has a right to do what he likes with his own 
 and, in the hope of starving you into compliance 
 with their will, they have paralized the hand of 
 labour — of the old and the young. Yea, infancy 
 and old age are alike instruments in their hands 
 for enhancing the interests of their order.” 
 
 “ They have not dealt fairly by you in 
 
 the matter of wages” that is a fair 
 
 commentary on that passage, though 
 rounded so well in words. 
 
 “ Willing still to labour for a bare pittance, 
 and watching events peacefully which might lead 
 to the attainment of your just rights, and thereby 
 render you independent of the oppressor's will, 
 you were cast upon the wide world for support. 
 Thanks — eternal thanks to the brave and in«- 
 dependent trades of Manchester ! they saw the 
 evil, and nobly threw their comparative comfort 
 into misery’s scale. They have struck, not for 
 wages, but for principle : and, regardless of con- 
 sequences to themselves, they have taken the 
 foreground in your cause. They have declared 
 that they will cease to toil till all labour shall be 
 justly requited ; which, in their opinion, cannot 
 be effected till the Charter become law.” 
 
 It is still the same argument from be- 
 ginning to end. The people we are ad- 
 dressing want better wages, and they 
 0 
 
198 
 
 will not get them till the Charter 
 is the law of the land — till a legislative 
 enactment makes us better represented 
 in the House of Commons, and then our 
 rights will be protected for us, as others’ 
 rights are for them. That is the fair 
 construction of this passage : — 
 
 “Must not their names be handed down to 
 posterity as patriots sacrificing their own conve- 
 nience and comfort for the attainment of that of 
 their fellow-men ? Who can withhold praise from 
 such men ? You have not struck — you have been 
 stricken ; but let the stroke recoil upon the ty- 
 rants who have so cruelly arrayed themselves 
 against the interests of labour. 
 
 “ Brothers, these are not times to hesitate ! 
 The corn has a golden hue while your visages 
 are pale, but hope for change and better times. 
 We are fortunate in having an accredited 
 executive, bearing the confidence of all, at our 
 head. 
 
 “ They, too, have called upon you. You will 
 read their addiess : it breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit.” 
 
 I say it does, and I have read it to you 
 that you may see that that “ bold and 
 manly spirit,” is such as may be lawfully 
 
 ossessed by people having no desire to 
 
 ring about a change in the constitution 
 by force of arms, but by peaceable and 
 moral agitation, by which changes have 
 already been effected in the laws of this 
 country. 
 
 “ We could not, in times like the present, 
 withhold from them, your servants, our cordial 
 support, as in union alone is security to be 
 found, and from unanimity alone can success be 
 expected.” 
 
 This is not a voluntary “holiday.” 
 It is the forced “ strike ” of ill-requited 
 labour against the dominion of all-power- 
 ful capital. But as the tyrants have 
 forced the alternative upon you, adopt it 
 — and out of the oppressor’s threat, let 
 freedom spring. While we have not been 
 the originators of, we are yet bold enough 
 to say to those who adopt the oppressor’s 
 remedy, stick to it, rather than become 
 tools lor your own destruction ; and may 
 he, who has a bit to spare, and would re- 
 fuse it to men struggling for their rights, 
 feel the gripe of hunger, and the still 
 more stinging grief of a crying offspring! 
 
 ‘ ‘ Brothers , — I f we are worthy of your confi deuce , 
 we must prove that we merit your esteem. Hear 
 us then, and mark well ouf admonition ! Let no 
 act of yours take the odium from those who have 
 
 goaded you into resistance, and who would now 
 torture you, because you do resist. Be not de- 
 ceived ; for although the discomfited MTiigs have 
 attempted to rally their scattered forces under 
 this new pretext, yet will aU of their order in 
 society, of whatever shade in politics, join 
 with them in throwing upon you the odium 
 which belongs to your oppressors.” 
 
 I do not quite agree with the senti- 
 ment contained in that. I do not at 
 all believe that the Whigs are discom- 
 fited ; or, if they are, that they are such 
 great blockheads, and such illiberal men, 
 as to throw on another party the odium 
 which does not belong to them. On 
 the contrary, if any party were to do 
 so it would be that party who, all their 
 lives long, had professed discomfited 
 principles. 
 
 “But heed them not. [And then comes the 
 “ battle.”] Our’s is the battle of labour against 
 capital — of poverty against property — of right 
 against might — of justice against injustice — and 
 of knowledge against bigotry and intolerance, 
 
 “ This is a holiday, proclaimed not by nature ; 
 most unnaturally proclaimed ! and may the wicked 
 fall into the pit which they have dug. Let 
 union and peace be the watchword. We counsel 
 you against waging warfare against recognised 
 authority, while we believe the moral strength 
 of an united people to be sufficiently powerful, 
 when well directed, to overcome all the physical 
 force that tyranny can summon to its aid. The 
 blood of your brothers has been shed while 
 peacefully agitating for their rights, and the 
 brave delegates of the trades of Manchester have 
 been scattered from their place of meeting at the 
 point of the bayonet.” 
 
 I don’t think they were peacefully 
 agitating for their rights when the civU 
 force were opposed to them. Still this 
 opinion may be built on wrong evidence, 
 and the whole character of the agitation 
 may be utterly harmless. 
 
 “ Yet will the friends of justice ever find a 
 refuge as long as nature’s canopy stands, and so 
 long as those for whom they struggle stand by 
 them. 
 
 “ As the people appear to have made the 
 ‘ strike of the League,’ for a repeal of the Corn- 
 laws, into a stand for principle and the Charter, 
 we would implore every man, loving justice, and 
 having a shilling at his command, to advance it, 
 upon the good understanding, that free labour 
 will, ere long, repay the loan. 
 
199 
 
 Brothers, the trades have issued a noble 
 address. It breathes a spirit worthy of old laws 
 and old English liberties. This, brothers, is the ; 
 time for courage, prudence, caution, watchful- 
 ness, and resolution. 
 
 “ In conclusion, brothers, we would above all 
 things, 'counsel you against the destruction of 
 life or property. 
 
 “ Remain firm to your principles, which are 
 to be found in the document entitled the People's 
 Charter. 
 
 “ Men, be wise ! do not commit yourselves or 
 your cause. Let all your acts be strictly legal 
 and constitutional, and, ere long, your enemies 
 will discover that labour is, in truth, the source 
 of all wealth, and should be the only source of 
 power." 
 
 Now, I confess, that in that, the reign- 
 ing sentiment— I think they are not very 
 far mistaken. I believe that to the in- 
 dustry of the people — 
 
 « Of that bold peasantry— the country's pride^; 
 That once destroyed can never be supplied." 
 
 I believe that it is to the working classes 
 that England is indebted, not only for 
 the great advancement of the morality of 
 its people, but for its power as a nation. 
 
 I feel a strong sympathy for the working 
 classes, and a desire to promote their 
 true happiness. Whatever greatness 
 England has achieved as a commercial 
 nation — whatever advances she has made 
 in all the characteristics of a great people 
 — to whatever point of refinement the 
 means of national and individual comfort 
 has arisen, she owes it all to the skill, the 
 industry, and the perseverance of her arti- 
 sans, and I look with the greatest comfort 
 and delight, to any plan for bettering the 
 condition of the people, whether by edu- 
 cating them better, or by giving them bet- 
 ter laws to protect their labour, or by re- 
 conciling them by gentleness and kind- 
 ness, to live happily and contentedly un- 
 der the institutions of the country. Gen- 
 tlemen, I think that last sentence ought 
 not to be thrown against the Chartists — 
 Your enemies will discover that labour 
 is in truth the source of all wealth, and 
 should be the only source of power.” 
 Gentlemen, I fear that I have detained 
 you — perhaps (considering that I appear 
 culy for one, and have but a very small 
 art of this very large case,) I ought to 
 ave done ; but it gives me satisfaction to 
 tell you, that you are now about to be re- 
 
 lieved from the trouble of hearing me any 
 more. Upon your hands, and to you, 
 gentlemen, I now throw and confide the 
 interests of Brooke, of Todmorden. If 
 you, in your conscience, believe that he 
 went as a delegate for the purpose of 
 bringing about changes in fundamental 
 points of the constitution, by force, 
 threats, and intimidation, then, in point 
 of justice, you ought to give in a verdict 
 against him ; but if you think that he 
 went there for the purpose, as I have it 
 from the two witnesses for the prosecu- 
 tion, of meeting the other delegates to 
 make matters legal in the Chartist orga- 
 nization, and to harmonize together those 
 points of dispute between the leaders — if 
 that was his errand, and if that errand 
 was coupled with being present at the ce- 
 lebration of the opening of Hunt’s monu- 
 ment on the 16th of August — then, 
 though the strike took place, you are not 
 to blame him. I defy the wit of man to 
 say that he was present at any riotous or 
 tumultuous assembly— that a finger of 
 his was ever raised, or a word of his ever 
 spoken — that he took any part directly 
 or indirectly in any violent proceeding. If 
 so, then you are entitled, gentlemen, to give 
 a favourable consideration to his case, 
 apart and by himself, and acquit him of 
 this charge. 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — May it please your 
 Lordship; gentlemen of the jury, I have 
 the misfortune to be called at the end of 
 a long and fatiguing day to the defence 
 of my client, James Scholefield, and I will 
 promise you, that I will not detain you long 
 in the investigation of the very slight evi- 
 dence which the Crown has laid before 
 you. Allow me to say, that I have some 
 right to expect your patient attention, for 
 throughout this protracted enquiry, no 
 counsel at this table has retarded it by a 
 lengthened cross-examination, less than I 
 have. I am sure you will have observed, 
 that to only two or three of the witnesses 
 called, have I thought it necessary to ad- 
 dress a single question ; feeling it neces- 
 sary to render this trial as short, and as 
 simple as possible ; because in the brevity 
 and simplicity of any trial, consists the 
 best defence of that client whom one be- 
 lieves to be innocent. Gentlemen, if you 
 apply your minds to the rules which the 
 ' Attorney-General laid down in the out- 
 set of this trial, then you will not convict 
 
200 
 
 any person here on mere suspicion, hut 
 only on unquestionable proof that he 
 was taking a part in the particular con- 
 spiracy laid in the indictment. If you 
 act on this rule — and there is no other on 
 which you can act — my client is as safe 
 as any one of the by-standers which 
 crowd this court. Gentlemen, allow me 
 to say this, that I feel called upon, in 
 common with my friends, and those de- 
 fendants who will speak on their own be- 
 half, by-and-bye, to complain loudly of 
 the course the Crown has taken in the 
 present prosecution. Not that I blame 
 the Crown for instituting a fair trial, 
 if there was ground for a trial ; but, 
 for having preferred before you such an 
 indictment as this, I do most certainly 
 give, so far as my judgment can give, the 
 testimony of my sincere and heartfelt 
 disapprobation to the course pursued. 
 Did ever man living hear of an indict- 
 ment comprising the cases of fifty-nine 
 different defendants ? I say this indict- 
 ment is a perfect monster. No such 
 thing ever existed since the earliest state 
 trial we read of in our books down to the 
 present time. It is the first instance of 
 the kind, and I hope it will be the last ; 
 for a scheme more fraught with injustice 
 to those called upon to answer at this 
 trial (I hope inadvertently adopted by 
 those who advised the Crown on this oc- 
 casion) than this indictment, including, 
 as it does, fifty-nine persons ; imposing 
 on the judge and jury a task of greater 
 difficulty than I have ever read of as be- 
 ing imposed on judge or jury before, and 
 what is of more consequence than that, 
 imposing on the defendants a hardship 
 and a grossness of severity which it is 
 utterly impossible to estimate. The most 
 experienced counsel that ever addressed 
 a jury may w^eil doubt of his ability to 
 present each case in its own peculiar and 
 distinctive features before that jury who 
 are to try the guilt or innocence of his 
 client. Gentlemen, if that be so with 
 respect to the most experienced counsel, 
 how must it be with respect to those men 
 who now stand before you on their trial, 
 some of whom have not, for w^ant of 
 means, the advantage of appearing before 
 you by counsel ; and every one of whom 
 is expected to single out from this enormous 
 mass of matter, (which the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral has been five days bringing before you) 
 
 the evidence bearing on his own particu- 
 lar case, call your attention to it indivi- 
 dually and take your sense upon it. I do 
 say that to such a hardship I have never 
 known any defendant subjected in my 
 life. And, surely, there is no occasion 
 for it. It is perfectly well known to 
 criminal lawyers that, in a charge of this 
 kind, it is perfectly competent for the 
 Crown to try the defendants on several 
 indictments. Had the Attorney-General 
 presented five or six indictments to the 
 jury instead of one, it would have been 
 much to the advantage of the Court, and 
 more in accordance with the fundamental 
 principles of justice, which is the object 
 of all law. From what I know of the 
 Attorney-General, I am sure he would- 
 not intentionally impose on these men 
 any hardship ; and yet a greater hard- 
 ship than these men have been subject 
 to by the mode in which this enquiry has 
 been brought before you, it is impossible 
 for the imagination of man to conceive. 
 And the thing would be far worse if his 
 Lordship adopted the view which the 
 Attorney-General was disposed to take at 
 the end of the prosecution. Then it was 
 discovered, that it would be for the 
 advantage of the Crown to depart a little 
 from that course, which I understood to 
 be laid down by the Attorney-General 
 in his opening. So far from adducing 
 evidence to determine whether there had 
 been a conspiracy by force and violence 
 to prevent the free exercise of labour, or 
 to continue a cessation from labour, in 
 order to bring about a change in the 
 laws and constitution of this country, 
 and whether the defendants, or any of 
 them, had taken any part in that con-* 
 spiracy ; an attempt was made to try 
 to affect one defendant by one kind of 
 evidence, and another defendant by ano- 
 ther kind of evidence. Each of the nine 
 counts in the indictment was to be ap- 
 plied to each of the defendants. And 
 observe what may be the effect of it. I 
 have made the calculation — there are 
 fifty-nine defendants, and nine counts 
 in the indictment; and if you multiply 
 fifty-nine by nine, the result will be five 
 hundred and thirty-one. That, gentle- 
 men, will be the number of questions 
 which his Lordship will have to submit 
 to you, for he will be obliged to submit 
 every count with respect to each defen- 
 
201 
 
 dant. If tlie course had been adopted, 
 which the legal ingenuity of my learned 
 friend suggested, and you had to deter- 
 mine whether or not a certain portion of 
 a count was made out against A. or B., 
 it would be quite impossible to tell how 
 far these subdivisions might have been 
 carried ; and so far from you having any 
 assignable period at which you could 
 have hoped for a termination of your 
 labour, it would he quite impossible to 
 say when you might have finished. 
 Having made these observations, which 
 pressed so much on my mind, and, I am 
 afraid, will press, with greater severity, on 
 the defendants who stand here to plead 
 their own cause, allow me to call your 
 attention to the case of my client. This 
 James Scholefield, of whom you have 
 heard, has carried on the profession of a 
 Dissenting minister in the town of jMan- 
 chester, for a period of more than twenty 
 years; he having succeeded to the chapel 
 of, and office of the late Mr. Cowherd, 
 the founder of the sect, of which my 
 client is now a minister. Mr. Cowherd 
 died about the year 1815. He combined 
 the practice of physic with divinity. He 
 was minister of the sect, called Cow- 
 herdites,” and sometimes “ Bible Chris- 
 tians.” He was an apothecary. My 
 client carried on both professions in 
 the same way that his master and 
 tutor did before him, and conducts 
 himself in the same way that his master 
 and tutor did. I am not here to disguise 
 from you, that, in point of political opin- 
 ions, my client goes with those who are 
 called Chartists. He thinks conscien- 
 tiously that their opinions are right. 
 You, gentlemen, do not. He thinks 
 conscientiously — after mature reflection, 
 and after availing himself of all those 
 lights which are furnished to him, that 
 the adoption of the six points of the 
 Charter, would be the means of securing 
 to the greatest number of the people of 
 this country, the greatest amount of com- 
 fort of which they are capable. That is 
 his opinion, and you will find also, that 
 he is of opinion, that great respect ought 
 to be paid to the sentiments of the late 
 Henry Hunt. You will find, that it is 
 on that account he has taken an active 
 part in the erection of that monument to 
 his memory, of which monument, you 
 have heard so much in the course of 
 
 the evidence. These opinions of his, 
 however erroneous, or however much 
 mistaken my client may be in hold- 
 ing them, are held by him very sin- 
 cerely. He thinks he has recognized in 
 Mr. Feargus O’Connor — the defendant 
 before you, and who will plead his 
 own cause, by-and-bym, a worthy^ repre- 
 sentative of the political opinions which 
 the defendant has espoused. The work- 
 ing classes of the country are under obli- 
 gations of the highest kind to him. In 
 that gentleman thousands of the working 
 classes recognised a man connected with 
 the highest ranks of the aristocracy in 
 Ireland, and yet identifying himself, with 
 the cause of the working men of this 
 countiy, in such a manner as to entitle 
 himself to their lasting gratitude. Mr. 
 Feargus O’Connor and my client are 
 both at heart of the same principles, and 
 both are conscientiously labouring for the 
 same end. So I’ar from repudiating the 
 opinions of Mr. O’Connor, my^ client 
 claims it as an honour to be his ac- 
 quaintance, and to coincide in his views. 
 You will find under what circumstances 
 Mr. O’Connor came to Mr. Scholefield’s 
 house on the 17th of August. » He de- 
 sires me to state before you what his 
 opinions are, and to claim for them 
 that respect and indulgence which has 
 been so eloquently claimed for those of 
 the defendants generally, by my learned 
 friend who has addressed you. My 
 client w'ishes those opinions to be car- 
 ried into effect by^ legal and peaceable 
 means. He never had a wish to carry 
 them into effect in any other manner. 
 And his opinions, however you may 
 differ from them, he is entitled to carry 
 into effect to the best of his power. I 
 cannot help expressing my entire con- 
 currence as an advocate in the sentiment, 
 that for every set of speculative opinions 
 there should be the most unlimited in- 
 dulgence. You should have the means 
 given to every man, wdthout controul, 
 of advocating them warmly, evidently, 
 and incessantly. All this should be 
 given to every man, and if you ever see 
 a state of society in which that is not 
 the case, it will be a slate of tyranny — 
 a state of prosecution or persecution. 
 Against the peacel'ul support of any set 
 of opinions whatever — however wrong 
 they may be in point of speculative ef- 
 
202 
 
 feet, if argued calmly, peaceably, and 
 properly, and submitted to the people 
 for their free choice, no obstacle should 
 be opposed, for I have the most confi- 
 dent opinion in the omnipotence of truth, 
 and believe that, if it has fair play, it 
 must ultimately triumph and prevail. 
 Before I call your attention to the facts of 
 the case, I beg, for a single moment, to 
 allude to the position laid down by my 
 learned friend the Attorney-General on 
 the other side, which position will be 
 most important for you as regards the 
 law of the case. A ou will, by-and-bye, 
 permit me to say a word or two on this 
 topic. To say no more of their opinions, 
 I cannot but remark, that there never 
 was a set of men (and I am not here to 
 advocate their opinions before the judge) 
 W’ho have had to struggle more against 
 prejudices than the defendants, and that 
 of late. A most extraordinary illustra- 
 tion of this has been given within the 
 last few months, of the length to which 
 those prejudices have gone. I say this, 
 gentlemen, for the purpose of warning 
 you. You will forgive me if I do so 
 when prejudice is strong and general; 
 but when I say so, it is now a matter of 
 notoriety, that the magistrates of the 
 whole county of Stafford, felt it their 
 bounden duty to exclude a man from the 
 ordinary privileges of a British subject, 
 (namely, standing forward to give bail 
 for a fellow-citizen,) on the sole ground 
 that he was a Chartist, and for no other 
 assignable cause. This shows the extent 
 of the prejudice against Chartists, and 
 it shows how careful we ought to be, 
 especially those who sit in judgment on 
 a person with whose political opinions 
 they have no sympathy. Do not let us 
 allow a want of sympathy with my 
 client’s opinions, to require one jot less 
 of evidence against him, than we should 
 require against the man with whose 
 opinions we had the most perfect co- 
 incidence. As to the points of the 
 Charter, I shall not discuss them. None 
 of them is subversive of the founda- 
 tions of society, so far as morals arei con- 
 cerned. We have heard of some sects 
 where that has been the case, and hence 
 some have been led to look with preju- 
 dice on all who belong to sects of any 
 kind. But these men— the defendants 
 in this case, are endeavouring to carry 
 
 into effect opinions which were held by 
 some of the wisest and best men that 
 lived before them. I may say of a great 
 many of those defendants, that you will 
 find them to be the best husbands and 
 fathers ; brothers and sons whom you 
 can meet with anywhere. However 
 wrong and speculative their political opin- 
 ions may be, there is nothing in them 
 inconsistent with the soundest morality. 
 They set an example which might be 
 imitated with great benefit by many w^ho 
 pretend to despise their persons and abuse 
 their principles. Having performed that 
 act of common justice to the defendants 
 generally, I now come to my client, 
 Scholefield, who occupies a leading place. 
 My client, Scholefield, occupies a lead- 
 ing and prominent jiart in this affair. 
 He was acting up to the light that is in 
 him for the promotion of those principles 
 which he considers best for the public 
 weal. I shall now call attention to that 
 point of law, which the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral noticed in this case. I consider this 
 of great importance to be understood 
 here ; and when it is understood, I have 
 not the least objection to leave it to your 
 consideration, when you come to look at 
 the evidence against my client. The 
 Attorney-General said, Here is a charge 
 of conspiracy, and the law of England 
 with respect to conspiracy is this : — That 
 where parties are engaged in pursuit of a 
 common purpose, for the act which one 
 may do, in pursuance of that common 
 purpose, all the rest are responsible.” 
 From that proposition, as thus laid down 
 briefly, I beg to express my unqualified 
 dissent. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS Hear 1 
 
 Mr. BAINES : — tlis Lordship will, of 
 course, lay down the law% and you are 
 bound to take the law from him ; but to 
 that proposition I express my unqualified 
 dissent. It is true that where parties are 
 combined, and the ultimate object of 
 those parties is illegal, any act which one 
 may do in pursuance of that common 
 object, the rest are responsible for it, but 
 it is not so where the ultimate object of 
 the parties is legal. I defy any one to 
 say that that which the Attorney -General 
 laid down is correct, for, if it were, see 
 the consequences wdiich would follow. 
 You and I may be combined together for 
 the promotion of some purpose which we 
 
203 
 
 may think in our conscience to be very 
 just, and which is just in itself. I do 
 some foolish and wicked things in order 
 to carry out the object in view — T act 
 upon that worst and foulest of moral 
 maxims — Do evil that good may come.” 
 Are you to be affected by my conduct in 
 that respect ? certainly not. And yet 
 we are bound up in one common purpose. 
 Now that wdiich was the common purpose 
 of the defendants was as legal a purpose 
 as could be. I am not discussing its 
 wisdom or policy ; hut, in point 
 of legality, there can be no doubt 
 but that for these men to combine 
 for the Charter, was as legal a purpose as 
 ever bound men together in this world. 
 Yet, if any man were to be bound by the 
 acts of another because he was bound up 
 with him in one common purpose, just 
 observe how gross an absurdity it would 
 lead to ; and, no doubt, you will hear 
 from my Lord how gross an illegality. 
 Here are certain persons all of opinion, 
 that the passing of the Reform Bill 
 would be a very good thing ; and they 
 go to work, and carry out their several 
 plans for effecting the common purpose. 
 One thinks he will do so by firing the 
 city of Bristol; another, by insulting and 
 assaulting a police officer ; a third, by 
 peaceful means. The ultimate object is 
 the same. They wish to bring about a 
 change in the laws, but the third man is 
 not to be held responsible for the 
 folly and violence of the other two. 
 Let us take another illustration. Here 
 are certain persons banded together for 
 the common purpose of turning the hands 
 out of a particular manufactory. One of 
 those persons makes a most violent and 
 inflammatory speech against the poor- 
 law — one of the most excitable subjects 
 on which the mind can be addressed ; 
 another makes an attack on the character 
 of the amiable and excellent sovereign, 
 under whose rule we have the happiness 
 to live ; and a third seeks to accomplish 
 his purpose by reason and argument. 
 Now it is perfectly obvious that the com- 
 mon purpose is strictly legal, and that 
 it would be the greatest hardship in the 
 world, to bind the third man by that 
 which is done by the other two. These 
 are obvious reasons, and they strike one 
 as being so just, that you must at once 
 see the distinction between a case where 
 
 the ultimate object is a legal one, and 
 where it is illegal. Where the common 
 object is illegal, T submit that the one is 
 the agent of the other, both in point of 
 law and common sense ; and the result 
 must be visited on the head of each, but, 
 wdiere the object is legal, each must be 
 visited by his own act. 
 
 Mr. DUNDAS : — That is right. 
 
 Mr. BAINES If you adopt a dif- 
 ferent principle how can men engage to- 
 gether for the accomplishment of any 
 common purpose, however legitimate or 
 praiseworthy, for any one of their number 
 may, by an overt act of folly or wicked- 
 ness, bring ruin upon the heads of all 
 those who are engaged with him in pur- 
 suance of the one common object? I now 
 respectfully but earnestly ask you to keep 
 that in view, when considering the seve- 
 ral cases of these defendants before you, 
 and, particularly, in considering the case 
 of him for whom I have now the honour, 
 peculiarly to appear as advocate. Gen- 
 tlemen, I now beg your attention to a 
 word or two on the evidence in this case, 
 as it regards Mr. Scholefield. I know 
 how great a draft has been made on your 
 patience already — I have marked it with 
 gratitude, and no one here can fail to have 
 observed your patient attention. I be - 
 lieve, in my conscience, that it requires, 
 so far as my client is concerned, the 
 greatest degree of attention on your 
 part, to secure for him a complete 
 acquittal. What then is the evidence in 
 this matter as it regards Mr. Scholefield ? 
 He is not affected by any of the evidenc 
 with which, for three long days, th 
 Crown occupied the attention of the 
 Court. It w^as not till ten o’clock on 
 Saturday morning that Mr. Scholefield 
 was mentioned at all. I will take up 
 the history at this time, and when the 
 facts of this case are brought before you, 
 then say if the case of Scholefield is a 
 case of guilt, or even of suspicion. Gen- 
 tlemen, we have it in evidence before us, 
 that ever since the melancholy affair which 
 took place on the 16th of August, 1819, 
 there was a strong feeling in favour of 
 the principles advocated by Henry Hunt. 
 There w'as a strong feeling of reverence 
 for him, as the champion of those prin- 
 ciples. Never has one single year passed, 
 since that period, without some kind of 
 commemoration of the events of that day. 
 
204 
 
 We have this fact from the witnesses. 
 Beswick says, that this has been the case 
 for a period of seventeen years. Now, 
 about two years ago, it was determined 
 to erect a monument to the memory 
 of Henry Hunt. My client, Mr. Schole- 
 field, determined to give a piece of a 
 burial ground attached to his chapel, for 
 the purpose of erecting this monument. 
 In the spring of last year, the first stone 
 of that monument was laid by Mr. 
 Feargus O’Connor, who came to Man- 
 chester for that purpose. It excited the 
 greatest interest among all those who in- 
 tended to pay respect to the memory of 
 the late Henry Hunt, and it was determined 
 that the monument should be completed 
 ill time for the anniversary, the 16th of 
 August. To carry that object into effect 
 it was determined that the means should 
 be raised by a committee, called the 
 Hunt’s Monument Committee ; and that 
 they should, if possible, complete the 
 monument time enough to have it opened 
 on the I6th of August following. In 
 June, Griffin came to Manchester. At 
 this time he had dissolved all connection 
 with Mr. O’Connor. Griffin, being then 
 out of employment, was in great distress, 
 and he applied to Mr. Scholefield for 
 assistance. My client, with that bene- 
 volence w'hich always formed a con- 
 spicuous part of his character, gave him 
 the money he asked for, and also gave 
 him the painting and graining of his 
 chapel — the painting being the trade 
 which Griffin was brought up to. In 
 that very week, Griffin became the secre- 
 tary to the Hunt’s monument committee. 
 This was in the second or third week of 
 June — a month before the turn-out, — 
 and the monument was to be completed 
 almost immediately after that — on the 
 16th of August. In June, the Hunt’s 
 monument committee determined to send 
 out circulars, requesting the attendance 
 of delegates from all parts of the coun- 
 try. And in order to give as much eclat 
 as possible to the occasion, the delegates 
 were to attend for the triple purpose of 
 opening the monument with all due so- 
 lemnity ; this being thought by them^ at 
 all events, a national concern. Next, to 
 heal certain differences between certain 
 leaders of the Chartist party. That was 
 thought an object of importance, for so 
 long as those differences existed in the 
 
 body the efficiency of the institution wa» 
 necessarily impaired, and, therefore, it 
 w as necessary that those differences should 
 be done away wfith. The third object in 
 vierv, as Griffin and Cartledge stated, was 
 to revise the organization of the Chartist 
 body throughout the country. For what 
 purpose, pray you, did these conspirators 
 meet.^ To see whether the Chartist body, 
 as then constituted, had any, even the 
 slightest illegality in it, in order that 
 such illegality might be removed. These 
 •svere the objects for which the conference 
 assembled. If the conference had assembled 
 without any assignable motive — if we had 
 not been able to trace the object for which 
 it assembled, and trace it distinctly, the 
 Crowm might have some ground for ask- 
 ing you, gentlemen of the jury, to take a 
 leap in the dark, and|come to the conclusion 
 that these men had assembled for no 
 legal purpose whatever. But the dele- 
 gates had these three purposes for assem- 
 bling, every one of wdiich was as legal as 
 any subject which the human mind can 
 entertain. They had these three pur- 
 poses to bring them together months be- 
 fore the disturbances began ; and they 
 did, for these purposes, present them- 
 selves in Manchester on the 16th of Au- 
 gust. Nowg that I take to be clear, and 
 we have it from the evidence on the part of 
 the Crown. Mr. Dundas referred to a 
 placard wffiich w'as issued by the Hunt’s 
 monument committee, announcing the 
 intended procession and opening of the 
 monument. In every one of the docu- 
 ments issued by that committee, there 
 was not a single syllable to contravene 
 the meaning of the words “ peace, law 
 and order.” The outbreak occurs on the 
 9th or 10th, and the magistrates of Man- 
 chester did not, for tw'o or three , days 
 afterwards, appear to take the alarm. At 
 all events, the proclamation w^as not issued 
 till the 14th of August. But the Hunt’s 
 monument committee — w'ho are now 
 charged with being little less then a band 
 of conspirators, wffiose object w^as to sub- 
 vert the good order and constitution of 
 society — these men interfered to pre- 
 serve the peace of the town before even 
 the magistrates interfered ; for it was on 
 the morning of the 10th, that Mr. Schole- 
 field sent outplacards announcing, that, in 
 consequence of the turn-out, the Hunt’s 
 monument committee thought it their 
 
205 
 
 duty to lay aside their advertised inten- 
 tion of having* the procession, which 
 might produce a collision, the blame of 
 ■which might he laid on the Chartists, 
 and the consequences of which every- 
 body might deplore. Gentlemen, let us 
 tiew a man’s conduct, for God’s sake, 
 together. Do not single out a particular 
 passage, without having any opportunity 
 of seeing the rest. At all events, do not 
 let us do by it as that reporter did from 
 the Manchester Guardian, who gave a 
 limb of the sentence, which my client 
 uttered at Carpenters’ Hall, without be- 
 ing able to tell you in the least degree 
 what the context \vas. No, in looking 
 at a man’s language and conduct, the 
 only fair and reasonable way is to take, 
 not isolated passages, but the whole to- 
 gether, and see what the fair inference 
 from the whole is. I desire nothing 
 more at your hands, gentlemen. I ven- 
 ture to hope, from what I have seen 
 on this enquiry, you will grant me 
 nothing less. This takes place on 
 the 10th. Let us proceed a little in the 
 order of time. On the 14th, it appears 
 the magisti ates of Manchester — O, I was 
 going to pass over one document which 
 my learned friend did not call attention 
 to. We have had one document brought 
 before us to day — the document of the 
 11th of August. My learned friend 
 passed it over at the time, perhaps, sup- 
 posing that he should refer to it after- 
 wards. This is the document of the 11th 
 of August, signed — William Griffin, on 
 behalf of the committee; at the head of 
 whom was my client, Mr. Scholefield. 
 He was the person who guided the 
 whole, and was let speak in this circular. 
 ‘‘THE HUNT MONUMENT COMMITTEE. 
 
 “ To the Chartists of Manchester, and the 
 surrounding towns and villages. — The Commit- 
 tee appointed to superintend the erection of a 
 Monument to the memory of the late Henry 
 Hunt, Esq., feel sorrow at having to inform you, 
 and those other friends who had intended to 
 honour us with their presence at the proces- 
 sion on the 16th of August, that after duly 
 considering upon the present awful and truly 
 alarming state of this district, and after every 
 member present had given his opinion upon the 
 matter, the following resolution was passed una- 
 nimously 
 
 " That, ^taking all things into consideration, 
 
 the committee deem it the most advisable, safe, 
 and judicious course to be pursued, under the 
 circumstances, to abandon the Procession an- 
 nounced to take place on the 16th of August ; 
 and that the Press be requested to insert this 
 resolution and short address in their current 
 publications. 
 
 “ The district is certainly in a very unsettled 
 state, and the members of the committee believe 
 that if any disturbance ensued on that day, the 
 enemies to the Chartist movement would snatch 
 at the opportunity, and throw the blame on the 
 committee and the Chartists generally. They 
 perceive that the Manchester Guardian has 
 already began to charge the Chartists as the 
 originators of, and as taking past in, the dis- 
 turbances already had. A charge as false as it 
 cowardly and malicious. 
 
 “ The meeting, respecting the monument, 
 will be holden on the 16th of August, in the 
 Rev. James Scholefteld’s burial ground, Every- 
 street. The ground is private property ; and 
 the meeting will, therefore, be strictly safe and 
 legal. The delegates are expected to be here 
 according to previous announcement ; likewise 
 Feargus O’Connor, Esq. The tea party and 
 ball will also be holden in the evening, for 
 which all due arrangements are being made. 
 
 “ In adopting this course, the committee feel 
 that they best consult the interest and safety of 
 the Chartist cause. Were they to go on with 
 the procession, and bi*ing upon them the inter- 
 ference of the magistracy, tumult might be the 
 consequence. Life would be endangered, blood 
 spilled, and our righteous movement gi*eatly 
 endangered and retarded. We want to obtain 
 the Charter by moral, peaceable, and constitu- 
 tional means, and not by force and tumult. 
 
 “ Signed on behalf of the committee, 
 
 Wm. Griffin, Secretary. 
 
 “ August 11th, 1842.” 
 
 Gentlemen, if 'there is any sense in that, 
 yon must say that the man who dictated 
 that (as Mr. Scholefield did to Griffin, 
 who was then his secretary,) could not be 
 but a good and peaceable subject. So 
 much for the 11th. On the 14th, he 
 discovered that it was necessary to issue 
 a proclamation, prohibiting all proces- 
 sions and meetings ; — 
 
 “ The committee for the erection of Hunt's 
 monument respectfully informs the public, that, 
 in consequence of the very unexpected excite- 
 ment of the town of Manchester and its vicinity, 
 
206 
 
 occasioned by the ‘ turn-out for an advance of 
 wages,’ they have decided that the procession as 
 announced in former bills, for the 16th of Au- 
 gust, 1842, ‘ will not take place,’ lest it should 
 give an opportunity to increase that excitement, 
 the odium and consequences of which have been 
 attempted to be fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 The meeting will be held on the premises 
 of the Rev. J. Scholefield, where the monument 
 can be seen. The gates will be opened at ten 
 o’clock, and the meeting will be addressed by 
 Feargus O’Connor, Esq., and other delegates, at 
 eleven o’clock. 
 
 “ The tea party and ball, as by former bills, 
 will take place in the evening, at Carpenters’ 
 Hall. 
 
 “ N.B. A number of very neat China models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day, at from Is. id. to 
 Is. 6<f. each ; the profits of which are for the 
 funds of the monument. 
 
 “ J. SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.” 
 
 On the 15th, out came her Majesty’s 
 proclamation to the same effect. Mr. 
 Scholefield received this on the night of 
 the 15th, and at four o’clock in the morn- 
 ing he was up, calling on the printer to 
 print that other placard, to which Mr. 
 Dundas has called attention. This placard 
 shows that the meetinsr as well as the 
 procession should be abandoned. 
 
 “ Procession and Meeting prohibited by the 
 authorities. — The Committee for the erection of 
 Hunt’s Monument respectfully inform the Pub- 
 lic, that, in consequence of the very unexpected 
 excitement of the town of Manchester and its 
 vicinity, occasioned by a turn-out for an advance 
 of wages, they have decided that the procession 
 and meeting in Mr. Scholefield’s premises, as an- 
 nounced in former bills for the 16th of August, 
 1842, will not take place, lest it should give an 
 opportunity to increase that excitement, the 
 odium and consequences of which have been at- 
 tempted to be fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 “ The tea party and ball, as by former bills, 
 will take place in the evening, at Carpenters’ 
 Hall. 
 
 “ N.B. A number of very neat china models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day, at from Is. id. to 
 Is. 6^?. each ; the profits of which are for the 
 funds of the monument. 
 
 “ J. SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.” 
 
 This shows that Mr. Scholefield had a 
 
 disposition to avoid everything that could 
 by any possibility lead to tumult or confu- 
 sion. I believe he advised those acting 
 with them, instantly and strenuously to 
 do every thing in a peaceable and con- 
 stitutional manner. Mr. Scholefield was 
 out early in the morning of the 16th, ob- 
 taining placards. He had a very large 
 number posted on the walls of Manches- 
 ter. They were sent to his house that 
 very forenoon, and you will find by the 
 witness. Bell, who w’^as sent to watch the 
 house — I am sure it was my Lord’s note 
 — that Scholefield’s son was putting up 
 those peaceable placards on his father’s 
 walls : — placards exhorting the people to 
 be peaceable and orderly, and telling 
 them that both meeting and proces- 
 sion were now finally put off. Here 
 then, you have the conduct of Schole- 
 field traced through a series of dates, 
 down to the 16th of August, and it re- 
 quires no more but to add one or two 
 facts which I shall do, by and bye, in 
 order to complete our view of his con- 
 duct. Mr. Scholefield, as I have told you, 
 was out early in the morning of the 15th, 
 in order to have those placards printed. 
 Mr. O’Connor had arrived, in the course 
 of that morning, from London. He 
 knew and respected Mr. Scholefield, and 
 felt convinced, that, though he w^as not 
 announced or expected, he would not be 
 an unwelcome guest under Mr. Schole- 
 field’s roof. When Mr. Scholefield re- 
 turned, he found Mr. O’Connor there. 
 You will remember, that all those dele- 
 gates were invited to Manchester for the 
 purpose of holding this meeting. As it 
 was to take place on Mr. Scholefield’s 
 ground, they naturally flocked to his 
 house as a place of rendezvous, and thus 
 it was, that Bell (who seems to have 
 been sent by the Manchester police, and 
 whom you have had an opportunity of 
 seeing give his evidence with so much 
 solemnity from that box,) saw some of 
 them. He says, O, I saw delegate so 
 and so, coming to Mr Scholefield’s house 
 on that day. These men were summon- 
 ed for the purposes already stated, and 
 Scholefield’s house being on the exact 
 spot, what was so natural as that they 
 should come to him to enquire why the 
 matter was not as they were led to 
 expect. They met with Mr. O’Connor 
 there, and that is the mighty matter of 
 
207 
 
 suspicion, so far as the 16th of August is 
 concerned. The meeting was to take 
 place on his private ground. They did 
 not know that ; for it was cnly on the 
 morning of that day, that that manage- 
 ment was announced. At what time did 
 that meeting take place ? I thought we 
 should hear of these meetings as midnight 
 doings, hut it was in broad day-light 
 this was done ; and the delegates were 
 seen at four o’clock in the afternoon, 
 coming out of a public street in Manches- 
 ter, and going to Mr. Scholefield’s house 
 in the most open and unguarded way. 
 For aught they knew, a policeman was 
 at every corner ; but they, being innocent 
 of any improper intention, knew they 
 might call on Mr. Scholefield and Mr. 
 O’Connor, and they did call. The his- 
 tory of the evidence given by Bell, which 
 I shall never for a moment deny, is that 
 the delegates called at Mr. Scholefield’s 
 house on the 16th, and that he saw Mr. 
 O’Connor and some of them going into 
 the chapel in the course of the day, and, 
 on the following day, he saw M'Douall 
 coming out of the chapel. In the even- 
 ing of that day (the 16th) I observed 
 another matter spoken of by the Crown 
 witnesses, to which I beg to call your at- 
 tention. That is the evidence given this 
 morning by one of the witnesses. The 
 Crown has not exactly followed the 
 order of time, but I wish to make the 
 thing plain and intelligible, and, there- 
 fore, I beg you to follow me through one 
 or two more dates. In the evening of 
 this day, a tea party was held in Carpen- 
 ters’ Hall, and Mr, Hanly, a reporter, is 
 called to speak to what was said on that 
 occasion. Now, as to that gentleman’s 
 respectability, I have not the slightest 
 doubt, nor do I wish to say one word to 
 make you think otherwise of him ; but it 
 isamost dangerous ivay of layingevidence 
 before a jury, to give in what he told you 
 was an imperfect note of what passed. 
 Mr. Hanly entered the room and found 
 Mr. Scholefield speaking. He (Mr. 
 Hanly) crushed his way up to the plat- 
 form, and while taking out his note book 
 he heard y>art of a sentence, or the 
 whole of a sentence, which he afterwards 
 wrote down. Now, supposing him to 
 be accurate in his recollection, there is 
 nothing in that sentence which can 
 affect my client ; The day of the peo- 
 
 ple was long in coming, but wnen it 
 comes it will come with a vengeance !” 
 The sentence may be thus explained: 
 Hunt’s testimonial had fallen into a kind 
 of desuetude; Mr. Scholefield wished to 
 see the day come, when the recollection 
 of Hunt s exertions in forwarding certain 
 political views would be revived ; and 
 now the day had come with a vengeance. 
 Indeed, when my client saw such a glo- 
 rious gathering in that Hall — supposing 
 that every word which Mr. Hanly stated 
 was uttered, but the context of which he 
 did not hear, I ask you, is not that a fair 
 meaning to put upon it ? But it would 
 be idle to put any meaning upon words 
 such as have been given in evidence, 
 because you did not hear the whole. 
 You did not hear the context, — and, 
 therefore, I call upon you to simplify 
 the matter by dismissing it altogether 
 from your consideration, especially when 
 you remember that that gentleman began 
 his statement respecting the tea party at 
 Carpenters’ Hall, by saying, that he had 
 taken no votes on that occasion ; that 
 any notes which he had taken, were so 
 slight as to be regarded as no notes at 
 all. Nowg gentleman, it is unnecessary 
 to detain you longer on that point. 
 Well, now we come to the 17th of Au- 
 gust — the day these delegates met, — and 
 what have we ? What takes place then ? 
 Do I deny for a single moment, or did 
 I by a single question attempt to throw 
 any doubt upon it, that these parties as- 
 sembled in Scholefield’s chapel ? Un- 
 questionably not. There can be no 
 doubt at all of that fact. The plain 
 history of it is ibis ; these gentlemen ar- 
 rived in town on this errand, and Mr. 
 Scholefield had no reason to suppose 
 that their errand was not a perfectly 
 good and legitimate one — he had no rea- 
 son to suppose that there was any inten- 
 tion on their part to pervert to any other 
 purpose, than that originally proposed, 
 the object of their meeting. He was re- 
 quested by Mr. O’Connor himself, to let 
 him have the use of his chapel for the 
 meeting of delegates, which meeting, as 
 Mr. Scholefield naturally supposed, was 
 convened for the sake of composing those 
 differences which existed among the Char- 
 tist leaders, for reviewing and amending 
 the Cliartist organization, and celebrating 
 the anniversary of Henry Hunt. Mr. Fear- 
 
208 
 
 gus O’Connor himself required the use 
 of the chapel for that purpose, and it was 
 perfectly natural that he should do so ; 
 
 I may say so on the part of jMr. O’Con- 
 nor, though I have not the honour of 
 appearing for that gentleman, but, as Mr. 
 Sch ole field’s counsel, I may say, that 
 nothing could be more natural than 
 that Mr. O’Connor should apply to 
 an old friend, whose political opinions 
 coincided with his own, for the use of 
 the chapel, to promote a cause equally 
 dear to both. You remember the evi- 
 dence given by the witness who was 
 cross-examined by Mr. Murphy on this 
 point. You remember that at a previous 
 meeting, in consequence of the great 
 popularity of Mr. O’Connor, great crowds 
 were collected about Mr. Scholefield’s 
 house, and an obstruction caused by the 
 muititudes who were desirous of seeing 
 Mr. O’Connor. What then was more natu- 
 ral than for Mr. O’Connor to say, “ let 
 us have the use of that chapel, it is a 
 quiet place, we shall have no crowds. 
 The public peace won’t be disturbed. 
 There will be no risk.” — That is the rea- 
 son why Mr. O’Connor requested Mr. 
 Scholefield to let him have the use of that 
 chapel ; and that is the reason why Mr. 
 Scholefield did let him have the use of 
 that chapel. But it appears that during 
 that day the delegates assembled, — it ap- 
 pears that during the two periods of 
 time, at which the delegates assembled, 
 Mr. Scholefield passed through his own 
 chapel, and therefore he is to be affected 
 with a guilty knowledge of all that passed 
 there. It is not for me to say that any- 
 thing criminal occurred on that o(‘.ca- 
 sion, but whatever the guilt of other 
 persons may be — don’t let any man say, 
 that I am here to excuse guilt, but assum- 
 ing that they were guilty — Mr. Schole- 
 field had nothing to do with it. He pass- 
 ed through the chapel. He stopped to 
 gossip as he passed through — one of the 
 witnesses said to give information, but 
 that When you get further in- 
 
 forma'^^®’^ about the situation of the place, 
 ^yijl see that it was right for him to 
 .e. According to Cartledge aiud 
 be thci Scholefield was neither a 
 
 Griffin, member of the con- 
 
 delegate therefore he had no busi- 
 
 fsrence, end to their discussions. , Both 
 ness to attend Griffin, stated in answer 
 Cartlefi ^e 
 
 to questions from me, that none who were 
 not delegates were permitted to take part in 
 the discussions. Mr. Scholefield on 
 that day was busily engaged in his sur- 
 gery; he was also engaged in the, I 
 hope not very blameable, occupation, 
 of distributing soup tickets to the starving 
 poor, who crowded Iris house at the time. 
 He is one of those who has taken upon 
 him the benevolent office of providing 
 for a part of that most grievously dis- 
 tressed population. He was doing that 
 in the chapel during part of that day. 
 He had several patients coming to him 
 that day. During that day he had no 
 less than four funerals to celebrate in the 
 burial-ground attached to his premises. 
 He had a man painting at some gates 
 at the back of his premises. Mr. Scliole- 
 filed went two or three times to see how 
 the painter was going on. He had to 
 pass through the chapel several times for 
 that purpose, and that is his participation 
 in the guilt of that conspiracy. Oh, I 
 had nearly forgotten one circumstance, 
 which was again heralded in by Bell, 
 who had a great crop of information for 
 those who employed liirri. Mr. O’Connor 
 had been the guest of Mr. Scholefield. 
 Now the suspicious circumstance to which 
 I allude is this,— at eight o’clock on 
 an August morning, Mr. O’Connor was 
 actually seen coming out of the door of 
 Mr. Scholefield’s house, in Every-street, 
 getting into a cab, clandestinely, and 
 driving to the railway station, to which 
 he might have got at three o’clock in the 
 morning if he thought fit ; and if Mr. 
 O’Connor or Mr. Scholefield had been 
 conscious of any improper design, which 
 might render darkness necessary, I beg 
 to ask you, by which of those trains 
 M ould Mr. O’Connor have started ? He 
 leaves Manchester not caring for the pre- 
 sence of a policeman, at eight o’clock, 
 of an August morning. That, gentle- 
 men, is the last remaining circumstance 
 of suspicion which can be produced. I 
 am not permitted by the forms of the 
 court to appeal to Mr. O’Connor on his 
 word of honour as a gentleman. I can- 
 not by the forms of law call him as a 
 witness before you- I only Mush I could. 
 I must only call those M itnesses whom I 
 have it in my power to call. One mem- 
 ber of Mr. Scholefield’s family — his son, 
 M’ho is extremely respectable, and lives 
 
209 
 
 under his father s roof — he will tell you 
 as much as you may desire to hear. 
 With respect to the evidence given on the 
 part of th? Crown against my client, I 
 can only call witnesses from Mr. Schole- 
 field’s own family. But, if I did not call 
 a single witness, I might with confidence 
 say,~ Is this Scholefield guilty of a 
 conspiracy ? Whatever others may have 
 done — can we, as men of conscience and 
 honour, lay our hands on our hearts and 
 say, that we believe, beyond all reason- 
 able doubt, that Mr. Scholefield is guilty 
 of conspiracy. [Mr. Murphy makes a 
 a suggestion to Mr. Baines] — Yes, I am 
 much obliged to my learned friend. It 
 has escaped my recollection. It was said 
 by a witness called to-day, that he brought 
 a sovereign in, and said it was for some 
 purpose or other connected with Char- 
 tism. Now, he was treasurer to the Hunt 
 monument committee, and in that capa- 
 city, he received the sovereign. How can 
 that show that he was hound up with 
 them, in any guilty purpose whatever. 
 He had one purpose in common with 
 them, namely, the attainment of the 
 Charter, and making it the law of the 
 land ; but, he never dreamed of attaining 
 it by any other than legal and constitu- 
 tional means. Ef others have, in a mo- 
 ment of imprudence, gone beyond the 
 strict line of the law, that is not to be 
 placed to his account. That is my case, 
 and for the length to which I have tres- 
 passed on your attention, I feel that I 
 ought to apologize. 
 
 Mr. Serjeant MURPHY : — I appear 
 here for Dr. M‘Douall Thomas Railton, 
 and John Durham. May it please your 
 Jjordship ; gentlemen of the jury, if my 
 learned friend Baines, injaddressingyou on 
 the present occasion thought proper to 
 apologize for the length to which the 
 proceedings had already gone, I feel it 
 necessary to apologize likewise; for all 
 the topics to which I can direct your at- 
 tention, have been so eloquently treated 
 by my learned friend — though he merely 
 directed your attention to the case of 
 Brooke, whose interests were confided to 
 him — that I feel I should he exercising, 
 as far as my individual judgment goes, 
 perhaps a sound discretion in not address- 
 ing you at any length, for it will he ne- 
 cessary for me to travel over much of the 
 same ground that has been already taken, 
 
 and this may have the effect of weaken- 
 ing the impression already made, by that 
 which has been so eloquently and "forci- 
 bly stated by my learned friend, I must 
 s k you in the first instance — for I assure 
 you it will be my duty to make a few ob- 
 servations on the evidence adduced in 
 the course of this enquiry — it will be my 
 object to direct your attention to the evi- 
 dence pointed at my clients — thou^-h not 
 at any length— I shall not enter into that 
 discursive range of observation which se- 
 veral of the documents presented before 
 you have led my learned friends, who so 
 eloquently commented on them. But,, 
 at the same time, I would ask you to re- 
 collect this one thing — what is the na- 
 ture of the charge made to day ? Gentle- 
 men, there is nothing which, in our law 
 
 books is so clearly laid down as this 
 
 there is no class of offences with which 
 the subject can be charged so indefinite 
 in its application, so invariably spoken of 
 as a net to inveigle the unwary, as this 
 charge of conspiracy. According to the 
 definition of the law of conspiracy to be 
 found in our books, there. are classes of 
 conspiracy where, by the combination of 
 two persons to do an act which may be 
 a legal one, and which has been held on 
 the highest authority to be legal, they 
 yet may both subject themselves, accord- 
 ing to the doctrine laid down by the At- 
 torney-General to day, to this charge. If 
 the doctrine pronounced by the Attor- 
 ney-General be the correct exposition of 
 the law, then it is impossible, as was well 
 remarked by Mr. Baines, for any two per- 
 sons to act in cooncert in a matter the 
 most indifferent, where the imprudence of 
 one makes him trench on the law, with- 
 out at the same time involving the other 
 in the consequences of his act. Gentlemen^ 
 the defendants for whom I appear are 
 John Durham, Thomas Railton, and 
 Dr. M‘DoualI. I shall produce them in 
 that order, and point out the evidence as 
 it applies to the three, seriatim. First, 
 then, with regard to John Durham. It 
 is quite clear that he was a person in the 
 position of a workman. He is introduced 
 early in this transaction — about the 6th 
 or 7th of August, and associated with 
 individuals, who, at the time, broke out 
 at Stalybridge, where the strike for 
 wages first took place. It is a fact, 
 which will appear when his Lordship 
 
210 
 
 comes to recapitulate the evidence, that 
 Durham, though he was associated with 
 individuals who marched in procession, 
 and held meetings, that, upon every one 
 of those occasions, when the Charter 
 came to be discussed, he repudiated that 
 question, and always said that the ques- 
 tion for which they had met was a 
 TV’age-question. He told them that every 
 act which they were to perform was to be 
 performed in a peaceable way, and with 
 a due regard to order. Now, gentlemen, 
 if it be true that the law makes it legal 
 for workmen to combine in order to ar- 
 range between themselves and their 
 masters for what they should work, 
 then what has been the conduct of 
 Durham up to the time when those 
 meetings, at Staleybridge, took place ? — 
 the supplemental evidence I shall after- 
 wards comment upon — was not his con- 
 duct simply that of a working man, 
 dissatisfied with the wages he was re- 
 ceiving. and joining with other workmen 
 to get what they called “ a fair day’s 
 wages for a fair day ’s work ?” He met 
 and combined with them. The witness, 
 Brierly, tells you that he always repu- 
 diated the consideration of the Charter, 
 and was at those meetings for no other 
 purpose than that which the law gave 
 him a right to — to get from his master a 
 fair remuneration for his labour. That 
 w^as the conduct of Durham. Will you 
 please to recollect one piece of evidence 
 that has been submitted to you- -will you 
 recollect the evidence of Brierly, who told 
 you that the turn-out of the men, at first, 
 was not attributable to the workmen 
 themselves ? Brierly tells you — I cannot 
 tell you, but it was in the statement of 
 the witness Brierly, that at the time some 
 of the men came out, the masters told 
 them they must remain out for month ; 
 and that the masters would not take them 
 back again. Having gone out ti> get the 
 question of wages adjusted, and the mas- 
 ters having taken advantage of the turn- 
 out, and refused to receive the men back 
 to their work, what illegality w^as there in 
 his still remaining out, in confotmity with 
 the wishes of the masters ? He did no- 
 thing more than what the law allowed 
 him — fairly to try to get an advance of 
 wages. You have been told that up to 
 that time, Durham formed one of the 
 committee, to give licenses to those who 
 
 went to work. There no is single act 
 which was not an act of pefect legality. 
 And what proof is there against him 
 with regard to the question of these 
 licenses ? Is it shown on any occasion 
 that Durham said, I will give you a 
 license ?” — or that he wrote one of those 
 licenses ? Did he do more than was 
 done on former occasions, where the 
 workmen having turned out, committees 
 were appointed to adjust wages ? Have 
 you it that Durham wrote any of those 
 licenses ? — or conversed about it ? — or 
 was present when any conversation on 
 the subject took place, except that at one 
 time he said, We are too busy now to 
 attend to your application ?” Have you 
 anything against him except that when 
 the masters refused to receive the working 
 people back, he was seen at meetings at 
 which the Charter was spoken of ? And 
 at those meetings he was always for keep- 
 ing to the question of wages. With 
 regard to Railton, I do not know what 
 the evidence is w'hich tlie Attorney- 
 General brought against him. I admit 
 that his name appears in the statement 
 of Griffin and Cartledge, as having 
 been present at the meeting of delegates 
 in conference on the 17th of August. 
 Gentlemen, it would be idle in me, and, 
 as I said before, it would be weakening 
 the effect of the address of my learned 
 friends who preceded me, if I should do 
 more than merely cursorily allude to 
 what has taken place on that occasion* 
 Does it appear that any speech was 
 made by him on that occasion ? might 
 he not have been one of the minority 
 opposed to the resolution then adopted ? 
 nothing appears respecting him on the 
 whole of this evidence except that you 
 have presneted before you to day, by the 
 witnesses Cartledge and Griffin, that he 
 was present at the conference. Is it 
 necessary to come to the conclusion that 
 Railton was a guilty man, because he 
 appeared to be there ? It is quite plain 
 from a question which I asked Cartledge, 
 and which he answered very unequivocally, 
 that nothing illegal was contemplated by 
 the conference, and that they met there 
 for the purpose of reorganizing the 
 Charist body. They had seen before 
 them this mass of confusion and, riot 
 that had taken place in the manufactur- 
 ing districts, and they believe dthat the duty 
 
211 
 
 was thrown upon them, by the people 
 opposed to them, of giving a legal and 
 peaceable direction to that strike which 
 they never excited. Is it true that this strike 
 was originated by the Chartist body ? 
 Is it true that any act of theirs, was the 
 reason for the disunion that existed 
 between the work-people, and their em- 
 ployers ? Others may have gone of their 
 own accord and uttered sentiments which 
 may have been repudiated by the meet- 
 ing, but it would be hard, if, because 
 persons who afterwards came forward, as 
 witnesses went to those meetings convened 
 for the purpose of regulating wages, and 
 uttered Chartist opinions, which in a 
 vast variety of cases were repudiated — 
 it w ould be a hard case (o say that those 
 meetings were the result of a previous 
 Char tist organization. I think the 
 Attorney - General himself will admit 
 that the Chartist body — acting as a body 
 — had never done any act, which could 
 be considered as giving the most remote 
 encouragement to the strike, till their 
 attention was called to it, by the state of 
 the town of Manchester, on the 16th of 
 August. But, did the delegates meet in 
 Scholefield’s Chapel, for the purpose of 
 organizing a Chartist strike ? My friends 
 have shewn you by the evidence, that 
 they did no such thing. One of the 
 witnesses tells you — (Griffin,) that so 
 far back as the 8th of June, he himself 
 was invested with the office of secretary, 
 to carry out the celebration of the Hunt’s 
 monument — to settle differences which 
 bad sprung up between the Chartists 
 themselves, and, at the same time, to 
 investigate thoroughly the principles of 
 Chartism, so as to make the institution 
 perfectly legal. That was what Griffin 
 told you was the object of the Chartist 
 meeting. It was at a time, so far back 
 as the 8th of June, last year, that object 
 was contemplated. They deemed this a 
 solemn and proper occasion, to adjust 
 those differences existing among them as 
 to speculative opinions ; and to combine 
 for a movement, which, however unan- 
 imously they might engage in if, would 
 be distinguished by nothing but the 
 gi'eatest possible legality. Gentlemen, 
 you find that on the 9th of August, the 
 turn-outs marched to Manchester. How 
 did they come ? My learned friend Mr. 
 Dundas has disposed of that. Did they 
 
 come in military array ? Are they to be 
 regarded as coming in the array of an. 
 army, merely because they marched four 
 or five a breast ? Why have we heard so 
 much of their cudgels and sticks ? What 
 deeds of bloodshed and devastation have 
 been traced to them ? Gentlemen, what 
 has been the conduct of those men ? 
 They came to the gates of Manchester ; 
 the military are withdrawn ; the magis- 
 trate, who had the best means of taking 
 cognizance of their guise and deport- 
 ment, immediately determines that he 
 shall not obstruct them in their onward 
 course; but, looking on them as a meet- 
 ing for a legal object, and recognizing 
 that object, he tells them not to disperse 
 but directs them to a meeting in Granby* 
 row- fields. He tells them to do wha 
 every magistrate in this country had a 
 right to do — to meet and discuss anjr 
 speculative question either in the law 
 or constitution of the country. They 
 had a right to meet for such a pur« 
 pose. Up to that time no Char- 
 
 tist act was done. The trades’ unions 
 had done something, and that has 
 been paraded here to-day, and through-* 
 out the whole of this case, as if the acts 
 of the trades’ unions had been the acts 
 of the Chartist body. The Chartist body 
 had no tangible connection whatever with 
 the strike, till they issued this Executive 
 Placard, which has been so much spoken 
 of. Gentlemen, we have heard several 
 placards read here, and they have been 
 so mixed up with one another, that you, 
 no doubt, have been led to infer that 
 every one of them has been referred to 
 the Chartist body. But none of them 
 is referrible to the Chartist body up to 
 the time this placard of the Executive 
 committee had been put forth — up to 
 that time there has been nothing to show 
 that the Chartist body had been acting 
 in combination with the persons out on 
 strike. The trades’ unions had inculcated 
 peace, law, and order;” and the Charr 
 tists recognised what they were pleases 
 to call the courage ” of their brother 
 tradesmen, who were, as they thought, 
 perhaps mistakenly, oppressed by their 
 masters in the matter of wages. Peace, 
 and order,” and a fair day’s wages for 
 a fair day^’s work,” — was that the act 
 of the Chartist body ? No such thing. 
 The Chartist body never interfered tUl 
 
212 
 
 this placard came out. And with regard 
 to that placard, I have to say, standing 
 before you as the advocate of Dr. 
 McDouall — I have to impress it on your 
 minds, that the mere fact that he was amem- 
 her of the Chartist body — that fact alone, 
 coupled with the fact that the Executive 
 Committee had no great communication 
 with the Chartist body — will not be suffi- 
 cient to connect him with that placard, 
 tip to that time nothing had occurred to 
 implicate the Chartist body, but, gentle- 
 men, is there anything illegal in this 
 document ? I shall not travel over the 
 ground already taken by Mr. Dun das. 
 He has analyzed in a most masterly man- 
 ner every one of the statements in this do- 
 cument, and I shall only take leave to say, 
 that I quite concur with him, that every 
 idle statement that may assume the form 
 either of poetry or any matter of infla- 
 tion, and which may he rather strong in 
 its mode of expression, is not therefore 
 to he taken as an instigation to vio- 
 lence and outrage. You must take the 
 whole case in all its parts, and say 
 whether he has used expressions figu- 
 rative in character, or literal in ap- 
 plication, so as not to have a definite 
 meaning. If you find that expressions 
 are used evidencing a peaceful intention, 
 so that it requires an application some- 
 what distorted to give them a meaning 
 like what the prosecutor put upon them, 
 then you are not to adopt his interpreta- 
 tion. I cannot do otherwise than use, in 
 reference to this matter, the language of 
 Chief Justice Tindal, when addressing 
 the Grand Jury, in Stafford, on a similar 
 point. He said : — Gentlemen, another 
 description of offence, which will he pro- 
 bably submitted to your consideration, is, 
 exciting large masses of the people, by 
 means of seditious and inflammatory 
 speeches, to acts of violence and breaches 
 of the peace. If such charges are brought 
 forward, it will he left to your own sense 
 to distinguish between the honest decla- 
 ration of a speaker’s opinions, in a free 
 discussion on the subject on which he 
 speaks, always making full allowance for 
 the zeal of the speaker, though he may 
 somewhat exceed the just hounds of mo- 
 deration.” If any principle were better 
 reco gnised than another in this country, 
 it is the fair right of free and legal dis- 
 cussion. I believe there is nothing from the 
 
 prince to the peasant which is more than 
 another the distinctive character of Eng- 
 lishmen, than that that right does exist. 
 And if we were here to ascertain what 
 should be the test of itslegality or illegality, 
 we could not refer to anything more con- 
 clusive or germane to the feeling of the 
 law than that statement of the Chief 
 Justice. The depression under which the 
 mass of the people were labouring at the 
 time of this outbreak, was by no means 
 an idle or fanciful thing. I pray you, 
 gentlemen, do not for a moment suppose, 
 that at the time these people — misguided 
 though they be, were engaged in the 
 acts which they have committed — do 
 not suppose that the fault was all theirs, 
 and that the poverty under which they 
 laboured w^s an imaginary one. We 
 have hear^I, for the last two or three 
 years, testimony borne to the privations 
 which the people have endured with 
 such unexampled patience. We have, 
 even in the speech which her Majesty 
 herself delivered in the opening of par- 
 liament, a testimony to the manner 
 in which those sufferings were en- 
 dured ; and we have the fact, that this 
 country, which produces the greatest 
 quantity of manufactures, and which is 
 supplying the largest markets throughout 
 the habitable globe — that this country 
 has presented within the last three years, 
 as contrasted with former years, a greater 
 amount of poverty than ever the poor- 
 rates of this country bore testimony to. 
 Therefore it is not an exaggerated state- 
 ment in this placard, that labour was 
 suspended, and misery was stalking 
 through the land. I won’t, gentlemen, 
 weaken my friend’s commentary on this 
 document by seeking to go though it. 
 Was it not the fair right of those persons 
 to strike for wages ; and was it not also 
 the right of the Chartist body to give 
 that strike a fair and legal direction, 
 which was the principle running through- 
 out all their transactions. These men 
 met on the 17th of August, and after- 
 wards we find them doing every thing to 
 prevent tumult and disorder. They met 
 for the purpose, as Carried ge stated, of 
 reorganizing their own body, but recog- 
 nizing the tumult around them, and fear- 
 ing the people might break out into acts ot 
 violence and outrage, unless they got a pro- 
 per direction, they, as those persons in 
 
213 
 
 wliom the working people confided, imme- 
 diately counselled them to keep the peace, 
 and endeavour to obtain the Charter. And 
 for what purpose ? It may be that the 
 Charter was not likely to be obtained, 
 and that, if realized, it would not be a 
 
 avoid being made responsible for the acts 
 of ethers who may be associated with 
 him in pursuance of a common and law- 
 ful purpose. It is not my intention to 
 weaken the impression made upon you 
 by the evidence of those parties. I have 
 
 sonable and seditious character; by 
 v/hicli I thought it would be shewn that 
 lie was ieao'ued with the Chartist body 
 
 panacea for all those evils of which the j only to call your attention to the evidence 
 rvorking classes complained. It might | adduced against M‘ Douall. In looking 
 be that even a national holyday would j at that evidence, I find nothing except a 
 not effect this object; but to indulge in ; fact alluded to by some persons who be- 
 such a hope — to speculate on a probability ! longed to a jiublic-house, who were called 
 like that, and ask the pe ;ple to keep j before you on Saturday last. I believe 
 peace and order, that parliament might j those persons heard something of a trea- 
 be disposed to grant the Charter, which, 
 in the opinion of tlie working classes, 
 would keep the people from starving, 
 could not be called unlawful. Then, 
 gentlemen, was there any thing else 
 done by the Chartist body, besides that 
 document which they published on the 
 17th of August? but let that be con- 
 strued according to the rule laid down by 
 the Lord Chief J ustice. E xercise a fair dis- 
 cretion, as my learned friend has told you. 
 
 Read the document as it ought to be read, 
 and do not distort it for any purpose. 
 
 It is true that I represent M’Douall, and 
 that, according to the evidence, I must 
 admit, that this document is brought 
 home to him as his production. Gen- 
 tlemen, I will re-echo the sentiments of 
 Mr. Dundas, that, with the exception of 
 the last phrase — the appeal to the God 
 of justice and of battle, there is not a 
 single sentiment in that which can be 
 construed to be a sentiment of sedition. 
 
 I ask you to exercise your common sense 
 upon that, and ask yourselves if it be 
 anything more than a sort of flourishing 
 termination, introducing that epithet 
 which we know ourselves is an epithet 
 applied in our Bible to the most High. 
 
 Gentlemen, although I here represent 
 MT)ouall, I am bound to tell you, under 
 the direction of my Lord, that for his 
 own act M’Douall alone is responsible, 
 and whatever construction you may put 
 on that act, it is the party composing this 
 document that are to be answerable for 
 it. The fact of this document being 
 posted on the walls of various towns, 
 is no reason why it should be taken 
 as 
 
 for sedition. Gentlemen, it appears that 
 Dr. MDouall went to a house close to 
 Oldhain-street, one of the largest thorough- 
 fares in Manchester. He went into a 
 room called the snug, and, along with 
 others who were fre'quenters of the house, 
 he calls for refreshment, and asks for a 
 room to meet certain of his friends. At 
 three o’clock in the afternoon Mr. Fear- 
 gus O’Connor arrives. Gentlemen, let 
 me ask you is there anything so wonder- 
 ful, that a person like Mr. O’Connor, 
 who has taken so prominent a part in 
 public life, should have, when he goes in- 
 to a town like Manchester, where there 
 are so many associated with him in po- 
 litical opinions — when he goes there in 
 the open day, and not skulking like a con- 
 spirator— is it anything wonderful that 
 he should have many persons who were 
 admirers of his doctrines, and to whom, 
 perhaps, he had been before familiar, 
 crowding around him, and following him 
 to this house ? But what was the conduct 
 of Mr. O’Connor on that occasion ? Was 
 it the conduct of a person who had taken 
 a mob to follow him, to excite sedition 
 and disturbance ? In order to avoid any 
 thing of the kind, he first sends down 
 word to disperse the mob, and when the 
 mob is dispersed, he goes away by a back 
 door to another house. Is that the act 
 of a person who wishes to ci-eate a tu- 
 mult ? Was it not rather the act of a per- 
 son who desired to prevent disturbance. 
 He meets Dr. MDouall, and others of 
 an element in the language of the Chartist body, with the view of putting 
 
 those addressing the people, who 
 assembled in those localities. If that 
 were the case, it would be impossible for 
 any man at a time of great excitement to 
 
 ofi' the intended meeting and procession, 
 and other matters, for the purpose of pre- 
 venting tumult. He is seen a.fterwards 
 in company with Mr. Scholeiield and 
 
 i' 
 
214 
 
 other friends, discussing the turbulent ap- 
 pearance of the times. Was that wrong } 
 Was it not rather commendable in the 
 Chartist body, that, when these -facts 
 were brought to their notice, they should 
 do that which every well disposed sub- 
 ject was hound to do. Many others 
 would have gone with instead of oppos- 
 ing the popular movement ; but they 
 gave a peaceable direction to that move- 
 ment, and for doing this they are entitled 
 toyour commendation. Nothing is prov- 
 ed against Railton, except being present 
 at the meeting on the 17th of August. 
 Dr. McDouall, it is true, put forth that 
 placard, but he is responsible for his own 
 acts. Railton lives in Manchester. Gen- 
 tlemen, that is an observation in his fa- 
 vour. He is not shown to come from a 
 distance, or to be a delegate. But it is 
 not for me to weaken the effect of 
 the powerful statements made in the j 
 commencement of the argument by Mr. 
 Dundas. If it were not for these parties 
 who confided their interests to me, I 
 should not have addressed you, but at 
 the same time I call on you to bear in 
 mind, for you will be called on by my 
 Lord, by and bye, so to do, what is the 
 individual interference charged on these 
 parties. It is true Durham was at a 
 meeting of turn-outs, but he is never 
 shewn to be at Manchester. It is true 
 that Railton is proved to have been present 
 at the conference of delegates. It is true 
 that MDouall was in company with 
 Mr. O’Connor, and the evidence of two 
 apprentice boys shows that he is the 
 
 author of the Executive Address. I 
 have to call your attention again and 
 again to the wording of that address, and 
 to remind you of the doctrine laid down 
 in Chief Justice Tindal’s charge — that ^ 
 if a man says no more than what is ne- 
 cessary to give a fair expression to his 
 opinions in politics, however wrong may 
 be the conclusions he seeks to draw from 
 them — if he does nothing but express' 
 his own conscientious views, he is ’doing 
 what is the right of every Englishman. 
 And you have no right, because what he 
 says is uttered in a time of peculiar ex- 
 citement, and because the language bears 
 a double aspect, one of which may be 
 unfavourable to him, to give it that un- 
 favourable interpretation. But while re- 
 garding your duties as jurymen, you are 
 also to afford the best protection to that 
 liberty which you are all so interested in 
 j preserving. 
 
 Mr. BAINES then handed in some 
 placards issued by the Hunt’s monument 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I wish before 
 you adjourn, to ask your Lordship 
 whether, or no, you have a note of the 
 exact time at which the Attorney-General 
 entered his JVolle prosequi P 
 
 The JUDGE : — I am not sure. 
 
 The JUDGE then read his note of 
 the entry of the JVolle prosequi, after 
 which he adjourned the trial till the fol- 
 lowing day. 
 
 The Court adjourned at half-past six 
 o’clock. 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 JSND OF FIFTH DAT S TRIAL. 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 SIXTH DAY, 
 
 Tuesday, March 7tH, 1843. 
 
 Mr. BARON ROLFE took his seat on tlie bench this morning at nine o’clock. 
 As it was known that several of the clefendaLUs were to address the Court and Jury, 
 the attendance of spectators was unusuaily large. All the available space about the 
 bench was occupied by ladies of the highest respectability in Lancaster and its im- 
 mediate neighbourhood ; every spot throughout the Court had its attentive occupant, 
 and the effect produced by the unpremeditated eloquence of those uneducated, but 
 talented men, who conducted their own defence, was powerful in the extreme. It 
 Avould, perhaps, be invidious to point particular attention to the address of any indi- 
 vidual where all acquitted themselves so well ; but the speech of Harney will be 
 read with peculiar interest, and fully justifies the position which he occupied as the 
 first speaker. The artless and unvarnished statement of Pilling, told with thrilling 
 effect upon all who heard it. Not only the ladies, but the Jury, the Judge, and 
 even the Attorney-General himself, were affected to tears by the truthful and touching 
 address of this factory operative. Indeed, the Attorney-General was so overpowered 
 b^'-'the picture drawn by Pilling, of the distress which existed among the working- 
 classes previous to the turn-out, and the heartless cruelty which they experienced at 
 the hands of the master-manufacturers, that he was obliged to leave the Court. The 
 speeches of the other defendants will amply repay perusal. They were heard with 
 delight and satisfaction; and they fully proved that the man who is his own coun- 
 sellor has not always a fool for his client. Before we enter on the proceedings of 
 this day, we will place before our readers an abstract of the indictment, which is 
 essentially necessary to a clear understanding of what follows. 
 
 ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 “ The first count charges that the defendants, 
 with divers other evil-disposed persons unknown, 
 between the 1st of August and the 1st of October 
 last, unlawfully did conspire, confederate, and 
 agree, by causing to be brought together divers 
 unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous assemblies of 
 seditious and evil-disposed persons, and by forc- 
 ing and compelling divers other persons, and by 
 forcing and compelling divers of her Majesty’s 
 peaceable subjects, being then employed in their 
 respective trades, to desist and de[)art from their 
 work, and by divers seditious and inflammatory 
 speeches, libels, placards, and other publications, 
 
 to create alarm, discontent, and confusion, with 
 intent thereby unlawfully to effect and bring 
 about a change in the laws and constitution of 
 this realm.” 
 
 “ The second count charges the defendants with 
 wilfully conspiring, by force and violence, and 
 by creating alarm and discontent, tumult and 
 confusion, unlawfully to effect and bring about a 
 change in the laws.” 
 
 “ The third count charges the defendants with 
 having cojispired with others to aid, abet, assistr 
 comfort, support, and encourage the said cvil- 
 I disposed persons to continue and persist in the 
 
216 
 
 £aid unlawful assemblies, threats, intimidation, 
 and violence, with intent thereby to cause ter- 
 ror and alarm in the minds of the peaceable sub- 
 jects of the realm, by means of sucn terror and 
 alarm to cause and procure certain great changes 
 to be made in the constitution of this realm.” 
 
 " The fourth eount charges the said prisoners, 
 on the 1st day of August, in the year aforesaid, 
 and on divers other days and times between 
 that day and the 1st of October, in jthe year 
 aforesaid, and at divers places, divers evil-dis- 
 posed persons unlawfully and tumultuously as- 
 sembled together, and by violence, threats, and 
 intimidation to divers other persons, being then 
 peaceable subjects of this realm, forced the said 
 last-mentioned subjects to leave their occupa- 
 tions and employments, and thereby impeded 
 and stopped the labour employed in the lawful 
 and peaceable carrying on, by divers large num- 
 bers of the subjects of this realm, of certain 
 trades, manufactures, and business, and thereby 
 caused great confusion, terror, and alarm in the 
 minds of the peaceable sulvectp of this realm, 
 and that afterwards on the 1st cf August, 
 in the year aforesaid, and on divers other 
 days and times, between that day and the 
 8th of October, in the year aforesaid, at the pa- 
 rish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said 
 defendants, together with divers other evil- 
 disposed persons, to the jurors aforesaid as yet 
 unknown, did unlawfully abet, aid, assist, com- 
 fort, support, and encourage the said evil- 
 disposed persons in this count first mentioned, 
 to continue and persist in the said unlawful 
 assemblages, threats, intimidations, and violence, 
 in the said impeding and stopping of the labour 
 employed in the said trades, manufactures, and 
 businesses, with intent thereby to cause terror 
 and alaiin in the minds of the peaceable subjects 
 of this realm, and by means of such terror and 
 alarm violently and unlawfully to cause and 
 procure certain great changes to be made in the 
 constitution of this realm as by law' established, 
 against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her 
 crown and dignity.” 
 
 The fifth count charges that the defendants, 
 together with divers other evil disposed persons, 
 to the jurors aforesaid as yet unknown ; after- 
 wards, to wit, on the 1st of August, in the year 
 aforesaid, and on divers other days, betw^een that 
 daj and the 1st of October, in the year aforesaid, 
 together with divers other evil-disposed persons, 
 to the jurors as yet unknown, unlawfully did en- 
 deavour to excite her Majesty’s liege subjects to 
 disafiectios and hatred of her laws, and unlawfully 
 
 I did endeavour to persuade and encourage the said 
 liege subjects to unite, confederate, and agree to 
 leave their several and resnective employments- 
 1 and to nroduce a cessation of labour throughout 
 a large portion of this realm, w’ith intent, and in 
 order, by so doing, to bring about and produce a 
 change in the laws and constitution of the realm, 
 and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, 
 her crown and dignity.” 
 
 “ The sixth count charges the defendants for 
 unlawfully conspiring to cause divers persons to 
 assemble and meet together, and by threats and 
 violence unlawfully to force, and endeavour to 
 force, divers of Her Majesty’s peaceable subjects 
 to depart from their employment and work, against 
 the peace of the queen, &c. 
 
 Seventh, for unlawfully inciting and stirring 
 up, and endeavouring to incite and stir up, great 
 numbers of Her Majesty’s liege subjects, with 
 force of arms, unlawfully, riotously, and tumul- 
 tuously, to assemble together, and by threats, 
 violence, and intimidation, unlawfully to force 
 and endeavour to force divers of Her Majesty’s 
 subjects to depart from their hiring and work. 
 
 “ Eighth, that the defendants and divers others 
 did unlawfully meet and assemble together, with 
 clubs, sticks, and other offensive weapons, to dis- 
 turb the tranquillity, peace, and good order of 
 this realm, and in contempt of her Majesty the 
 Queen, and against her peace, her crown, and 
 dignity.” 
 
 “ Ninth, (the common count for riot) that the 
 defendants, and others unknown, did unlawfully, 
 riotously, aud tumultuously assemble and con- 
 tinue together for a long space of time, to wnt for 
 six hours or more, to the great terror of her 
 Majesty’s lieges ; then and there being in con- 
 tempt of the Queen and her laws, and against 
 the peace of the Queen, her crown, and dignity.” 
 
 We have given the fourth and hftli 
 counts at full length, because they are 
 the most important, as will be seen from 
 tbe subsequent proceedings, particularly 
 the summing up. 
 
 Immediately after his Lordship had 
 taken his seat, 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON rose and said, I 
 would take this opportunity, my Lord, of 
 asking the Attorney-General, w'hether he 
 has come to the conclusion of abandon- 
 ing any of the counts in the indictment. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GEN ERAL 
 My Lord, I do not mean to proceed upon 
 the two last counts, but on looking at the 
 sixth and seventh, it appears to me neces- 
 sary to retain them. I think them ex- 
 tremely important with reference to some 
 
217 
 
 of the convictions which have previously 
 taken place — I mean at Chester and 
 Livei-pool. In reality they have nothing 
 whatever lo do with riot. 
 
 The JUDGE Very well. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — May it please 
 your Lordship ; gentlemen of the jury, I 
 have the honour of appearing before you 
 on behalf of the defendants James and 
 William Stephenson, and although my 
 learned friend who preceded me occu- 
 pied ground common to the interests of 
 the clients entrusted to my care, v'ith 
 those of the other defendants, and thus 
 relieved me of a considerable portion of 
 my labour, still you will find that there 
 is some distinction between the case of 
 my clients, and that of some of the other 
 defendants; therefore it will be necessary 
 for me to occupy some part of your time. 
 And well content will I be, and abun- 
 dantly satisfied will my clients have rea- 
 son to feel the^elves, should they meet 
 at your hano^vith the same degree 
 of attention which you have hitherto 
 given to the case. In the able and tem- 
 perate address with which Her Majesty’s 
 Attorney-General ushered in this case — 
 (and I call it an important address) — he 
 called your attention to events of an ap- 
 palling and extraordinary character which 
 occurred in Manchester during the re- 
 cent disturbances. It vras shown that at 
 that time the busy hum of machinery in 
 that hive of industry was stilled, all H- 
 bour was suspended, and a silence equally 
 immense and uniwfersal pervaded that and 
 the neighbouring districts. This state of 
 tilings is described with no less truth and 
 vividness in the Executive Address. It 
 has been shown to you, that bands of 
 persons were pervading the country, and 
 though little actual violence occurred, 
 doubtless by the terror of their presence 
 causing a cessation of labour. You have 
 heard of a few instances in M'hicli colli- 
 sions took place between the people and 
 the constituted authorities, and, I regret 
 to say, that the events out of which this 
 enquiry arose did not pass over without 
 some bloodshed. You have heard that 
 in one town — the town of Preston — En- 
 glishmen fell by the arms of British sol- 
 diers in the shadow of their own houses, 
 in the presence of their wives, their chil- 
 dren and their friends. Can an enquiry 
 of this kind be at all exaggerated in its i 
 
 importance ? You will agree with me 
 that it is an important enquiry, and I am 
 sure you will give it all the considera- 
 tion that its importance demands, and all 
 the sympathy which the disastrous situa- 
 tion ill which my clients are placed espe- 
 cially claims at your hands. There is one 
 circumstance attached to this case, indi- 
 cative of great importance — a circum- 
 stance which I cannot advert to without 
 gratification, and for which I have to 
 thank the Attorney-General. I have the 
 honour of addressing a special jury of 
 this great and intelligent country ; and 
 though special jurors, you know, do not 
 belong to what we term — (to use the 
 words winch have been too familiar in the 
 course of this investigation) — though 
 they do not belong to the class to which 
 the defendants belong — though you 
 are the possessors of capital — the owners 
 of accumulated property, w'hose w'orth 
 arises from their exertions, still it is 
 hardly a compliment to say that the case 
 of these men withoutcapital,and depending 
 on their labour for subsistence, will receive 
 at your hands as attentive a consideration 
 of their case, as if their own confederates 
 were sitting on the jury. When I con- 
 sider the magnitude and complexity of 
 this case, and the number of its details 
 from the shape in which it was presented 
 to you, I cannot but congratulate my 
 clients and myself that we have in that 
 box that intelligence, and those abilities 
 for patient investigation for which your 
 ordinary pursuits so eminently qualify 
 you. Gentlemen, on behalf of my clients 
 I thank the crown — I thank the prose- 
 cution — for this particular exercise of the 
 prerogative. If ever there was a case in 
 which it became a jury who had to try 
 the facts of the case to be wary before 
 they pronounced a verdict of guilty on 
 the accused, it is the present. I would 
 not weary you with a thrice told tale — I 
 would not v/eary you by adverting to 
 circumstances to which your attention 
 has been already directed, but there is one 
 point of such great moment that it ap- 
 pears to me you cannot too carefully con- 
 sider it. You have been told of the 
 extraordinary nature of this indictment. 
 You have fifty-nine people put into one 
 indictment, and charged substantially 
 with one offence. I do not say that that 
 of itself is hardship to the defendants. 
 
218 
 
 but I say it is a circumstance which 
 ought to make you the more careful to 
 see that every individual against whom 
 you shall find it your duty to pronounce 
 a verdict of guilty (supposing you shall 
 find it your duty to do so at all) is clearly, 
 and satisfactorily connected with the crime 
 which the Executive charges upon him. 
 Gentlemen, you know that, in ordinary 
 cases, a man charged with a specific of- 
 fence is answerable for his own acts and 
 'words alone ; or if his responsibility is 
 extended he is held responsible only for 
 the language of others spoken in his 
 presence, and no disclaimer uttered on 
 his part. In that case he is held, in 
 law, to participate in such language. But 
 what have we here ? Fifty-nine people of 
 different occupations — living in different 
 places — shown to have acted in different 
 places — remote from each other — without 
 personal communication — many of whom 
 never saw each other — all brought to- 
 gether in this indictment, which charges 
 them with a conspiracy. You, gentle- 
 men, cannot have failed to perceive that, 
 from time to time, evidence w'as given of 
 words and transactions out of the hearing 
 — far out of the sight of those against 
 whom the proof was offered. You will 
 recollect, gentlemen, that an exception 
 was taken to such evidence by those to 
 whom the defence of those charged in 
 the indictment was entrusted, and you 
 will recollect that my Lord overruled 
 the objection, and rightly, deciding that 
 the admissibility of the evidence arose 
 from the nature of this charge. For the 
 charge is such, gentlemen, that a man re- 
 mote from the scene of action — even slum- 
 bering on his bed, may be made respon- 
 sible for the sentiments and acts of a man 
 whom he never saw, or whose sentiments 
 he never heard. Mr. Baines spoke the 
 truth, and expressed the truth aptly, when 
 he designated the indictment as a mon- 
 strous indictment ; I stand not here, on 
 behalf of my clients, to offer puling com- 
 plaints on any subject, but I say the na- 
 ture of the charge as preferred by the go- 
 vernment is such as to call on you to ex- 
 ercise the most extraordinary vigilance — 
 vigilance as uncommon,if I may so speak, 
 as the form of the indictment is unusual 
 — before you determine that any particu- 
 lar defendant is guilty of the charge 
 against him. Do I need to add a word 
 as to the necessity of caution in this 
 
 proceeding ? If I did, I would advert 
 to the circumstance that this is a govern- 
 ment prosecution. My clients, and 
 the majority of the defendants, are poor 
 men, without great means of defence 
 — without the means of scouring the 
 country for intelligence and witnesses 
 to contradict the evidence adduced on 
 behalf of the prosecution. The defen- 
 dants are opposed by the government of 
 the country ; and you will have observed 
 — and I have observed it with gratifica- 
 tion — that no expense has been spared — 
 that great pains have been taken to pro- 
 cure evidence against the defendants. 
 The country has been scoured for that 
 purpose, from one extremity to the other,, 
 and you, have presented to you a com- 
 plete picture of the unfortunate state in 
 which a great part of this county, and 
 some of the adjoining counties, were placed 
 in August last. If ever there w^as a time 
 more than another whema jury could* 
 prove themselves valiiablei tb an English- 
 man it is the present. If ever there was 
 a time when an Englishman put upon 
 his trial had a right to look more particu- 
 larly with confidence to the intdligent at- 
 tention, and the shielding office of the 
 jury than on any other occasion, it is the 
 present, in which the parties charged at 
 the bar are weak subjects, and the prose- 
 cutor the Crown, represented by the go- 
 vernment, is strong and powerful. Hav- 
 ing made these observations, I will now 
 advert to some of the evidence laid 
 before you. I will begin by calling 
 attention to a few facts about which there 
 can be no dispute — which I will call facts 
 proved in the prosecution. These facts 
 are of such a nature that I am called up- 
 on to dwell shortly on them, on behalf of 
 my clients. Now, gentlemen, the first 
 fact, which I cannot but consider estab- 
 lished beyond dispute, is this, that the 
 unfortunate strike — I call it unfortunate — 
 not that it was wicked in its conception, 
 but that in some of its results it was de- 
 plorable— this strike did not originate 
 with the Chartists. It was said recently, 
 by a high legal authority, that he 
 could take no judicial cognizance of 
 a Chartist; but it became necessary, 
 from the nature of this proceeding, that 
 a Chartist should be defined to you, an'd 
 that you should be made to know, by 
 legal evidence, what Chartism is, I think 
 it has been fully shown to you that the 
 
219 
 
 Chartists are seeking some political 
 change. It is equally manifest that the 
 strike did not originate with them. The 
 strike originated, so far as its origin is 
 developed, (and I think we may safely 
 assume this to he the case,) with the 
 workmen who were dissatisfied with the 
 wages w'hich they received from their 
 employers. Some of the witnesses called 
 before you, who belonged to that class 
 of masters called manufacturers, did not 
 seem ready to admit that wages were at 
 a very low ebb. But I may put it to 
 your knowledge and experience — indeed 
 I may offer it as a matter of notoriety — 
 that wages, at all events, w^ere so low in 
 the eyes of the workmen as to make them 
 dissatisfied. .But whether they were re- 
 ceiving, or not, an adequate remuneration 
 for their labour, was a questien which 
 they had a right to deliberate upon — 
 they had a right to adopt such views 
 as they thought proper, and settle the 
 matter by the rfSeans to which they had 
 recourse, namely, the strike. You have 
 heard it stated, over and over again, that 
 there was nothing illegal in a strike on 
 the part of the workmen. It is satisfac- 
 tory to me, and it must be so to you, 
 also, to know that this strike did not 
 originate from any political motives, and 
 cannot be traced to the Chartists. Be- 
 cause, if it could be shown that persons 
 professing to have in view a political 
 motive, sought to obtain that object by 
 inducing a large body of men to cease 
 from labour, that would be a most ha- 
 zardous and imprudent experiment. It 
 is, however, unquestionably proved that 
 this strike did not originate with the 
 Chartists, but was the act of the workmen 
 themselves. The indictment charges, that 
 the defendants did certainly act, in 
 themselves, illegally, for the purpose of 
 bringing about a change in the law ; 
 and it was manifest, from the address of 
 the Attorney-General at the commence- 
 ment, and has been abundantly proved 
 in the progress of this case, that the 
 change in the law, referred to in the in- 
 dictment, is that change called the Peo- 
 ple’s Charter. So that you have many 
 of these defendants charged with certain 
 acts done by them, with the intention 
 of bringing about a specific change for 
 the purpose of making the People’s 
 Charter the law of the land. Novv’, it 
 
 has been said, and said with truth, that 
 you are not empanelled to try the rea- 
 sonableness, fanaticism, or impropriety 
 of those opinions entertained by Char- 
 tists. Whether they are reasonable, or 
 irrational, is not the question submitted 
 to your consideration ; but knowing how 
 difficult it is for the most practised and 
 astute mind, while considering such ques- 
 tions, to divest themselves of prejudice, I 
 think it is of importance that, you should 
 bear in mind what that change really is, 
 
 I which the body of men called Chartists 
 i seek. The six propositions, in which are 
 I embodied the doctrines of the people call- 
 ing themselves Chartists, have been proved 
 to you — the}' are, universal suffrage — vote 
 i by ballot — annual parliaments — electoral 
 districts — no property qualification for 
 members — and payment of members. 
 Now, gentlemen, there is nothing mon- 
 strous, nothing alarming in these doc- 
 trines ; there is nothing in them which a 
 man of education, or a man of property, 
 a man of stake in the country might not 
 patiently and deliberately^ look in the 
 face, and which may^ not be admitted 
 amongst the most orderly^ and rational 
 Englishmen as fair matter for debate. 
 Had it come out in the course of this 
 investigation, that the doctrines of the 
 Charter would lead in their probable and 
 necessary results to the confiscation of 
 property — the destruction of education— 
 or the endangering of life, or any out- 
 rageous ends of this description, I cannot 
 but feel that my clients, being identified 
 with such opinions, might, in the minds 
 of reasonable men, to a certain extent, be 
 injured. But it has been shewn that 
 the opinions these men entertained are 
 reasonable opinions. I need not remind 
 you, from the knowledge you possess of 
 recent political events, that there is not a 
 sinttle proposition in the Charter that has 
 not met with defenders amongst men the 
 higliest in rank, the most wealthy^ men 
 of the greatest mental cultivation and of 
 tlie most powerful influence among their 
 fellows. Take the three cardinal points 
 of the Charter — annual parliaments, uni- 
 versal suffrage, and vote by ballot. Were 
 not these propositions maintained by men 
 such as I have described, and from year 
 to year presented to a large and intelli- 
 gent constituency — as large and intelli- 
 gent a constituency as any in this country 
 
— I mean tbe constituency of the Citv of 
 '"estminster — were not these the propo- 
 sitions which Sir Francis Burdett and 
 Sir John Hobhouse, from year to year, 
 brought before their constituencies ? 
 If these opinions were promulgated by 
 such men, and before such constituencies, 
 are they to be held as in themselves 
 l^erilous when such men as the defendants 
 maintain and propound them ? The 
 ballot is no beggarly Jack Cade doc- 
 trine, taken up only by those who had no 
 property. The man who above all others 
 distinguished himself on that question is 
 no sans culotfe, but one of the prince- 
 merchants of Lombard-street, I mean 
 Mr. Grote. I need hardly refer to a 
 noble lord, possessing the highest dignity 
 in the profession to which we belong — a 
 peer in the upper senate house — I mean 
 Lord Brougham, — a man whom we would 
 not suspect of taking up any crude or 
 preposterous doctrine in politics, — he is 
 in favour of the ballot. I may also refer 
 to the name of a great jurist and philo- 
 sopher, who spent a long life in the inves- 
 tigation of political topics — Jeremy Beii- 
 tham — I may safely say, that from the 
 knowledge I possess of the works of that 
 man, that there is not a single pointing 
 this much maligned Charter which he did 
 not defend and enforce, in the works 
 which he has left to posterity. It is not 
 necessary that I should exhaust the recent 
 history of political men and parties in 
 this country, I have only adverted to these ' 
 things for the purpose of shewing, what 
 your o>vn experience and knowledge will . 
 confirm, that there is not a single propo- 
 sition in the Charter which is not ap- ; 
 proved of by men n hose researches and | 
 experience entitle their opinions to the 
 greatest weight; and whose motjves are, ■ 
 as far as possible, removed from suspicion. | 
 Gentlemen, though you are not met here 
 to consider the right or the wrong ofi 
 these opinions, yet it is consolatory to ' 
 know, that these are the doctrines of 
 the Charter; and that they are such' 
 doctrines that tlie mooting them ' 
 may be harmless, and perfectly con- 1 
 sistent with the peace, law, order, and ! 
 prosperity of these realms. There is ' 
 another thing to which I have still' 
 greater pleasure to advert, and which ! | 
 must do the Attorney-General the justice | 
 to sav that he brought pi'ominently before i 
 
 you in his opening address— I mean the 
 comparative absence of outrage and vio- 
 lence, during a time of great excitement, 
 and emergencies of the most appalling 
 character. I cannot in this respect go 
 beyond what was stated by the Attorney- 
 General — I could not if I were inclined 
 put it half so forcibly, and, therefore, I 
 conclude my observations on this part of 
 the case, by using his words : — There 
 can be no doubt, that, if any attempt of 
 this sort was to be again made, it perhaps 
 could not be made with more resp'fect for 
 property and for life than what it generally 
 did obtain, even where violence was used. 
 I should, gentlemen, hear willing testi- 
 mony to the forbearance and moderation 
 that frequently appeared, even in the 
 midst of the lawless acts that were com- 
 mitted. The boldest defiance of the law 
 v.ms accompanied by a respect for life and 
 property.” Gentlemen, if you bear in 
 mind the immense ternitory over which 
 those disturbances extended and the great 
 numbers of people who assembled from 
 time to time — if you take all these circum- 
 stances into consideration, you cannot 
 fail to be surprised, and to congratulate 
 yourselves as Englishmen, on the compara- 
 tiv’ely trivial violence offered to life and 
 pi operty. Gentlemen, there is another cir- 
 cumstance which I also think is also beyond 
 dispute, and which materially affects one 
 class ofdefendants,! mean that class called 
 conference delegates; fori may as well take 
 occasion now — indeed it is incumbent on 
 me — (not so much on the learned gentle- 
 man who preceded me) — to call atten- 
 tion to two classes of individuals ; — the 
 conference delegates who assembled in 
 Manchester, and the persons who were 
 called turn-outs, two of whom I represent. 
 I mean by turn-outs” those who were 
 connected with the movement which 
 preceded the meetings in Manchester. 
 With respect to the former class of de- 
 fendants, who are all bound up together, 
 though I represent, specially, the turn- 
 outs, yet my clients are interested in the 
 acquittal of all the parties chargecT in the 
 acts of the conference. The meeting at 
 Manchester was projected long before the 
 strike. I am aware that it may be replied 
 to this, “ I’rue, this meeting was ac- 
 cidental, and it may be an accident which 
 brought them together, but, being present 
 at the time they took advantage of the 
 
221 
 
 circumstance of the strike, and abused 
 it.” But at all events (for I defy the 
 Attorney-General to say that he has de- 
 monstrated the guilt of any one individual 
 on this indictment) in considering the 
 question propounded, of conspiracy, or 
 no conspiracy, it is certainly of the greatest 
 moment that you should bear in mind, 
 that that meeting called a conclave — that 
 meeting at which, it is alleged, parties 
 conspired, and to which the acts in fur- 
 therance of the conspiracy is traced — it 
 is of the greatest importance for you to 
 consider that that meeting was not called 
 to further the strike, but was an* acci- 
 dent — a coincidence merely. The only 
 remaining circumstance which, it ap- 
 pears to me, has been proved beyond 
 dispute, and to which it is necessary to 
 call your attention before I come to the 
 charge, is this : — that whatever may have 
 been the designs of the conference (and 
 for aught that appears in evidence, I say 
 they were innocent, and even laudable) 
 and whatever may have been the ten- 
 dency of this publication [the Executive 
 placard] it is gratifying to know, that 
 they were attended with no evil result. 
 It has been proved to you that, on some 
 days preceding the 17th of August, vio- 
 lence had taken place. That had been 
 elicited in the course of the examination 
 of some of the early witnesses. Whe- 
 ther it was an after-thought on the part 
 of those engaged in the prosecution, or 
 whether it was justified by the cross-ex- 
 amination, it is not for me to say ; but, 
 certainly, towards the close of the case, 
 witnesses were called from different loca- 
 lities to prove, that violence had taken 
 place in various parts of the country 
 after the 17th of August. Gentlemen, 
 if isolated cases of outrage have been 
 proved to exist in different parts of the 
 country subsequent to that period, you, 
 surely, will not allow your minds to be 
 influenced by facts of that description. 
 You will consider whether it was preva- 
 lent at a particular period ; and you will 
 recollect that the delegates • met for an 
 object alien to the strike. You will per- 
 ceive that the general state of things 
 after the publication of this address, was 
 pacific ; and when you come to look at 
 the documents on which this charge of 
 conspiracy is found to be supported, you 
 will find that their tendency was pacific. 
 
 So that the delegates ought to be consi- 
 dered as having been engaged in a lau- 
 dable undertaking, and as having acted 
 the part of peace-makers, than otherwise. 
 I now come to the charge contained in 
 this extraordinary indictment, and I 
 should have felt myself — and we should 
 have all felt ourselves — relieved from pain- 
 ful embarrassments if the crown, what- 
 ever may be the strict meaning of the 
 law, had taken advantage of the sugges- 
 tion of my Lord, (which would not re- 
 quire the exercise of very extraordinary 
 magnanimity) and confined the charge 
 to one count. That, however, is not the 
 case, and you have now for your consi- 
 deration some six or seven counts, and to 
 these I will briefly call your attention. 
 You will perceive that the first four 
 counts alone, (I think I may safely say 
 so) are those upon which it will be 
 sought to fix the defendants — especially 
 the conference of delegates — these are 
 the- only political counts on the face of 
 the record. In each of tliese four counts 
 certain acts are charged, but in each 
 count it is also stated that the acts 
 imputed were done to bring about a 
 change in the laws of the realm. The 
 first count charges that the defendants, 
 with divers other evil-disposed persons un- 
 known, between the 1st of August and 
 the 1st of October last, unlawfully did 
 conspire, confederate, and agree, by 
 causing to be brought together divers un- 
 lawful, tumultuous, and riotous assem- 
 blies of seditious and evil-disposed per- 
 sons, and by forcing and compelling 
 divers other persons, and by forcing and 
 compelling divers of her majesty’s peace- 
 able subjects, being then employed in 
 their respective trades, to desist and de- 
 part from their work, and by divers se- 
 ditious and inflammatory speeches, libels, 
 placards, and other publications, to create 
 alarm, discontent, and confusion, with 
 intent thereby unlawfully to effect and 
 bring about a change in the laws and 
 constitution of this realm. The second 
 count recites truly that great alarm existed 
 in the country, and charges the defendants 
 with wilfully conspiring, by force and 
 violence, and by creating alarm and dis- 
 content, tumult and confusion, unlawfully 
 to effect and bring about a change in the 
 laws. The third count states the offence, 
 and then charges the defendants with 
 
222 
 
 having conspired with others to aid, abet, 
 assist, comfort, support, and encourage 
 the said evil-disposed persons to continue 
 and persist in the said unlawful assem- 
 blies, threats, intimidation, and violence, 
 with intent thereby to cause ten'or and 
 alarm in the minds of the peaceable sub- 
 jects of the realm, by means of such 
 terror and alarm to cause and procure 
 certain great changes to be made in the 
 constitution of this realm. The fourth 
 count is substantially the same as the 
 third. Now, Gentlemen, consider for a 
 moment these counts, and you will find 
 that the defendants are charged with an 
 intention ultimately to make the acts 
 which they did subservient to the 
 bringing about a change in the laws, 
 and you know what that change is. 
 Each of the first four counts is levelled 
 against the Chartists. Each of these 
 (coupling the counts with the evidence) 
 charges certain persons with an attempt to 
 make, by force. Chartist doctrines the laws 
 of the land. I must call your attention 
 particularly to this point ; that, in each 
 of the counts force — force, direct or in- 
 direct force — is charged upon the defen- 
 dants. It is not that they sought, by 
 some means or other, to bring about a 
 change, for that would undoubtedly be 
 absurd on the face of it — a man has a 
 right to maintain the views expressed in 
 the charter, and by all lawful means to 
 make these the law. In order to make 
 this a crime on the face of the indictment, 
 it was necessary to allege some unlawful 
 act on their part, by which they sought 
 this legitimate end. That act is force. 
 You will observe it is alleged that they 
 conspired by unlawful assemblies, and 
 by compelling a cessation of labour,” to 
 make the charter the law of the land. 
 The second count says they conspired 
 by force and alarm” to bring about a 
 change in the law ; the third count, which 
 is a very prominent one, and on which 
 the prosecution would mainly rely as af- 
 fecting the conference of delegates, states 
 the existence of tumults and violence, and 
 the stopping of works, and charges the 
 defendants with a conspiracy to abet those 
 guilty of tumults in order to brin^ about 
 such a change as will make the Charter 
 the law of the land. Having stated that 
 a cessation from work having been caused 
 by the application of force and violence. 
 
 the count goes on to charge the defen- 
 dants with a conspiracy to abet that force 
 and violence, and so to continue the com- 
 pulsorjg and therefore illegal, cessation of 
 labour. The fourth count is substantially 
 the same as the third, only that instead of 
 charging that the defendants conspired 
 to abet those guilty of violently causing 
 others to cease from work, it simply 
 charges that the defendants abetted those 
 persons so engaged to continue and per- 
 sist in such violent conduct, in order to 
 effect certain changes in the constitution. 
 Now, gentlemen, I beg of you to bear 
 this in mind with respect to the charge 
 in these four counts, — which I may call 
 the political charge in the indictment — 
 in each of these counts the defendants 
 are charged directly or indirectly with 
 force, and it will not be sufficient for you 
 to be satisfied of what I may consider 
 to be a fact, that the persons, "who are 
 brought before you as the conference of 
 delegates, professed Clrartist doctrines, 
 and having found a cessation of labour, 
 they thought proper to counsel the con- 
 tinuance of that cessation from labour 
 until the Charter became the law of the 
 land — it is not thrown upon you to en- 
 quire whether that was legal or not — 
 probably you will consider that that was 
 done ; but, although you may be of 
 opinion that that was done by the con- 
 ference of delegates, your conviction of 
 that fact is not sufficient (and I say it 
 under the correction of my Lord) to war- 
 rant you in finding the conference of de- 
 legates guilty of these four counts. You 
 must be satisfied that these men, knowing 
 of the existence of a forcible and com- 
 pulsory cessation from labour, aid in 
 continuing that forcible compulsion and 
 cessation, before you find a verdict of 
 guilty on any one of these four counts. 
 I will not weary you by going over the 
 Executive Address, (the alleged authors 
 of which, by’- the way, are in no way con- 
 nected with the conference of delegates,) 
 or the Conference Address. This has 
 already been commented upon in a man- 
 ner far more able than it would be in my 
 power to do; but I do say this, — and I 
 say it with respect to the Conference 
 Address, which you will recollect ap- 
 peared in the Northern Star, and which 
 has been already read to you, — I do say, 
 that, looking at that Address, and I par- 
 
223 
 
 tieularly call your intention to it now, — 
 it is impossible for you, sitting there, as 
 the Atlorney-Generd said, to find only 
 those guilty of whose guilt you can have 
 no reasonable doubt ; I say it is impos- 
 sible for you, thus deliberating*, to say 
 that that address counselled such a forcible 
 continuance of the strike, as [ contend 
 before you and my Lord these counts 
 charge. And upon this part of the case 
 I shall seek — whether the Attorney- 
 General shall object to my doing so or 
 not I cannot tell — I shall seek to read, in 
 aid of the construction which I have pre- 
 sented to you in reference to the Con- 
 ference Address, which appeared in the 
 J^orthern Star, some extracts from arti- 
 cles which appeared in the same publi- 
 cation for the purpose of disproving the 
 violent tendency of the particular address 
 read to you. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — 
 You mean from the J^Torthern Star ? 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL 
 M 3 ’’ Lord, I cannot object to an 3 ' general 
 evidence of the character of the defendant 
 who is on his trial for a particular offence, 
 the tendency of which evidence is to 
 show that he generally bore a different 
 character. The jury may take that into 
 their consideration in the event of finding 
 it necessary to look at his character. My 
 Lord, I am extremely happy that my 
 learned friend has called attention to it, 
 but I must object to particular publica- 
 tions of a particular kind being given in 
 evidence. 1 myself in the opening en- 
 deavoured to do justice to Mr. O’Con- 
 nor’s general character. I do not know 
 that my learned friend appears for him, 
 but I endeavoured to do justice to him, for 
 I would not suppress an 3 'thing favourable 
 to any-defendant. I stated that up to a 
 certain period— the 20th of August, the 
 tendency of Mr. O’Connor’s writings in 
 the JVorthern Star was, I believed, op- 
 posed to the course charged in that in- 
 dictment ; and 1 have permitted the wit- 
 ness who was a reporter for that paper, 
 to give in evidence that the object and 
 scope of the writings in the Northern 
 Star, up to the 20th of August last, were 
 opposed to any violation of the peace. 
 But I must object — your Lordship will 
 say whether correctly or not in point of 
 law — to any specific publication, whether 
 
 at one time or another, being produced. 
 A private letter addressed to London or 
 elsewhere cannot explain a particular 
 act done by a party on the same day. 
 If my learned friend wishes to go beyond 
 the general statement which I have made 
 respecting Mr. O’Connor’s writings in the 
 Star, then, although I would give every 
 indulgence, and as far as is consistent 
 with my duty allow everything to go 
 before the jury, I must object to any 
 particular acts or expressions at whatever 
 time done being laid before the jury. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON My Lord, I ask 
 to read, in this part of the case, an article 
 from the Northern Star of the date which 
 has been put in. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL 
 From the Northern Star of the 20th of 
 August ? 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON:— Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — O ! that is from the 
 same paper put in by the Attorney-Ge- 
 neral. I thought it was from the Morning 
 Star. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL:— 
 Some doubt ma}’’ be raised as to whether 
 that can be done. 
 
 The JUDGE : — As a rule of law it 
 cannot necessarily be laid down, but the 
 question is, whether, taking the whole to- 
 gether, it is not quite of a different cha- 
 racter. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON:— I understand 
 the Attorney-General relieves me from 
 the necessity of contending for one point. 
 He admits that the general tone of the 
 paper up to a certain period was pacific. 
 I propose now to read an extract from 
 the very paper containing the address 
 proved on the part of the prosecution. 
 That surel}’^ cannot be objected to. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I wish to guard my- 
 self against making any concession when 
 I say it is very reasonable that the arti- 
 cle should be admitted ; but it does not 
 follow that because a certain article is in 
 the same paper, it necessarily qualifies 
 that which the prosecution charges as in- 
 flammatory. I think you have a right to 
 read the whole to show what the meaning of 
 that article was. I do not object to your 
 reading anything from that paper. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON :— Gentlemen of 
 thejur}’^, it will be in your recollection 
 that the conference of delegates were not 
 fixed with any direct personal participa- 
 
224 
 
 tion in those proceedings. It was not 
 contended that they were part of the 
 tumultuous assemblies, or part of the 
 people w'ho stormed the workhouse at 
 Stockport, or turned out the hands at 
 Ashton, Hyde, or elsewhere ; but it was 
 said that these things having been done, 
 the conference delegates met at Man- 
 chester, and by their publications aided 
 and abetted others who were taking an 
 active part in these outrages. It was not 
 charged on these delegates that they did 
 this, by speeches, in Manchester and 
 elsewhere ; but certain placards and pub- 
 lications emanating, or supposed to ema- 
 nate, from those delegates were brought 
 before you, and on the tendency of those 
 documents the crown relied for the pur- 
 pose of fixing the defendants in question. 
 Now, gentlemen, it is most material that 
 you should consider what your attention 
 has been more than once called to, namely, 
 the construction of the paper put in. If, 
 looking carefully and dispassionately at 
 these documents, and considering the 
 lime and nature of this prosecution, 
 you find it without any reasonable doubt 
 proved to your minds that they have the 
 tendency ascribed to them by the prose- 
 cution, then find such of the defendants 
 as you can connect with them guilty ; 
 but if the construction of these documents 
 be doubtful, then, according to the gene- 
 j-al rule, give the defendants the benefit 
 of that doubt. If I can show to you that 
 ihe. Northern Star, which I think we may 
 lake as the Chartist organ, had, up to the 
 period in which this address appeared, 
 counselled peace, law, and order, then you 
 will, it appears to me. be doing injustice 
 to the defendants if you pul so harsh a 
 construction on the address as the prose- 
 cution sought to lead you to. Now, gen- 
 tlemen, with that view, I shall proceed 
 to read an extract from the paper in 
 which the conference address appeared. 
 I say, that conference address may have 
 counselled the continuance of the strike — 
 it may have counselled the people out of 
 work, to remain out of work, but it did 
 not counsel that which the indictment 
 charges — violent or tumultuous , assem- 
 blies for the purpose of obtaining a 
 change in the laws and constitution. I 
 shall now read the extract to which I 
 have alluded : — 
 
 “Our opinion on the means now used for its 
 
 j attainment by the tra^ of Manchester, was 
 I registered three year^ That opinion has 
 
 ^ undergone no change. A cessation from labour 
 to be effectual to the carrying of any political ob- 
 ject, must be national and simultaneous ; it can- 
 not then fail to be successful, because it indicates 
 the nation's will, against which, in its full 
 strength, whether positively, or thus negatively- 
 manifested, no power can stand; but a mere 
 sectional display of this most decisive of all the 
 forms of moral force, like a mere sectional dis- 
 play of physical resistance, is sure to be over- 
 powered by the strength of faction, consisting in 
 its immense wealth and its organized physical 
 resources." 
 
 The AITORNEY - GENERAL 
 Let us see whether this is the paper of 
 the 20th of August. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What part of the pa- 
 per is it in. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL 
 Your Lordship has a copy of the paper. 
 
 The JUDGE : — How does it begin. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON This, ray Lord, 
 seems to begin in the middle. 
 
 I'he AITORNEY - GENERAL 
 It was, my Lord, because it began in the 
 middle that I wanted to see what went be- 
 fore it. 
 
 The JUDGE. — Just see how it be- 
 gins. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON: — Our opinion 
 on the means now used”. — [The learned 
 Judge having occupied several minutes 
 looking for the beginning of the article? 
 without being able to find it] 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON said: -Then, my 
 Lord, I won’t delay the court. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I 
 dare say, my Lord, what has just been 
 suggested to me is true ; — that it appeared 
 in a second edition of the 20tb, being a 
 reprint of something that appeared in the 
 paper of the 13th. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I can set the 
 Attorney-General right. It appeared in 
 the third edition of the 13tli, and the 
 first of the 20th, aod therefore we can- 
 not find it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is the third edition 
 I have got. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— 
 My Lord, this appears to be the first 
 edition which I have in my hand. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR -.—Here it is, Mr. 
 Attorney-General, headed — " From our 
 third edition of last week.” 
 
225 
 
 The JUDGE What page is it ? 
 
 The ATTORNh^Y-GENERAE:— 
 This is on page eight, Hfth column, at 
 the bottom. — “ From our third edition 
 of last week — Further progress. No7’- 
 thern Star olSce, Saturday morning, tw o 
 o’clock.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is not in the third 
 edition, then. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR;— It is not, my 
 Lord. It is in the third edition of the 
 13th, and the first edition of the 20th. 
 
 The ATTORNE Y- GENERAL:— 
 Although it is not in the paper before 
 your Lordship, as it is in that I have in 
 my hand, my learned friend may read 
 it to you. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON:— In the first pa- 
 per published after the 16th of August, 
 the day on which the alleged conspi- 
 racy took place, you have the following 
 expressions :— Adverting to the strike, 
 and the necessity for its being general, 
 in order that it might be available for 
 political ends, the wu'iter proceeds : — 
 
 If then the strike is to be a Chartist strike, 
 it must become universal : not merely Manches- 
 ter, but every town in England, Wales, and 
 Scotland, must at once — as one man and with one 
 voice — declare the purpose of the people to be 
 free ; and such a declaration will be to those 
 whom it concerns the fiat of omnipotence. But 
 if Manchester, or even Lancashire, sustain the 
 struggle singly, it will be unsuccesful, and, in all 
 probability, retard the movement it was meant 
 to hasten. Let the country see to this ; the men 
 of Lancashire have done nobly ; let their breth- 
 ren throughout the empire arouse ; let them 
 speak out at once, like men, and say, ‘ Yes’ or 
 ‘ No,’ to the great question of ‘ shall we now 
 strike for the Charter?’ No higgling — no hesita- 
 tation — no waiting : — 
 
 ‘ Iff when done, 'twere w^ell done. 
 
 Then, 'twere well it were done quickly.’ 
 
 “ Never, however, for one moment let it be 
 forgotten by any Chartist, that to be successful 
 they must be peaceful. They have a right to 
 strike, but they have no right to riot. They have 
 a right to work or not to w'ork, but they have no 
 right to break windows, destroy property, or burn 
 factories. 
 
 Above all things, they have no right to insult, 
 annoy, or fight with the police force or the sol- 
 diery. Every hellish invention will be practised 
 to induce them to do this : let the bridle be kept 
 tightly on their tempers and even on their 
 tongues : let them even patiently bear annoyance, 
 insult and indignity ; resenting them only by the 
 
 calmness of a manly contempt, the offspring of 
 a lofty purpose not to be turned aside.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, when you consider that, 
 as against a great section of those defen- 
 dants, their participation in the outrage, 
 violence, and terror, of the existence of 
 which we have the most abundant and 
 indubitable proof, is founded on the pub- 
 lication of That address which is specially 
 the act of the conference; and when you 
 consider that that address is capable of 
 two constructions — for if it is capable of 
 the construction that it contains violence, 
 at all events it is capable of another con- 
 struction ; and when you come to scan 
 the words of men, who, being absent from 
 the scene of the outrages, may have in 
 some parts spoken rather strongly, you 
 will find pleasure in referring to other 
 parts, in which peace is inculcated ; and 
 from these parts you will gain light which 
 will guide you to a right interpretation 
 of those parts to which your attention is 
 specially directed, and then you will be 
 clear in your conviction that the case for 
 the crown is not made out. I shall not 
 go over the ground so ably occupied by 
 my learned friend, as to the manner in 
 which the conference delegates were oc- 
 cupied. There are three documents re- 
 lied on by the prosecution: — The execu- 
 tive address which it is not necessary to 
 refer to, because it was not fastened on 
 the conference delegates : the executive 
 committee were the only authors of that 
 document, and four only of the execu- 
 tive committee were spoken to. We 
 have, next, the conference address to which 
 I have been calling your attention; and 
 then there is the resolution of the dele- 
 gates. Gentlemen, so much for the four 
 first counts, and the persons implicated 
 in them. I have already mentioned to you 
 that the defendants for which I appear 
 are Fenton and Stephenson, and I must 
 remark that none of these defendants are 
 shewn to be at the conference, or at Man- 
 chester, during any part of these proceed- 
 ings. There is no evidence, anything 
 like satisfactory, to mix up either Fen- 
 ton or Stephenson, with the political 
 part of this movement. It is not 
 shown by the evidence that either of 
 them did any act to bring about a change 
 ill the laws, I admit that some evidence 
 has afiected them, and that evidence you 
 will have to consider. But you will find 
 
226 
 
 that any object which they may have had 
 was the amelioration of the condition of 
 the working men by the improvement of 
 their wages. And if that be your opinion 
 you must acquit these men upon what I 
 will now again call the political counts of 
 this indictment, whatever may be your 
 opinions respecting them as to other 
 counts. There are only two witnesses 
 who spoke to these defendants, Henry 
 Brierly, and Buckley. With respect to 
 Buckley, j’ou will find that he did him- 
 self no great credit by his cross-examina- 
 tion in the box, and had my chents’ case 
 rested on his testimony alone, I would 
 not have much difficulty, but I am bound 
 to admit his testimony on a comparison 
 of it with that of Brierly ’s who spoke to 
 the same facts, and whose veracity and 
 accuracy of recollection I have no wish 
 to impugn. Brierly was present at a 
 meeting on the 29th of July atStalybrid ge. 
 Fenton was in the chair. A resolution 
 was moved by a man named Challenger. 
 That resolution was to this effect, that the 
 reduction of wages rvas injurious to all 
 classes of the community. Stephenson 
 w'as at this meeting. Pilling moved a 
 resolution — that the reduction was injuri- 
 ous and that the workmen should have a 
 fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work ; and 
 the meeting were of opinion, that that 
 could not be obtained without the Charter 
 becoming the law of the land. I will 
 now advert to the origin of the meeting 
 there as a part of the evidence, which 
 shows that the cause of the cessation from 
 labour was a dissatisfaction on the part 
 of the workmen with the scale of re- 
 muneration they were receiving ; and I 
 think 3mu will find, with respect to Fenton, 
 that his actions throughout had reference 
 to the question of wages, and that he 
 almost fell a martyr to the preference 
 which he gave to that question be- 
 yond the Chai'ter question, which 
 others, more politically inclined, sought 
 to enforce upon him. The next meeting 
 took place on the 5th of August. The 
 next witness says : — I saw a person on 
 Friday, the 5th of August. ^Ba^dey’s 
 hands were among them. They went to 
 the Haigh. The speakers only 'advised 
 them to stick: out for a fair day’s wages 
 for a fair day’s work. So that both at 
 the meeting on the 29th of July and that 
 of the 5th of August, the complaint was 
 
 still of the rate of wages. On the 8th of 
 August, I believe, tHe next meeting took 
 place, at which these defendants were 
 present. Fenton was in the chair. Here 
 certainly there is no charge that Stephen- 
 son or Fenton said anything. But we 
 find one man present who spoke, and to 
 a certain extent my clients may be 
 affected by what he said. Brophy said, 
 — We must let those men at work out 
 by legal means if possible, or stop them 
 in lots as they w'ent to their work.” This, 
 I am bound to admit, is a part of the evi- 
 dence which very materially affects the 
 defendants for whom I appear. I am not 
 aware, in looking over the evidence, that 
 there is anything else which I feel 
 difficulty at all in dealing with. They 
 certainly are traced to a meeting on the 
 8th of August, and at that meeting some 
 violent expressions are used ; and, as 
 against these defendants, it will be for 
 you to consider how far they ought to be 
 responsible for that language. But nei- 
 ther of these defendants is shown to have 
 himself used language tending to, or 
 countenancing, outrage ; and neither of 
 them is shown to have participated in 
 any of the acts of outrage proved before 
 you. I put it to you, when you find what 
 the conduct of these men, especially Fen- 
 ton, has been on other occasions — I sub- 
 mit to you, that it would be harsh indeed 
 to fix a man like him by an indictment 
 like the present, which charges the de- 
 fendants with counselling to riot for the 
 purpose of putting an end to labour. 
 Unless, therefore, you find that my clients 
 counselled those who by violence caused 
 others to stop their labour, they are enti- 
 tled to an acquittal. And you will find 
 that these two defendants, on the ogcasion 
 to which I am particularly adverting, 
 are neither fixed with violent language, 
 or the countenancing of violence, or 
 any acts of violence that took place. 
 That is especially the case with re- 
 spect to Fenton. Because you will 
 find that on the 9th of August, at 
 the Haigh meeting, Fenton was there. 
 Stephenson also was there. Fenton ad- 
 vised them to go orderly. Then we find 
 that at the meeting on the 1 1th of August, 
 (which is the last meeting but one w'hich 
 took place, that is material for your con- 
 sideration,} there was a falling out about 
 the Wage question and the Charter. Fen- 
 
227 
 
 ton and Stephenson argued for the Wage 
 question. Mahon said they might as 
 well contend for the Charter. On the 
 13th of August there was a public meet- 
 ing. Stephenson was there, and Fenton 
 was there. Now, observe, on that occa- 
 sion they had like to have thrown Fenton 
 out of the cart. They were talking about 
 sending delegates to the masters to settle 
 a list of prices. They were like to have 
 thrown Fenton out of the chair, because 
 he was advocating the continuance of the 
 strike for wages, whereas others were for 
 continuing it for the promotion of the 
 Charter. Now, with reference to the 
 transactions given in evidence by Brierly, 
 having reference to my clients, there is 
 nothing which relates to a later period 
 than the 13th, and that is, you are aware, 
 prior to the alleged political conspiracy. 
 It will be impossible for you to say that 
 either Fenton or Stephenson w'as guilty 
 of any conspiracy at all. Now, gentle- 
 men, I think you will find, that, although 
 all these defendants were present at the 
 meeting at Stalybridge, yet the question 
 there mooted was a Wages question. 
 Fenton himself underwent severe suffer- 
 ing for his maintenance of the question 
 of Wages as distinguished from the ques- 
 tion of the Charter. Neither of the 
 defendants participated in the outrages. 
 One piece of evidence given yesterday 
 with regard to Fenton was, that a com- 
 mittee was sitting in a room behind a 
 tavern, and that that committee gave per- 
 mission to different people to go on with 
 their w^ork. It was alleged that Fenton 
 was in the room. I do not recollect that 
 any more active participation in these 
 transactions on the part of Fenton was 
 proved. It was proved, undoubtedly, that, 
 on one or two occasions, permission had 
 been given by a number of operatives 
 sitting in committee to carry on those 
 works. That may be improper, and, for 
 anything I know, highly censurable and 
 illegal ; and, if proper measures were 
 taken, those guilty of such conduct 
 should be brought to punishment. But 
 that is not the question to day ; however, 
 that circumstance being proved in this 
 late period of these transactions, only 
 shows to me, that, notwithstanding the 
 prominent position in which the Charter 
 came to be placed, still that the bottom of 
 this movement was in the main a move- 
 
 ment on the part of the workmen for tlie 
 purpose of enhancing and raising their 
 wages. You find operatives sitting there 
 calling themselves operatives — a commit- 
 tee room called a committee room — not a 
 Chartist room. No political action what- 
 ever is traced to that committee, but thev 
 do that, which, in the unfortunate expe- 
 rience you have had of strikes, you know 
 is not an unfrequent thing. When a 
 strike takes place, however legal or illegal 
 it may be, I am not defending it — it is 
 notorious that those out oti strike have 
 committees sitting in this manner, and 
 acting in the way in wdiich this committe 
 did. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — Brierly said it was 
 so twelve years ago. 
 
 Mr. ATFIERTON : — This is shown 
 incontestably in evidence to be a committee 
 of operatives seeking by means, which 
 they thought proper, to improv'e the rate 
 of wages. The question in this indict- 
 ment respecting Fenton is, not that he 
 took part in that unjustifiable proceeding 
 of the committee — the question is, did he 
 conspire with any one whatever to cause 
 a change in the law ? There is not a 
 tittle of evidence to connect him with that 
 charge. The next is, did he participate 
 in any violence to slop the wo] ks ? I have 
 the greatest confidence in the world that 
 you will find neither of my clients impli- 
 cated to that extent ; and, I trust, that 
 the mere circumstance of finding them 
 present at meetings at which foolish 
 and inflated language was used, will not 
 induce you to find them guilty of the 
 charge now preferred against them. 
 Now, gentlemen, I only fear that I may 
 have occupied your attention too long by 
 the remarks which I thought necessary to 
 make in this case; but when I consider the 
 nature of the charge — when I consider the 
 Crown on the one side with all its meansand 
 appliances — when I consider the research 
 with which every corner and nook of the 
 kingdom has been searched, to bring evi- 
 dence against these defendants — when I 
 consider the nature of the charge, and 
 the form in which it is preferred, I think 
 you will bear with me indulgently^ — I 
 think, at all events, you will not say I 
 have wantonly wasted your time in call- 
 ing your attention to the facts specifically 
 put in issue. By the indictment you are 
 to try, it is impossible for you to tell 
 
228 
 
 that there are not here two great matters 
 put to you. There is, on the one hand, 
 the charge of political conspiracy — on 
 the other, the charge of violent conduct 
 on the part of the workmen, as between 
 themselves and their masters. It may 
 be that you do not expressly approve of 
 the change which the Chartists seek — it 
 may be you do not quite go with the work- 
 men in the opinion that their labour is 
 underpaid ; but I am sure you will not 
 allow considerations of that kind to bias 
 your mind in the present enquiry, but 
 that you will look anxiously to the great 
 mass of evidence before you, and pause 
 and hesitate before you pronounce your 
 verdict. Take the advice of her Ma- 
 jesty’s Attorney-General, and if you find 
 that, with respect to any class of the de- 
 fendants, the Crown has left the case 
 with a reasonable doubt, you will find 
 great satisfaction in acquitting the de- 
 fendants. I must say this for the Char- 
 tists brought here, that so far as the evi- 
 dence goes, instead of being a violent 
 body, they are a most peaceful body of 
 men. How is it that at all their meet- 
 ings you find the words peace, law, 
 and order” ? It has been said these 
 rvere mockery, used to deceive, while in 
 their hearts those who used them were 
 counselling violence. I don’t agree with 
 that view. The solution is easy and na- 
 tural. One of the witnesses said it was 
 a common watchword — “ A fair day’s 
 wages for a fair day’s work,” and you 
 find it also proved that peace, law, and 
 order” was a current expression at all 
 the Chartist meetings. Do you not 
 admit that ? It has been also admitted 
 that the organ of the Chartists up to that 
 period, had a tendency to promote peace, 
 law, and order. It is not denied that the 
 object of the Chartists is lawful. No 
 one can deny that ; and you can hardly 
 doubt that the gentleman who sits near 
 me [Mr. O’Connor] had great influence 
 with the Chartists, and, perhaps, may be 
 called the leader of the Chartist agita- 
 tion ; and do you think him so ignorant 
 as not to know that that agitation is the 
 most powerful which is the most pacific ? 
 You have observed the intelligence of 
 these operatives, and do you think that 
 men of that intelligence are so brutish 
 and besotted as to fancy, that by exer- 
 cising violence and terror, in any part of 
 
 the country, they could bring about such a 
 change ? Gentlemen, ^mu would be stul- 
 tifying these men, and running counter 
 to all the evidence before you, to do so. 
 Up to the time of the strike the Chartist 
 body. Chartist leaders, and Chartist or- 
 gans, have been shown not only not to be 
 violent and outrageous, but, on the con- 
 trary, eminently pacific. Gentlemen, I 
 think I would advert to a circumstance 
 to which my attention is just called. 
 You are aware that many of the defen- 
 dants are now present in this court, and 
 watching with natural anxiety the result 
 of this prosecution, as the evidence seems 
 to close more about them, and as indivi- 
 dual after individual spoke to them. 
 The Crown called some parties as wit- 
 nesses against the Chartists — I make no 
 complaints — who, formerly, were most 
 intimately acquainted with them, and 
 elicited the secrets of the Chartists from 
 those who may be said to betray those 
 secrets. I rejoice at it, for had there 
 been any thing of a violent tendency in 
 the association of the Chartists, from 
 that man Cartledge, and from Griffin,^ 
 the fact, undoubtedly, would be elicited. 
 You have been enabled to penetrate the 
 most secret counsels and conclaves of the 
 Chartists, and yet you have not disco- 
 vered any thing among them of a violent 
 character or tendency. You have seen 
 Cartledge and Griffin produced here, and 
 have been led to consider what must be 
 the feelings of the defendants, when they 
 saw in that box those men, from whom they 
 had so frequently taken counsel, and from 
 whom they shrouded no opinion, proba- 
 bably from the time of their birth — what 
 must have been their feelings when they 
 saw these men come forward as witnesses 
 to support such a terrible indictment as 
 this ? They must have felt strongly indig- 
 nant. If these men had been the violent 
 men they are represented to be, do you 
 think under such circumstances that even 
 in this sacred court of justice their con- 
 duct would be so orderly, decorous 
 and pacific as it has been ? Gentlemen, I 
 may point to these men, and appeal to 
 their demeanour before you to day as 
 corroborating everything that has been 
 said with respect to the pacific character 
 of the Chartists. I have already adverted 
 to the nature of this charge and the dif- 
 ferent classes of defendants — I have ad- 
 
229 
 
 verted to the facts indisputably proved in 
 the case, and I shall now conclude with 
 one remark — among the Chartists as well 
 as amongst other men seeking political 
 changes there will be firebrands — men 
 who will seek to create discontent, as well 
 as discussion ; these men will tell their 
 hearers that there is one law for the rich 
 and another for the poor, but their con- 
 duct should not be made prejudicial to the 
 party to which they are attached. Gen- 
 tlemen, amongst other offices which you 
 have now to fulfil is this most imporiant 
 one, — ^ou have to teach these men that 
 at the hands of a British jury — at the 
 hands of a special jury of this country — 
 at the hands of men consisting not of 
 their own class, they will receive the most 
 patient attention, and the most intelligent 
 administration of justice. 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY : — I appear for 
 James Mooney, John Thornton, and 
 William Aitkin. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL 
 My Lord, I withdraw the prosecution so 
 far as Thornton is concerned. I think it 
 right here to state that the evidence of 
 identity was not satisfactory, and evidence 
 of his good character having been given, 
 I thought it proper to withdraw. 
 
 The JUDGE: — You appear, Mr. 
 Me Oubrey, for Mooney and Aitkin ? 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then you will take an 
 acquittal for Thornton. 
 
 The Jury, at the direction of his Lord- 
 ship, acquitted Thornton. 
 
 Mr. Me OUBREY : — It becomes now 
 my duty to address you on behalf of the 
 defendants Aitkin and Mooney, and I 
 think I may best bespeak your attention 
 when I tell you that I intend to make but 
 a very few observations. Indeed, after 
 the laborious investigations of the week, 
 and after four speeches being made on 
 behalf of the defendants already, I feel 
 that it would be imposing on you an un- 
 necessary and unreasonable task to drag 
 ou again over the same ground which 
 as been trodden so much more ably by 
 my more learned and more eloquent 
 friends. To detail to you the same facts 
 —to hold up to you the same placards, 
 which have been posted over the walls 
 of England, and which are noto- 
 rious to all, and to draw from all 
 these precisely the same conclusions. 
 
 would indeed be an unnecessary labour 
 especially considering that many of the 
 defendants have determined on defending 
 themselves ; and they have a right to 
 expect a patient and indulgent hearing 
 at your hands. I shall not, therefore, 
 go again into the general principle of 
 the case — I shall content myself with 
 drawing your attention to the evidence 
 as it affects the two defendants for whom 
 I especially appear — Aitkin and Mooney. 
 I find, gentlemen, that Aitkin very early 
 appears in these proceedings. I think 
 at the very first meeting which is brought 
 before your notice — at the Haigh. He 
 is proved to have been at a meeting in 
 Ashton, and some violent expressions 
 uttered at that meeting are ascribed to 
 him. This is the evidence against 
 him. Now, the witness who testifies to 
 these violent expressions has told you 
 plainly the words which he says were 
 uttered, but he has told you as plainly 
 that he can recollect no more of what 
 was said, and can give no explanation. 
 Now, I ask you, is it credible that a man 
 lihould recollect these expressions, and 
 recollect no more ? It is not credible. 
 It does not bear upon it the character oi 
 truth or honesty ; but it bears upon it 
 the character of a preconcerted lie. He 
 confines himself to a short statement, 
 and takes care not to complicate it with 
 anything that may confound it. Such 
 is the fact, and you will be more strongly 
 impressed with this view of the case if 
 you turn your attention to what follows 
 with respect to Aitkin. Those very 
 men, one of whom is said to have used 
 the expression, “ The reckoning day is at 
 hand,” commence their proceedings with 
 the worship of God, and join in singing 
 one of the most impressive hymns that a 
 religious man, conversant with the devo- 
 tions of this country, could use. I shall 
 read it for you, in order to show from the 
 hymn itself the strong internal evidence 
 which this witness’s testimony bears to 
 the peaceable character of these men — 
 
 “ A charge to keep I have, 
 
 A God to glorify ; 
 
 A never-dying soul to save, 
 
 And fit it for the sky." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you are called upon to 
 believe — and believe it if you can — that 
 whilst they were engaged in this solemn 
 worship, with the name of God upon 
 Q 
 
230 
 
 their lips, and with their attention so 
 turned to their immortal souls, they were 
 at that instant meditating an insult upon 
 him, by preparing to have recourse to 
 scenes of violence and bloodshed ! I 
 don’t believe it, gentlemen ; and I have 
 little hesitation in saying, that you will 
 not put a stigma on your country by sup- 
 posing, that this is a country in which 
 such a monstrous thing could be done. 
 Let us look at the next scene in which 
 we find Aitkin engaged. The second 
 witness says, — At another meeting, 
 (this is the meeting of the 12th, three 
 days afterwards, and Aitkin was there,) 
 the language was, they would use peace- 
 ful means to fetch out the hands.” To 
 his Lordship the answer was, They 
 came out of their own accord.” The 
 witness knows nothing else. He does 
 not know wdiat they met for, more 
 than to hear a lecture on peace and order. 
 There, gentlemen, is all the evidence 
 that exists against Aitkin. I shall not, 
 therefore, tire your attention with one 
 other observation on the subject. I sb;^ll 
 now turn to the evidence as it affects 
 Mooney, and this depends on a man of 
 the name of Cartledge. He has sworn 
 that Mooney w'as present at a meeting in 
 Scholefield’s chapel. On going over the 
 names of the persons present, he has 
 merely mentioned Mooney as one. It 
 becomes important for us to consider the 
 character of that meeting. You have 
 heard that so detailed to you, that it 
 would be a waste of time to go over it 
 again, but I shall mention what was the 
 fact. Although Cartledge, at first, en- 
 deavoured to throw the odium of secrecy 
 upon that meeting, yet, when cross-ex- 
 amined, he acknov/ledged that a deputa- 
 tion from the trades came there. At 
 first they were refused permission to 
 form part of the meeting, but they were 
 allowed to remain ; and it appeared, also, 
 that any one else might come and com- 
 pose part of the audience. Again and 
 again it has been explained to you, that 
 that conference met for peaceful purposes, 
 that its language was peaceful, and there- 
 fore I have no hesitation in saying, that 
 you will not believe any charge of con- 
 spiracy against Mooney, solely on the 
 ground of his being at that meeting. But 
 another wutness is produced here with great 
 pomp and great expectation — I mean the 
 
 witness Whittam. Some men told hiir),ias 
 they came from the. conference, that they 
 w'ere about to repel force by force ; that 
 they had some double-barrelled guns, 
 and some single-barrelled guns, and 
 that they w^ere like a mighty army to 
 make war upon the British govern- 
 ment. Why this would be high 
 treason, if proved, but there was no such 
 thing talked of at the conference, and, 
 therefore, I have little hesitation in say- 
 ing you will not believe it. You have 
 these witnesses, and the facts, such as 
 they are, before you. You have given 
 them your patient attention, and I am 
 sure you will not give a less attentive 
 hearing to the still small voice that 
 speaks in the internal evidence of those 
 statements. Gentlemen, I think I can 
 best plead the cause of my clients in this 
 brief way. I shall not dwell on the 
 points of the Charter. This is not the 
 place or time for such observations. 
 You have not been brought here to de- 
 cide whether the Charter shall be the 
 law of the land or not --whether uni- 
 versal suffrage is consistent with the 
 law or not, or whether it is consistent 
 with the rights of man, or not ; but I 
 trust you will show', by your verdict, 
 that tile descendants of the men, who 
 have struggled in every age of our his- 
 tory to maintain the right by which you 
 sit there — that these men are not guilty 
 of the crime of conspiracy because they 
 have fearlessly expressed their senti- 
 ments on these subjects. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — There are some 
 of the defendants that wish to address 
 the Court, my Lord, in their defence. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Very well, I shall take 
 them in the order in which they appear on 
 the list. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I trust your Lord- 
 ship will have no objection to hear them 
 according to the aiTangement which they 
 have made themselves. 
 
 The JUDGE :— I do not object to take 
 them in any order. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I believe, my 
 Lord, they have arranged the order.iin 
 w^hieh they will speak. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I have no objeetion 
 to hear them in ivhatever order is most 
 convenient to themselves. 
 
 GEORGE JULIEN HARNEY-;— 
 then rose to address the jury. 
 
231 
 
 Tlie JUDGE Who is that ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : —Harney, my 
 Lord. The defendant Hainey then 
 spoke as follows : — 
 
 May it please your Lordship, gentle- 
 men of the Jury; — In rising to defend 
 myself from the charges preferred against 
 me, I must crave the indulgence of the 
 Court for any imperfections in my de- 
 fence — imperfections which are extremely 
 likely to be made, caused by the novel 
 situation in which I find myself placed, 
 and my total ignorance of all the forms 
 of law. Had I consulted the views of 
 many of my friends I would probably 
 have, instead of defending myself em- 
 ployed one of the many learned and 
 talented gentlemen around me to advo- 
 cate my cause, but, conscious of my inno- 
 cence, and disdaining the arts of policy — 
 believing that ** thrice is he armed who 
 bath his quarrel just,” I appear before 
 you to defend my own cause, believing, 
 in spite of the aiTay of legal talent op- 
 posed to me, that I can convince you of 
 my innocence and the injustice of the 
 charges against me in the indictment. 
 Gentlemen, I pass over the barbarous 
 phraseology of the indictment — phraseo- 
 logy which certainly gave me no little 
 trouble in my endeavours to find out 
 what really was the offence with which I 
 was charged, and upon which, as a civi- 
 lian, not understanding the terms em- 
 ployed therein, .1 might have very fairly 
 commented— I pass by that and many 
 other topics upon which I would have 
 commented but for two reasons, — first, I 
 feel that I have no right to occupy the 
 time of this Court to the hindrance of the 
 other defendants who have to follow me ; 
 and second, because I feel that I ought to 
 detain you as short as possible, in consi- 
 deration of the labour you have already 
 bad to perform, and hence, gentlemen, I 
 will come at once to the question. Allow 
 me here to remark, that to me it appears 
 passing strange, that while I occupy a 
 prominent place in this indictment, I 
 find no mention made of my name in the 
 opening address of the Attorney-General, 
 nor any evidence offered against me until 
 the morning of Saturday last, when Cart- 
 ledge gave evidence that I was at the 
 conference. Strange, gentlemen, that 
 there should be so little evidence against 
 one of the chief conspirators ? Well, 
 
 gentlemen, I find myself charged with 
 having conspired, with a number of per- 
 sons, to the number of fifty-eight ; of 
 these fifty-eight I am only well ac- 
 quainted with one, viz., Samuel Parkes, 
 of Sheffield; with about fifteen or twenty 
 of the defendants I am partially ac- 
 quainted, but these I know mostly only 
 by name, while with from thirty-five to 
 forty of the defendants, I am totally 
 unacquainted ; I never heard tell of them 
 before my arrest; when I was taken to 
 Kirkdale gaol I, for the first time, met 
 some of these persons — but still so little 
 do I know of them, that, were they placed 
 before me now, and my life depended on 
 the issue, I assure you, gentlemen, that 
 I could not distinguish even twelve of 
 them by their names. Some reside at 
 Ashton, some at Manchester, some in 
 other parts of Lancashire ; I reside in 
 Sheffield; wffiat connection could there 
 have been between them and me ? Let- 
 ters and papers were taken from me 
 when I was arrested ; the prosecutor has, 
 no doubt, looked through them, is there 
 any letter from any one of these defen- 
 dants to me ? A considerable number 
 of the defendants have been treated in 
 the manner that I was, letters were taken 
 from them,— is there any one of these 
 letters from me ? Can the prosecutor 
 show that there was any connection be- 
 tween me and them ? He cannot ; what 
 then becomes of the charge that I con- 
 spired with these men— men I never 
 knew — men whom, previous to my ar- 
 rest, 1 never saw ? I find I am charged 
 with conspiring, on the 1st day of 
 August, and following days, with those 
 persons out on strike, not only to com- 
 pel men to leave their employment, 
 but also by terror and alarm to effect a 
 great change in the laws and constitution 
 of this realm. Now, gentlemen, no evi- 
 dence has been offered to show that there 
 was any strike, turn-out, or disturbance 
 on the 1st of August, — what then be- 
 comes of the .charge that I conspired on 
 the 1st of that month ? The strike com- 
 menced on the 8th of August, but, as has 
 been shown over and over again, the strike 
 at the outset was for wages, and not for 
 the Charter. In fact, the Charter was 
 never mentioned until the 10th of Au- 
 gust, when, at a meeting of trades’ dele- 
 gates held in the Carpenters’ Hall, Man- 
 
232 
 
 Chester, certain resolutions were passed 
 ■ approbatory of the principles of the Char- 
 ter and declaratory of the necessity of 
 the legal enactment of those principles to 
 secure to the working classes their rights 
 — this was the first time w^e find the Char- 
 ter even named — this was the 10th of 
 August, yet we are charged with conspir- 
 ing to bring about a great change in the 
 constitution, and that on the 1st of Au- 
 gust ! Gentlemen, you have had laid 
 before you a great deal of evidence touch- 
 ing these trades’ delegate meetings. I 
 protest against that evidence ; we have 
 nothing to do with what the trades’ dele- 
 gates did; their names are not in this in- 
 dictment, and hence I presume that they 
 did nothing illegal ; if they had, I sup- 
 pose that the Government would have 
 prosecuted them ; well, if they did no- 
 thing illegal, why is evidence of their 
 doings brought against us who had no- 
 thing to do with them ? Gentlemen, 1 
 have shown you that the strike did 
 not commence until the 8th of August, 
 that the Charter was never even men- 
 tioned until the 10th of August ; and 
 now I will show you that I knew no- 
 thing of the strike until the 13th of Au- 
 gust. Gentlemen, the strike commenced 
 on the 8th, the march to Manchester was 
 on the 9th ; on Wednesday the 1 0th, 
 early in the day, I left Sheffield, my bu- 
 siness as a bookseller and news-agent 
 compelling me occasionally to leave home. 
 I tvas absent until the Saturday, when on 
 my return home on the railway I for the 
 first-time heard of the strike, but it was 
 not until I reached my home, and had 
 put into my hands the local papers, that 
 I became fully acquainted with the first 
 movements of the turn-outs; and it was 
 not until the next day, August the 14th, 
 that I became aware that a portion of the 
 turn-outs had declared in favour of 
 the Charter. Yet, in spite of these well 
 known facts, we are charged with con- 
 spiracy on the 1st of August! The 
 learned gentlemen who addressed you 
 yesterday evening arrd this morning 
 have laid much stress upon the strict 
 . legality of men agitating for the obtain- 
 ment of the document called the People’s 
 Charter. They have said, and, I think, 
 ^ery justly, that no matter whether these 
 principles be founded in error or wdsdom, 
 there can be no illegality in the peaceful 
 -/and constitutional advocacy of them. 
 
 Up to the 13th of August I have told 
 you that T knew nothing of the strike. 
 Up to the 16th I had no participation 
 with the turn-outs, direct or indirect. I 
 think it very strange that, while I am 
 placed prominently in this indictment, 
 the Attorney-General in his opening ad- 
 dress never mentioned my name ; and, I 
 believe, up to Saturday morning, my 
 name was not mentioned by any of the 
 witnesses. On Saturday morning, I be- 
 lieve some evidence was given by a per- 
 son named Griffin, to show that I was 
 present at the conference of delegates in 
 Manchester. Cartledge, I believe, was 
 the witness who said so. Now, gentlemen, 
 I admit that I was at that meeting. I am 
 not ashamed of my conduct there ; I will 
 not shrink from avowing that I was there. 
 And, without wishing to detain you long, 
 I shall I elate what was done at that meet- 
 ing, and explain how I came there. On 
 the 16th of August, I left Sheffield to 
 attend this conference. Gentlemen, I 
 believe the sum total of the evidence 
 against me is, that I attended this con- 
 ference. How came I to attend that 
 conference ? I will briefly answer the 
 question. It has been already shown, 
 that the calling of this conference was 
 originally suggested by the Hunt monu- 
 ment committee : how it was suggested I 
 will show. On or about the 8th of June, 
 1842, an address from the committee was 
 published ; in that address is the follow- 
 ing paragraph : — 
 
 “ The committee held a long and proper dis- 
 cussion as to whether we have the power, without 
 being considered to have outstripped the power 
 delegated to us, by offering a suggestion to the 
 members of the New Executive, which ended ia 
 a resolve — 
 
 “ That, in order to make the gathering of good 
 men from various parts of the country to be 
 doubly useful to the movement, and answer two 
 purposes, we most respectfully suggest that they, 
 the members of the Executive, discuss the pro- 
 priety of calling a national conference of dele- 
 gates, to be held on the following day, August 
 17th, in the Carpenters’ Hall, Manchester, when 
 perhaps a friendly understanding could be esta- 
 blished, all ill-feeling and bickering amongst 
 leaders put an end to, the plan of organization 
 read, discussed, and, if necessary, revised, and 
 all jealousy for ever banished from our ranks. 
 Differences arise frequently through misunder- 
 standing-men who have done wrong unintea- 
 
233 
 
 tionally arc denounced and looked shy upon— 
 who, if remonstrated with, could be made ac- 
 quainted with their error, and have some chance 
 of reform, and, for the want of which, the cause 
 sometimes loses both their talents and influence. 
 If this desirable end could be achieved, it would 
 give an opportunity for the delegates when as- 
 sembled, to adopt other measures which they 
 in their wisdom might deem necessary and 
 prudent for the advancement of the cause.” 
 
 Gentlemen, Griffin, the secretary to this 
 committee, has avowed that he it was 
 who first suggested to the committee this 
 proposition of calling the conference ; — 
 allow me to read the conclusion of this 
 address, it will serve to illustrate the 
 character of the writer, Mr. Griffin : — 
 
 “ In conclusion, wie intend to do our duty, 
 and believe that you, to whom this humble appeal 
 is made, will do yours ; and may you and we 
 work harmoniously together, until every man 
 possess his rights and liberties, and may the 
 Rulfer of the Creation stamp your and cur exer- 
 tions with the seal of his divine approbation. 
 Until then, 
 
 “ We remain, 
 
 “ In the bonds of Friendship and Brotherhood, 
 “ Your humble Servants, 
 
 Signed on behalf of the Monument Committee, 
 
 “ William Griffin, Secretary.” 
 On or about the 4th of July, an address 
 was published by the Chartist Executive 
 committee, officially calling this conference 
 — in that address the intended business 
 and objects of the proposed conference 
 were set forth as the followitig paragraph 
 will show : — 
 
 ‘‘ Organization. — The aspect of the move- 
 ment, and the strength and position of the Asso- 
 ciation, were taken into mature consideration, 
 and it was resolved to draw up a district plan for 
 the whole nation, to prepare a plan for securing 
 commodious meeting houses, to recommend ways 
 and means of defraying the attendant expenses 
 of the movement, and for the purpose of prac- 
 tically working these measures, and discussing 
 others of equal importance, and of devising effec- 
 tual means of preventing divisions and all squab- 
 bles for the future in the National Charter Asso- 
 ciation.” 
 
 All ideas of violence were emphatically 
 opposed and denounced, witness the fol- 
 lowing paragraph : — 
 
 “ The Executive have seriously deliberated 
 upon the distress of the people, and deplore the 
 absence of the suffrage, which could so speedily 
 
 exchange comfort for poverty, plenty for starvst- 
 tion, and freedom for submission. They do nofc 
 see any just or wise remedy in violence or insur- 
 rection, neither do they see wisdom in uncom- 
 plaining obedience and servile silence. [Nor do. 
 I, gentlemen.] Therefore they are prepared to 
 recommend peaceful and constitutional ulterior, 
 MEASURES as soon as they have gained the legal 
 opinion of an eminent barrister, at the head of. 
 the movement, whose judgment will not be 
 biassed by the fear of the government, but whose, 
 opinion will be tempered by anxiety for the 
 success of the cause, and care for safety of the 
 people. 
 
 “ The Executive will, therefore, be prepared to 
 recommend measures of peaceful resistance to> 
 the assembled conferences of the association,, 
 where they will have the benefit of the opinions 
 of the leading councillors of the National Char- 
 ter Association.” 
 
 Is there anything illegal in a conference 
 so called } It must be remembered that 
 Chartist conferences are not the only con- 
 ferences that have been held; a well 
 known, talented, and, in the sister coun- 
 try if not in this, I believe a popular gen- 
 tleman, namely, Mr. Daniel O’Connell,, 
 is in the habit of holding weekly large 
 meetings of his friends and admirers, the 
 objects of wdiich meetings, we are assured 
 by conservative writers, is the dismem- 
 berment of the empire. Gentlemen, I 
 don’t believe that, but this I will say, 
 that if Mr. O’Connell’s meetings are legal, 
 surely a conference called as I have 
 shown is at least as legal. Conferences- 
 have been called together by a gentleman 
 well known to the public, viz. Mr. Joseph, 
 Sturge, the avowed object of which con- 
 ferences was the canying through the 
 legislature of the six points of the Char- 
 ter. There can have been nothing illegal 
 in such conferences, for the government 
 has not prosecuted the parties attending 
 them. Surely the Chartist conference in 
 question was equally legal. Huge con- 
 ferences have been held in Manchester, 
 called together by the Corn-law repealers. 
 Great capitalists and dissenting clergy- 
 men have in large numbers attended 
 these conferences. Far be it from me to 
 impute to those parties anything illegal 
 in their acts; on the contrary, I feel 
 bound to believe that their acts have been 
 strictly legal, otherwise the government 
 would have subjected them to prosecu- 
 tion ; but I dare challenge comparison of 
 
234 
 
 their speeches and acts with those of 
 the Chartist conference. If the former 
 were legal, the latter has been a thousand 
 times more so. Gentlemen, something 
 has been said of the meeting held on the 
 Good Friday of 1842, at which was laid 
 the foundation stone of Hunt’s monu- 
 ment. I was present at that meeting, 
 and if there was no harm, no illegality 
 in attending the meeting at which the 
 foundation stone of this monument was 
 laid, surely there was no more harm, no 
 more illegality, in attending the meeting 
 intended to be held in celebration of 
 the completion of that monument. Gen- 
 tlemen, without further preface, I will now 
 come to the conference, and the acts of 
 that body. Gentlemen, it was on the I5th 
 of July that I was elected to the con- 
 ference at a public and legal meeting of 
 the working classes, and others, of Shef- 
 field. This was nearly a month before the 
 commencement of the strike, and when 
 by no possibility could I have fore- 
 known the events that were about to 
 transpire. I have shewn you that I 
 knew nothing of the strike until the 13th 
 of August. Well, on the 16th I left 
 Sheffield for Manchester, and, arrived 
 there, I found that not only the proces- 
 sion but also the intended meeting had 
 been postponed by the monument com- 
 mittee, rather than risk a collision with 
 the authorities. Permit me here to re- 
 mark, that had the Chartists wished to 
 promote tumult and insurrection, they 
 Avould have pursued a very different 
 course to that which they did. Had 
 they wished to promote revolution, would 
 they not have appealed to the immense 
 masses of men at that time on strike, to 
 come to Manchester on the 16tb, and 
 then and there avenge the wrongs of a 
 more memorable 16th of August ? Did 
 they do so ? No ; on the contrary, they 
 forbade the meeting, and gave up the 
 procession, that there might be no chance 
 of disorder or bloodshed. Gentlemen, I 
 think you will admit that I did not go to 
 Manchester for the purpose of engaging 
 in a physical-force struggle with the au- 
 thorities, wlien I tell you that I took my 
 wife with me to see the Flunt monument 
 and attend the festive meetings in (cele- 
 bration of its completion. Had I in- 
 tended to have gone to war, it is not 
 likely I n ould have had my wife rvith 
 
 me. I have been §worn to as having 
 been seen in Leach’s shop. Well, Gen- 
 tlemen, I suppose there is no illegality in 
 being seen in a public shop ; that even- 
 ing (the 16th) I, with my wife, attended 
 the tea-meeting in the Carpenters’ Hall, 
 where the only signs of conspiracy I saw 
 was the apparent universal determination 
 to get rid of the tea and toast as soon as 
 possible. On the 17th, the delegates 
 met ; it has been insinuated that it was 
 a sort of secret meeting, and that there 
 was an understanding that the proceed- 
 ings of the meeting were not to be pub- 
 lished ; there is no truth in this, gentle- 
 men ; the meeting was open to all Man- 
 chester, if they could have been accom- 
 modated with seats ; indeed, I wished 
 my wife to be present, but she refused 
 on the very natural ground that there 
 were no females present. Now, gentle- 
 men, T think, had the delegates been 
 conspiring, I would not have wished to 
 have brought my wife into their meet- 
 ing — for, wdth feelings of the most pro- 
 found respect for the ladies present in 
 this Court, I must say, that when men 
 do conspire, they are not in the habit 
 of letting the ladies share their secrets. 
 That the proceedings of the conference 
 were not intended to be secret is proved 
 by the fact of reporters being present. 
 Griffin was there as a reporter; and, if 
 the whole staff of reporters attached 
 to the Manchester press were not there, 
 the fault w-as theirs, not the delegates. 
 Griffin took notes as a reporter, and if he 
 did not use them in the usual way it 
 only shew^s that he was there as a spy. 
 Something has been said of the violence 
 of one or more of the delegates ; the pro- 
 secutor has not brought, and cannot 
 bring, any such charge against me. 
 What says the notes taken from Brooke, 
 ofTodmorden, respecting myself ? I be- 
 lieve the sum and substance of what con- 
 cerns me in these notes are these 
 words : — Julian Harney, no connexion 
 with the middle class.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — The notes found on 
 Brooke are not produced against you as 
 evidence, they are not brought against 
 you at all. 
 
 Mr. HARNEY I am aw'are, my 
 Lord, that these notes have not been pro- 
 duced against me as evidence. I know 
 
 ■* 
 
235 
 
 they cannot be : but, if they were, what 
 do they amount to ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — They are no evidence 
 at all against you. They were not pro- 
 duced for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. HARNEY ; — Then, my Lord, I 
 will pass over that, by simply remarking, 
 that, if so produced, they would only shew, 
 either that I was opposed to any union 
 with the middle class, or else that I had 
 no hope of the middle class uniting with 
 the Chartist body for Chartist purposes, — 
 not much violence there. I now come 
 to the resolution adopted by a majority 
 of the conference. 
 
 “ That whilst the Chartist body did not origi- 
 nate the present cessation from labour, this con- 
 ference of delegates from various parts of Eng- 
 land, express their deep sympathy with their 
 constituents, the working men now on strike ; 
 and that we strongly approve the extension and 
 the continuance of their present struggle till the 
 People’s Charter becomes a legislative enact- 
 ment, and decide forthwith to issue an address to 
 that effect ; and pledge ourselves, on our return 
 to our respective localities, to give a proper di- 
 rection to the people’s efforts.” (Signed) 
 
 “ James Arthur, Chairman. 
 
 ^‘J. Arran, Secretary.” 
 
 The witnesses Cartledge and Griffin 
 have both given evidence, that in the con- 
 ference I opposed the resolution, upon 
 which is founded this prosecution : I did 
 not extract these admissions from the wit- 
 nesses by cross-examining them, I have 
 not said a word to any one of the im- 
 mense number of witnesses produced here 
 on the part of the crown. Y ou have then 
 the evidence of these witnesses that I op- 
 posed this resolution. I don’t thank 
 these persons for their admissions, nor 
 W'ill I take advantage of them, to endea- 
 vour to clear myself at the expense of 
 others. Gentlemen, if I did not support 
 this resolution in the conference, I wdll 
 defend it here. What says the resolu- 
 tion ? It denies that the Chartists origi- 
 nated the strike ; that is a truth ; it has 
 never been pretended by the prosecution, 
 that the Chartists did originate the strike ; 
 who were the originators is what has ne- 
 ver yet been made public ; though the 
 government have instituted an enquiry 
 into the origin of the strike ; why has not 
 the government made their report of the 
 result of that enquiry ? The resolution 
 
 expresses sympathy with the men on 
 strike. Is there any harm, any illegality 
 in expressing sympathy with our suffer- 
 ing fellow-men ? The resolution next 
 expresses approbation of the present strug- 
 gle until the Charter becomes a legisla- 
 tive enactment ; great stress has been laid 
 upon the word struggle, as though by it 
 was meant a physical force combat with 
 the authorities. Nothing of the sort is 
 meant. There has never been a resolu- 
 tion pledging the people to continue the 
 agitation for the Charter but in which 
 this word struggle has been found. I 
 have spoken at public meetings in sup- 
 port of such resolutions, nay, I have 
 drawn up many such resolutions, and I 
 maintain I have done nothing illegal. It 
 is the moral struggle of right against 
 wrong, justice against privilege, that is 
 meant by the authors and supporters of 
 this resolution. The resolution concludes 
 by pledging the delegates to give on 
 their return home a proper direction to 
 the people’s efforts. Well, gentlemen, 
 what was my conduct on my return to 
 Sheffield ? What w'as the direction I gave 
 to the people’s efforts } Why, I opposed 
 the extension of the strike to that town, 
 and prevented any strike or turn-out tak- 
 ing place. That, I conceived was giving 
 a proper direction to the people’s efforts ; 
 and I rejoice that by the influence I pos- 
 sess with the working classes of that town, 
 I was able to give such a directiori'to the 
 people’s efforts. An address was adopt- 
 ed by the conference. I was not present 
 when that address was adopted, but I ap- 
 prove of it, and would defend it if it were 
 necessary. Much has been said respect- 
 ing a certain extraordinary document, as 
 it has been called, ascribed to the Char- 
 tist Executive. Not one tittle of evidence 
 has been produced to show that I had 
 any connexion with this address, that I 
 knew anything of its authorship or publi- 
 cation. Had any evidence been offered 
 against me, I would have defended my- 
 self from the charger None has been of- 
 fered, and I disdain to take up the ques- 
 tion ; it is beneath my notice. I have 
 done with the conference. On the 18th 
 of August I returned home, and on the 
 19th, I reported to a large public meet- 
 ing the proceedings of the conference, so 
 little idea had I that I had done anything 
 illegal. On Monday, the 22nd of Au- 
 
236 
 
 gust, a meeting was held in Paradise- 
 square, to consider the propriety of com- 
 mencing the strike in Sheffield. I at- 
 tended that meeting ; a resolution was 
 proposed, the intent and meaning of which 
 I understood to be, that the strike should 
 be forthwith commenced. I opposed the 
 proposition ; I moved an amendment 
 against the strike ; I carried my amend- 
 ment by a large majority, and the conse- 
 quence was, there was no strike in Shef- 
 field. With your permission I will read 
 my speech upon that occasion, as re- 
 ported in the Sheffield Independent. 
 It is not long, gentlemen, for, as you are 
 probably aware, reporters, both for the 
 liberal and conservative press, are not in 
 the habit of reporting Chartists’ speeches 
 at any great length. 
 
 “ George J. Harney [Chartists are not 
 called Misters by reporters] said, they had an im- 
 portant question to discuss, to which every man 
 should address himself honestly. They did not 
 want opinions to-day about the Charter, about 
 democracy, or the usual topics. The man who 
 bad proposed a strike, had put the question 
 fairly before the meeting. He objected to the 
 strike, as he had done among the delegates at 
 Manchester. He believed it resulted from the 
 intrigues of the anti-corn-law party. In support 
 of this opinion he read several quotations from 
 speeches and newspapers, which had appeared in 
 the Northern Star. There was particularly one 
 from i\ie*Sunday Times, claiming for that paper 
 the credit of having first proposed that the 
 manufacturers should close their mills, which 
 proposition the anti-corn-law conference discus- 
 sed and rejected.” — [Claiming for that paper 
 the credit of recommending the strike] — On this 
 the Northern Star put the interpretation, that 
 the plan was rejected, merely 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— Acting 
 in the same spirit, indicated by the At- 
 torney-General, I do not interpose here: 
 but I apprehend that the defendant, in 
 strictness, has no right to read this. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is a statement of 
 his own conduct. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR The defendant is 
 reading it now, and it is quite com- 
 petent for him to put it in evidence after- 
 
 The JUDGE : — This is a statement 
 of what his conduct was, but, instead of 
 putting it in the form of a statement, he 
 
 reads an account of it. I take it as part 
 of a statement now. 
 
 HARNEY proceeds : — “ On this the North. 
 cm 5far put the interpretation, that the plan 
 was rejected, merely as to the turn-out by the 
 masters, but they had acted upon it by causing 
 a turn-out by the workmen. He quoted also 
 O’Connor's account of his conversation with 
 Acland, during the sitting of the late anti-corn- 
 law conference, in which Acland is represented 
 to have said “ The object of the present meet- 
 ing in London is to take into consideration the 
 stopping of the mills on a given day ; and they 
 will do it.” As further evidence that the strike 
 was got up by the Repealers, he said that the 
 middle classes of Ashton and Staley-bridge sub- 
 scribed £9 to furnish the first turn-outs with the 
 means of going to Preston and elsewhere to stop 
 the mills there. Y'et, now that Chartism, or the 
 Chartist leaders, had foolishly allied themselves 
 with the strike, these men tried to throw the 
 odium on them. If the Chartist leaders had 
 taken a false step, they ought not to follow 
 them, and they could even asist them better by 
 not striking. Let them think what they were 
 about to do ! Were the trades of Sheffield 
 Chartist already ? If they were, would they, at 
 the fiat of that meeting, turn out to a man ? In 
 some trades there might be a majority of Char- 
 tists, but the acting and leading men, the com- 
 mittee-men and the secretaries, and the speakers 
 of the trades, were not Chartists. They were 
 supporters of the corn-law repealers, and their 
 
 constant language was, Harney ! If it 
 
 had not been for him and O’Connor, we should 
 have got the repeal of the corn laws long ago.” 
 These men had a bitter hatred to Chartism and 
 the Charter, and to all who figured in their 
 movement. 
 
 “ He did not believe that the majority of the 
 trades were Chartists. They might carry a re- 
 solution here to cease work, and hundreds would 
 cease ; but would those who were not present 
 be bound by it ? He was sure they w ould not ; 
 but to-morrow morning the majority of the work- 
 shops and the wheels would be going. Those 
 who had struck might assemble and turn them 
 out, but would that make them Chartist? When 
 they were out, would they stop out ? Men who 
 turned out, not for the Charter, hut for fear of 
 having their heads broken, when the turn-outs 
 had left them, or when military protection was 
 afforded them, would resume their labour in 
 spite of the turn-outs. Even the Northern Star 
 
237 
 
 assured them that many of the men who had 
 been turned out in other towns had resumed 
 work. In Halifax, they were turned out on 
 Monday ; blood was shed on Tuesday ; but on 
 Thursday the^meii returned to their work. Were 
 the men of Sheffield going to make fools of them- 
 selves by passing a resolution for a strike, and 
 then act as the men of Halifax had done ? If 
 they were going to strike, was it not worth while 
 to spend a few hours in considering the subject. 
 He hoped that some of the bold, fire-eating fel- 
 lows who blamed him, would stand forth and 
 give their reasons. Before he could consent to 
 the strike, he must be satisfied of two things — 
 first, that the trades of Sheffield were Chartists, 
 and secondly, that they would turn out of them- 
 selves, for the Charter, without coercion. 
 
 ** If the strike were universal and peaceful, 
 and were to take place on a given day, then 
 perhaps their object could be accomplished 
 before they would be famished. But, were they 
 now to turn out, before the end of the weeli 
 hundreds would be starving. He would have 
 no part in this. He was not a cutler, or a shoe- 
 maker, or a bricklayer. If he held up his hand 
 for the strike, he should turn them out, but he 
 should keep himself in. It was impossible for 
 him to give up work. His work was to sell 
 newspapers, and to furnish reports to a certain 
 paper. If they were to turn out, they could 
 not do without a paper, and as many of them as 
 could muster the money would come to him on 
 Saturday for the Star. He must sell them, and 
 thus he should be getting his belly filled while 
 they were starving. In all troublesome times, 
 the newspapers had a harvest : editors, vendors, 
 and proprietors of newspapers, knew well that 
 routs, riots, tumults, and rebellions, produced 
 them profit. He sold more Stars last week by 
 a hundred than he had ever done before, and no 
 doubt it would be the same next Saturday. It 
 might be very fine fun for him to promote a 
 strike ;. but what a wretch should he be were he 
 to promote a course which would bring profit to 
 him,, while it would leave them without food. 
 
 “ The speakers who preceded him had done 
 anything but come to the question. I repeat, are 
 you ready to fight the soldiers ? You may say 
 that this is not the question ; but I tell you that 
 would be the question. I do not think you are. 
 I am ready to share your perils, but- I will not 
 lead you against the soldiers. I am no soldier ; 
 and the man who undertakes to lead the people 
 in a. conflict with the military, undertakes an 
 
 awful responsibility, which no man should un- 
 dertake unless he has confidence that he sees 
 his way to lead the people to victory, and rescue 
 them from the difficulties into which he must 
 plunge them.” 
 
 Gentlemen, my opposition to the pro- 
 jected strike Avas successful, and though 
 for my conduct I have had the abuse 
 and calumny of some of my own party, 
 I have never regretted the part I played 
 that day. In Sheffield there has been 
 no disturbances— no collisions of the peo- 
 ple and the military — no marshalling of 
 police — no calling out of the yeomanry — 
 no swearing in of special constables — no 
 reading of the riot act, in short they 
 preserved p^ace throughout the whole 
 period of the disturbances elsewhere, and 
 yet I am charged with having conspired 
 to effect, by force and tumult, a change 
 in the constitution. And upon whose 
 evidence, gentlemen ? First, Griffin, 
 who has been for many years a profess- 
 ing Chartist; he has filled responsible 
 and popular situations in the Chartist 
 movement ; he has long been known as 
 a reporter for Chartist newspapers ; he 
 was the first person wffio suggested the 
 calling of the conference, yet he has 
 appeared in the wdtness-box against 
 those who he was the principal instru- 
 ment of bringing together ; he has ap- 
 peared before you in the character of a 
 betrayer of his former associates. The 
 evidence of such a man should be re- 
 ceived with caution ; he has disregarded 
 all the obligations of friendship, and 
 treacherously violated the trust and con- 
 fidence reposed in him — may not such a 
 man deceive you ? In the address which 
 I have quoted, this Griffin talks of the 
 virtue and glory of a public man con- 
 sisting in remaining faithful to his prin • 
 ciples till death ; and now see him doing 
 his utmost to destroy the men who re- 
 main faithful to the jjrinciples he has 
 betrayed. In the conclusion of his ad- 
 dress, he hypocritically appeals to the 
 Ruler of the Creation, to stamp with the 
 seal of his divine approbation the exer- 
 tions of myself and brother defendants 
 for the obtainment of the Charter. 
 What a base hypocrite must this man 
 be. He calls upon us to do our duty 
 as he pledges himself to do his. Behold 
 the fulfilment of his pledge ! He has 
 appeared in the witness-box against him 
 
238 
 
 upon whose funds he so long subsisted, 
 and against men who relieved him in his 
 need, and saved him from the pangs 
 and horrors of starvation, — ^lus snake- 
 like stinging the hand that fed, and fix- 
 ing his envenomed fangs into those who 
 nourished him. Upon the evidence of 
 this man I was arrested, dragged from 
 home, and insulted by the grossly illegal 
 annoyance to which I was subjected; 
 when, not content wuth an’esting my per- 
 son, the officer v/ho arrested me searched 
 my home, and took away letters, books, 
 &c. ; and all this in violation ol the law. 
 The other witness, Cartledge, was a 
 delegate, gave his support to the resolu- 
 tion passed by the conference, (I believe 
 seconded the address adopted by the dele- 
 gates), and was a violent supporter of the 
 strike. Surely, gentlemen, you will not 
 convict me upon the evidence of men so 
 base as tliese. But if the verdict should 
 be Guilty,” though the cold prison cell 
 — though my consignment to the living 
 tomb of crime and misery should be the 
 consequence, yet, believe me, gentlemen, 
 I speak not the language of idle rant or 
 bombastic folly, when I declare to you, 
 that I would not change my present situa- 
 tion for that of my accusers to escape all 
 that torture could inflict upon me. 
 Though my march from this court w^as to 
 the scaffold, there to exchange the em- 
 braces of love for the cold grasp of the 
 executioner’s red reeking hand, there to 
 yield up life with its heart-correcting sor- 
 rows, its hopes and joys, alas, (oo few, for 
 that unfathomable futurity beyond the 
 grave, — I would not— I speak the 
 language of calm reflection — exchange 
 iny lot for that of my accusers. Let them 
 shrink from the light of day, let them fly 
 from the haunts of their species, and 
 alone— cut off from the sympathies of 
 their fellow-creatures and the love of their 
 kind, feast on the reward of their treachery 
 and riot on the gains of their fiendish 
 falsehood ; let them not forget their 
 broken pledges and violated vows, vows 
 of adherence to a cause they have so in- 
 famously betrayed — the remembrance 
 of these wdll add a relish to their enjoy- 
 ments and a zest to their pleasures. But, 
 gentlemen, there will come a day when 
 they will have their reward, when reflec- 
 tion’s sting shall poison all, w'hen the 
 worm of memory shall gnaw" at their 
 
 j hearts, and, like the Prometnean vulture, 
 feast upon their vitals, until the conscience- 
 stricken w'retches shall wdther beneath the 
 tortures of conscious guilt, and, dying, 
 shall go dowm to the grave without the 
 love of wife or child, countryman or 
 friend, to shed a tear to their memories — 
 remembered only to be execrated, and 
 thought of only with feelings of the 
 utmost loathing and disgust. Gentlemen, 
 I feel that it is as a Chartist, not as a 
 Conspirator, that I am arraigned here. 
 I am a Chartist, and I glory in the name. 
 1 not only believe Chartism to be founded 
 in truth, but that the legal establishment 
 of Chartist principles is absolutely indis- 
 pensable to raise the w’orking-classes from 
 their present wretched and degraded 
 state. Witnesses have appeared before 
 you wdio have gravely assured this Court 
 that they were not cognizant of any dis- 
 tress in their localities. I know, gentle- 
 men, that, at any rate, there is deep dis- 
 tress in Sheffield. In the course of the 
 last year, five poor-rates have been levied 
 upon the town ; the poor-rate amounting 
 last year to seven shillings in the pound. 
 The inmates of the Poor-house, in De- 
 cember last, numbered nearly eight hun- 
 dred ; the able-bodied poor on the parish 
 numbered about a thousand. In the 
 year 1837, there w’as paid to the casual 
 poor the sum of £700 ; at the present 
 lime the payments to the out-door poor 
 amount to above £15,000 per annum. 
 Trades’ unions hare been much calumni- 
 ated ; and it must be admitted by^ their 
 bitterest opponents that these associations 
 have done an immensity to stave off 
 the ruin of the middle class by preventing 
 that class being wholly eaten up by poor- 
 rates. The Table-knife-grinders’ Unioil 
 paid to their unemployed hands in the 
 course of the years 1837-38-39-40-41, 
 the sum of 13,895/., and in the course of 
 four years and a half only ten of the 
 Sheffield trades have paid to their unem- 
 ployed hands no less a sum than 29,356/. 
 I will say no more on this subject, but 
 remind her Majesty’s Attorney-General 
 of the speech of Mr. Ward, the mdhiber 
 for Sheffield, in wdiich at great length he 
 described the distress and sufferings of the 
 working classes of Sheffield, one of his 
 authorities being James Montgomery, 
 Esq., "the well known poet, wdio, gentle- 
 men, if he was a Jacobite or Chartist 
 
when he was sentenced to three months’ 
 imprisonment and a fine of 20/. for 
 writing a song in praise of the French 
 Republic — is well known to be a Conser- 
 vative of the first water now', and he has 
 given most painful evidence of the abject 
 destitution of the labouring classes of 
 Sheffield, The distress is not confined to 
 one part of the country, it extends 
 throughout England, Scotland, and Ire- 
 land. I will not dwell upon the distress 
 endured at the present moment by the 
 proud-hearted and independent people of 
 Scotland, and as to Ireland, the name is 
 sufficient to remind you of its two mil- 
 lions and a half of mendicants and its* 
 lumper-fed peasants, nor will I take up 
 your time in commenting upon the ge- 
 neral state of England — enough that I 
 remind you of things in this very county 
 (of Lancashire) calculated to make us 
 blush for tamely allowing such a state of 
 things to be; — it is enough that I re- 
 mind you, gentlemen, of tales, alas, too 
 true, told of the sufferings of the people 
 in this very county ; — that Englishmen, 
 aye, free-born Britons, gentlemen, their 
 wives and little ones — soliciting, yes, ac- 
 tually begging the carrion flesh of diseased, 
 destroyed animals, that they might stifle 
 the gnawings of hunger with food which 
 the wolf might refuse to tear and the 
 vulture disdain to gorge. And why is 
 this state of things ? Because, as a 
 Chartist, I believe that the people are not 
 represented, and their interests are not 
 cared for in the legislature. Because, to 
 quote the language of Sir George Sin- 
 clair, one of the best men who ever 
 sat in the House of Commons, because, 
 as he told the House in his speech, 
 delivered in May, 1840, because the mem- 
 bers of that House are “ admirable repre- 
 sensatives of the opulent and the prosper- 
 ous, but very sorry legislators for the 
 industrious and the distressed, eager to 
 make ample provision for the luxury 
 and extravagance of the Court — unwilling 
 to take the slightest notice of the interests 
 or necessities of the poor.” There, gen- 
 tlemen, such is the description of the 
 House of Commons, not by a Chartist 
 demagogue, but by a conservative legis- 
 lator. Chartism has been denounced on 
 all sides, but could even the Chartists have 
 brought the countr}' into a worst state 
 than it is ? Does not the present state of 
 
 things proclaim, ti-umpet-tongued, that 
 the privileged classes of society have 
 abused the powers they have exercised ; 
 that they are neither fit to govern the na- 
 tion at large, nor themselves as a class ; 
 for in working the misery of the millions, 
 they are most certainly conspiring their 
 own rum. The downward progress of 
 England must be aiTested, or all that has 
 been predicted by Lord Ho wick and others 
 as the natural consequences of the pre- 
 sent state of things, will certainly come to 
 pass. I have laboured throughout my 
 public life to prevent such a conclusion, 
 and for so labouring during the late 
 strike I am dragged before this tribunal. 
 I'he remedy for the present evils I be- 
 lieve will be found in investing the peo- 
 ple with their rights. I believe I heard 
 his Lordship remark, that it had been 
 a question mooted in high places whether 
 or no a voluntary strike for a political 
 object w^as legal or illegal. — Now, I have 
 always held the opinion that a voluntary 
 cessation of the people from their employ- 
 ment is legal, no matter for what move- 
 ment, and, if I am wrong, I shall be 
 happy to stand corrected this day, that I 
 may know what course to pursue for the 
 future, if I would save myself from the 
 meshes of the law. I presume to be a 
 Chartist is not to be a criminal. The At- 
 torney-General has said, on* the trial of 
 Frost, that the Chartists had as clear a 
 right to agitate for the Charter as the 
 Whigs of 1832 had to agitate for the 
 Reform Bill, adding, that if ever the day 
 shall come, that on the side of the Char- 
 ter shall be arrayed the strength and 
 sinews, the numbers and intelligence of 
 the country, that undoubtedly it will be- 
 come law, and mere wealth will struggle 
 against it in vain. This is all we ask ; 
 leave us to enlist public opinion on our 
 side, if we can, and we will abide the 
 issue. But loose not the bloodhounds of 
 persecution upon us, nor seek by gaols 
 and scaffolds to stem the onward progress 
 of mind, for I warn those w'ho would 
 have recourse to such means to put 
 down Chartism that they will miserably 
 fail. The dominant sects and privi- 
 leged classes of all countries in all ages 
 have tried by persecution to preserve 
 their power, and they have ever failed. 
 So sure as the despised, trampled upon, 
 persecuted Christians triumphed over 
 
240 
 
 tlieir enemies and oppressors, beat- 
 ing down by the force of opinion the 
 power of the pagan hierarchy until the 
 imperial purple was worn by a convert, 
 and the followers of the cross became the 
 acknowledged masters of the Roman 
 world ; — so sure will the now persecuted 
 Chartists, having truth for their guide, 
 and justice for their end, triumph over 
 present and future opposition, and by the 
 force of reason and the march of mind 
 oblige monarchs to acknowledge the jus- 
 tice of their principles, and compel the 
 privileged classes to yield to the rights of 
 man — rights based on this glorious prin- 
 ciple, Do unto thy brother as thou 
 wouldst thy brother should do unto thee.” 
 Gentlemen, that principle is altogether 
 violated under the present system of legis- 
 lation. A state of slavery exists in this 
 country, as real as that which exists in 
 Carolina or Constantinople ; the differ- 
 ence between the slavery in Turkey and 
 America and that which exists here, is 
 that in those countries the slave s body 
 is sold in the market-place, and in this 
 country you sell his labour in the house 
 of legislature. Against such a state of 
 things I protest, against it I will contend. 
 If to hold the principles! conscientiously 
 entertain is to be a seditionist, I am con- 
 tent to be punished as such ; and, assured 
 as I am that in these principles alone will 
 be found the political salvation of nations, 
 and the rescuing of the millions from 
 their present state of physical suffering 
 and social degradation, I am content to 
 be regarded through life as a seditionist, 
 and go down to the grave with the title 
 of seditionist inscribed upon my tomb. 
 Gentlemen, if the plain and honest ex- 
 position of facts I have laid before you 
 has been sufficient to convince you of 
 my innocence, you will acquit me; but 
 I will not seek to purchase such a verdict 
 by any abandonment of my principles. 
 You may incarcerate my body and tor- 
 ture me in your prisons, but you cannot 
 enchain thought, nor prevent with your 
 laws and jails the growth of mind : and 
 so sure as the march of man’s intellect is 
 onward and forward, so sure will these 
 principles go on, conquering and to con- 
 quer. Yes, in the language of the 
 martyred Muir, It is a good cause ; it 
 shall ultimately prevail ; it shall finally 
 triumph.” — The conviction that cheered 
 
 that patriot on the eve of banishment 
 from his loved land, is my consola- 
 tion on the threshold of a dungeon. 
 Gentlemen, I have done ; I leave my 
 case in your hands ; I have a right to 
 expect at your hands a verdict of ac- 
 quittal ; but if your verdict should be the 
 opposite of what I have a right to antici- 
 pate, I trust I shall meet the consequences 
 of a verdict of guilty wdth that fortitude 
 which will become me as a man, and 
 that unflinching consistency of conduct, 
 and unyielding devotion to principle, 
 which should ever characterize the man 
 who, as I have done, devotes his life to 
 the service of his fellow'-men, and the 
 promotion of the happiness and welfare 
 of the whole human family. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is there any other de- 
 fendant who wishes to address the Court ? 
 
 SAMUEL PARKES : — My Lord, 
 and gentlemen of the jury; in rising 
 to address you on this occasion, I am 
 constrained to confess that I feel the 
 importance and peculiarity of the position 
 wdiich I am now called to occupy ; sur- 
 rounded, as I am by gentlemen of high 
 wealth and influence, and opposed too by 
 gentlemen possessing a vast amount of 
 talent, learning and ability — - opposed 
 by gentlemen employed by and on 
 behalf of the Crowm — gentlemen pos- 
 sessed of all the advantages of a classi- 
 cal education — who have every avenue 
 opened to them for the attainment of that 
 knowdedge and learning which was neces- 
 sary for their occupation — opposed by 
 gentlemen wdio are considered, no doubt, 
 by their employers, to possess the greatest 
 amount of learning of any in the British 
 Empire, accompanied with long expe- 
 rience, extensive practice, deep research, 
 and great renowm — gentlemen, who have 
 every advantage v/hich I do not possess 
 for collecting together that evidence which 
 they may consider necessary to find me 
 guilty — who have had in their possession 
 die charge against me, and the deposi- 
 tions of w itnesses, of which I have been, 
 up to the present hour deprived — by gen- 
 tlemen possessing all these advantages, 
 am I this day opposed. Gentlemen, you 
 will please to bear in mind the fact I am 
 about to announce. I, the humble indi- 
 vidual before you, am but a poor working 
 man, altogether ignorant of (he techni- 
 calities of the law; unacquainted with 
 
241 
 
 legal processes and forms of judicature; 
 having no education except that stolen 
 from hours of sleep, after days of exces- 
 sive toil ; having by a series of painful 
 events been deprived of the means of at- 
 taining that learning and knowledge 
 which would be of so much solace to me 
 now, and for which, from a child, I have 
 thirsted in vain. You will also bear in 
 mind, gentlemen, that this is the first 
 time I have appeared in the character of 
 a person at the bar of my country, and in 
 that character in which I am arraigned 
 by the counsel for the prosecution. Gen- 
 tlemen, in the eye of the Eternal God, 
 and in the view I take of myself, in my 
 own conscience, I can lay my hand on 
 my heart, and in truth pronounce myself 
 not guilty of the charge. With all these 
 painful circumstances by which I am 
 surrounded — with all those disadvantages 
 under which I labour — notwithstanding 
 that all these combine together to present 
 a very formidable barrier in my path, and 
 thereby prevent me from doing that jus- 
 tice to myself and the cause I have 
 espoused, which they so imperatively de- 
 mand — I say that, noth withstanding these 
 disadvantages, I have undertaken the im- 
 portant task of defending myself on this 
 occasion ; not that I suppose I possess 
 all the qualifications possessed by the At- 
 torney-General, or the counsel for the 
 prosecution — not because I possess argu- 
 mentative powers superior to others — no, 
 gentlemen, but because I am conscious 
 of my honesty and purity of motive, — 
 conscious of the uprightness of my actions, 
 and, above all, my perfect innocence of 
 the charge brought against me this day. 
 With these considerations before me I 
 am inspired with hope and confidence to 
 enter on my defence ; believing, as I do, 
 that the mere force of unsophisticated 
 truth will supply in me the place of legal 
 acquirements, and that common sense 
 will be found more than a match for all 
 the interested quibbling whereby it is 
 sought to involve me in the meshes of the 
 law. Gentlemen, I feel it to be my duty 
 on this occasion, for a variety of reasons, 
 which 1 must state, to call upon you to 
 dismiss from your minds any prejudice 
 which class distinctions may have created, 
 or any erroneous opinions you may have 
 formed of those principles to which I am 
 devotedly detached — to dismiss from your 
 
 minds any party feeling — any antipathy 
 that you may have against the party with 
 which I am inseparably connected — which 
 may have been caused by the influence 
 of a corrupt, selfish, and venal press. 
 Testimony has been borne to day to the 
 fact, and every day’s transactions prove, 
 that no body of men whatever have been 
 more grossly misrepresented that the men 
 who hold the principles which I stand 
 here to advocate this day. ft may be 
 necessary for me to call upon you to dis- 
 regard some of the corrupt statements 
 laid down before you by the counsel for the 
 prosecution, and, in your capacity of 
 judges, holding an even balance between 
 the accuser and the accused, that you will 
 be solely guided by the facts of the case, 
 and by the motives that have impelled 
 me to seek a reform of some of those 
 laws, which I have, for years, believed 
 militated against the happiness, comfort 
 and prosperity of the British nation ; 
 and that in the verdict you. will 
 i deliver, you will act honestly as in 
 ! the sight of God, the searcher of hearts, 
 
 I that you will thereby prove yourselves 
 I w'orthy of occupying the place of a British 
 ■jury — that you will thereby prove your- 
 j selves the impassable bulwark and pro- 
 tector of feeble poverty, against the en- 
 croachments of power and might — the 
 vigilant protectors of the rights of man 
 ! and the privileges of Englishmen. My 
 Lord, and Gentlemen of the jury, while 
 I claim your indulgence for any errors 
 , w’hich in the course of my defence I may 
 commit — while I do not wish nor intend, 
 my Lord, to insult you, nor, by anything 
 I may advance, to irritate your minds, 
 
 ! yet I claim the right as a man, as an 
 i Englishman, and as a Christian, faith- 
 ' fully, fearlessly, and boldly to advance 
 those truths which I may deem necessary 
 , for my defence. Xt may be necessary 
 [ for me, gentlemen, in order to enable you 
 to form a correct opinion of my cha- 
 racter, conduct and motives, to give you 
 a brief outline of my manner of life from 
 my youth up till now. By so doing I 
 will show what has been the tendency of 
 my conduct, and how the principles 
 which I profess must operate. Gentle- 
 men, I may inform you that I was born 
 of poor, but honest and industrious pa- 
 rents, in an agricultural district. My 
 parents were unable to furnish me with 
 
242 
 
 the means of education. At an early 
 period of life I was taken under the 
 tuition of Sabbath school instruction, my 
 parents being too poor to furnish me with 
 any other means of instruction. From 
 that time till I was fourteen years of age 
 I had to work, in order to aid my 
 widowed mother in obtaining those means 
 which were necessary for my sustenance 
 and support. At that age I was bound 
 an apprentice to a shoemaker, and up to 
 the age of twenty-one I remained with 
 my master, whom I afterwards left, having 
 served the full term of my apprenticeship. 
 From that time till the present I have 
 followed the same occupation. I have 
 acted in the capacity of a journeyman 
 shoemaker. I am going through this 
 narrative in order to lead you to an im- 
 portant point. You will find, gentlemen, 
 that this is no idle statement. I wish not 
 to trespass on your patience, or prolong 
 this trial by the introduction of unne- 
 cessary matters, but I have an important 
 motive in view by giving this outline of 
 my character. It will give you a view of 
 my motives and the general tenor of my 
 life. Gentlemen, in consequence of the 
 ti'ade w'hich I received at a very early 
 period of my life, I became the subject 
 of religious impressions. I became con- 
 nected with a certain body of Christians, 
 and acted in the capacity of local preacher 
 in connection with that body. I since be- 
 came a mamed man, and have endea- 
 voured to train up my children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 Three of those children I have left behind 
 me with an affectionate partner. Not- 
 withstanding my religious practices, and 
 strict sobriety — (for I have been a total 
 abstainer for the last three years), I have 
 had to contend with such a mass of suf- 
 fering as would make your heart bleed to 
 hear the bare recital of it, much less 
 to endure it. I have been led to en- 
 quire into the causes why, and where- 
 fore, these sufferings should come upon 
 me, because I am convinced that there 
 is an intimate and inseparable connexion 
 between cause and effect; and that for 
 any suffering which an honest, indus- 
 trious, and sober man has to contend 
 with, there must be a cause. Now, gen- 
 tlemen, I have enquired of those with 
 whom I am a,cquainted as a Christian, 
 what could he the cause of this suffering, 
 
 and I have been told by those who are 
 the heralds of mercy and peace, that it 
 was a dispensation of Providence, and 
 that the greater the curse in this life, the 
 greater and more abundant the happiness 
 to be enjoyed in the life to come. I be- 
 gan to look into the matter, and found, 
 after every effort I made, that effort was 
 vain, to enable me and my family, as the 
 reward of my industr}^ to live in com- 
 fort, and pay my way. 1 found others, gen- 
 tlemen, in a similar position. They were 
 peaceable, industrious, and sober, and 
 their families were in a condition similar 
 to my own. The consequence was, that I 
 was led to enquire still further. I know, 
 my Lord, and-gentlemen of the jury, 
 that it is a very easy matter for men to 
 declare that we should be content in 
 every state of life — that it is the will of 
 heaven that men should be hungiy and 
 thirsty, and so on, and that they should 
 be content ; but I have found, by close 
 investigation, that these truths are not 
 found in the inspired volume. It is 
 an easier matter for men who have their 
 cupboards full, and their backs well clad, 
 to preach up the doctrine of content- 
 ment with an empty belly, than it is for 
 ** I,” or others, enduring that, to content 
 themselves in that position. Now, gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, having pursued my 
 enquiries thus far, I was led to discover 
 this important point, — that it was not in 
 any dispensation of Divine Providence 
 that this suffering had its origin. I 
 found, by the reports of the press, the 
 Corn-law League, and the British House 
 of Commons, that there was such a mass 
 of suffering, distress, and privation, cir- 
 culated over the face of the whole land — 
 spreading devastation and desolation over 
 the domestic hearth — robbing the poor 
 man of the comforts which he ought to 
 enjoy, and rendering the honest industry 
 of the British artizans of this once happy 
 land, insufficient to procure for them the 
 necesaries of life. Thus poverty ex- 
 tended to such an alarming extent among 
 that class of men who produced all the 
 clothing, and yet went naked ; who built 
 all the bouses, and sometimes the palaces, of 
 others, and yet were themselves obliged to 
 congregate, by three or four families, in one 
 dwelling ; as was the case with the poor 
 Spitalfield weavers, in last August twelve- 
 month’, who had to seek a rock for want 
 
243 
 
 of shelter. Those who produce the food 
 are deprived of it, while, strange to tell, 
 those who neither labour, sweat, toil, nor 
 spin, enjoy all the comforts of life ; they 
 inhabit splendid palaces, their tables are 
 furnished with all the luxuries that can 
 be gathered together from the four 
 corners of the globe, by the industry of 
 others — their tables are groaning beneath 
 these delicacies, w'hile those who bring 
 them together are starving for the com- 
 mon necessaries of life. Gentlemen, I 
 ask, is not this an unnatural and 
 contradictory state of things, and one 
 which is quite at variance with the foun- 
 dation of all social institutions, which 
 have for their object the happiness of 
 mankind. But I am told that the rich 
 and the poor will always be — that some 
 were born to be rich, and to rule, and 
 that others were born to be poor, and in 
 subjection. I am told that this is in 
 accordance with the will of the Supreme 
 Being who superintends the affairs of 
 kingdoms and empires — but, gentlemen, 
 if time is allowed, before I have done, I 
 will prove that these things are at vari- 
 ance with the nature and character of the 
 Deity ; with the revelation which he has 
 left us of his will ; with the dictates of 
 common sense, and the strict rules of 
 justice 
 
 The JUDGE : — I am reluctant, in- 
 deed, to interrupt a person in the situa- 
 tion of a defendant ; but it is my duty to 
 call your attention to the charge against 
 you, and with which what you are now 
 saying has no connection whatever. The 
 only charge against you is, that on the 
 17th of August you attended a meeting 
 of Chartist delegates, and that at that 
 meeting a certain resolution was moved, 
 and an address voted, which resolution 
 and address, it is contended on the part 
 of the prosecution, implicate you in a 
 conspiracy to encourage parties violently 
 to stand out and not work till the Charter 
 became the law of the land. That is the 
 only charge against you. If every de- 
 fendant is to go into the whole history of 
 his birth, character, and education, there 
 will be no end to this enquiry. I would 
 not care what time you occupied, pro- 
 vided it was with any matter which had 
 the most remote relevance to the points 
 at issue ; but by your present course you 
 are doing no good to yourself, or those 
 associated with you 
 
 SAMUEL PARKES : — Here is the 
 difficulty which I am placed in — I came 
 to this trial without having ever had sub- 
 mitted to me the charge against which I 
 was to defend myself, or a list of the 
 witnesses. Consequently, I feel a great 
 difficulty in pleading against the charge. 
 
 The JUDGE Well then, I have 
 taken the pains of making a sort of ledger 
 for the purpose of enabling every de- 
 fendant to see the harge against him. 
 The charge against you is, on the evi- 
 dence of the man James Cariledge, who 
 says, On the morning of the 17th of 
 August I went to Leach’s shop, and there 
 saw Harney of Sheffield, Parkes, and 
 several others.” — He says he saw you 
 there. He then states that a meeting 
 took place at Scholefield’s chapel, and 
 enumerates the parties present, twenty- 
 three in all, and you are one. And then 
 he states this resolution about publishing, 
 and gives the substance of the resolution 
 of the delegates, which resolution was 
 proposed by Bairstow, and seconded by 
 Feargus O’Connor. That resolution was 
 carried, and afterwards an address was 
 carried. It was said at the meeting, and 
 not contradicted, that the minority should 
 be bound by the decision of the majority. 
 If you were there it will be for you to 
 contend, that the resolution and address, 
 when fairly considered, do not involve you 
 in the guilt alleged against you — that of 
 having conspired to induce the work 
 people to cease from their labour, and 
 obtain a change in the law by force and 
 violence. 
 
 The DEFENDANT : — I thank you, 
 my Lord, for that advice you gave me. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — Pause a little, for I 
 may have put you out. It is a complicated 
 charge which you have to meet. The 
 charge is, that you combined with others 
 to induce persons by force to stand out, 
 in order to make the Charter become the 
 law of the land ; and the mode in which 
 that is brought home, to you is, that you 
 were one of the delegates who adopted 
 that resolution and address. The only 
 way in which you can defend yourself is, 
 by shewing that the resolution and ad- 
 dress have no tendency to encourage force 
 or violence. 
 
 A JUROR : — My Lord, I understood 
 ou to say, that your Lordship would lay 
 cfore us the evidence affecting each paa?- 
 Ucular defendant. Now, my Lord, we 
 
244 
 
 wish to hnow if it is necessary for us to 
 sit here, and give atfention to matters en- 
 tirely irrelevant such as the last two 
 speeches have been ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — The defendants are 
 not educated in these things; and, though 
 they do not keep to the points at issue 
 exactly in the way we should wish, great 
 latitude must be allowed to persons in 
 their perilous situation, who have to de- 
 fend themselves against such a serious 
 charge without the assistance of counsel. 
 I first resolved not to interrupt him at 
 all, but what he said was so entirely wide 
 of the mark- that I felt it my duty to in- 
 teiTupt him. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — My Lord, as one 
 of Ihe defendants, I wish to have the 
 question of the juror entered on your 
 Lordship’s notes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I cannot ; I never 
 heard such a question put before. 
 
 Mr. McOUBREY : — The remark of 
 the juror is really of so extraordinary a 
 nature — as it appears to me, and must to 
 the rest of the world —that I hope some 
 notice will be taken of it. It is tanta- 
 mount to saying that an English jury — 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, but 1 cannot 
 hear you, sir. 1 cannot .allow any ob- 
 servations to be made upon it. I must 
 say, however, that I never had such an 
 application made to me before. 
 
 PARKES resumed his address : — 
 Gentlemen, I will state one fact. The 
 reason why I took that course was this — 
 to show, my Lord, and gentlemen, that 
 there is an intimate connection between 
 cause and effect; and that the present 
 alarming distress of this country, of which 
 distress some parties who appeared in 
 that witness box professed themselves 
 ignorant — my object was to adduce an 
 amount of facts which could not be con- 
 troverted, contrasting the past with the 
 present state of England, and shewing 
 that the present state of distress was the 
 cause of discontent ; and before that dis- 
 content could be removed the cause which 
 produced it should be removed. And 
 then, my Lord, I would proceed to show 
 that the means by which I would propose 
 to remove that, would be by the adoption 
 of those principles called the People’s 
 Charter. — 
 
 The JUDGE : — I cannot hear an ad- 
 dress on anything of the kind. The 
 
 moment you tell me that that is youi 
 object then I cannot hear you. I am 
 not justified in hearing a discussion as to 
 what is the best mode of removing the 
 distress. 
 
 PARKES: — Then I will abandon 
 that. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Well, that is the 
 most sensible course. Every attention 
 will be given to you. 
 
 PARKES : — It appears, then, that I 
 am charged with conspiring with others, 
 by force and violence, to attempt to bring 
 about a change in the lau. Now, I have 
 ever been a man of peace, whose habits 
 of life have been sober and upright, and, 
 consequently, I would introduce that to 
 you as a proof that I could not be guilty 
 of such a conspiracy. Had I the means 
 of bringing witnesses here I could pro- 
 duce a multitude who would prove what 
 I stated ; and that w’ould have the effect 
 of w'eakening the charge against me. 
 Now', gentlemen, how could I conspire 
 w ith those individuals w'hom I never saw, 
 heard of, or knew before ; and whom I 
 did not know at the time I was elected as 
 a delegate, — for I W'ill not deny that I 
 was present at that conference, or that I 
 was at Leach’s shop, and seen by parties 
 there. No, my Lord, I love the truth, 
 and would sooner sacrifice my existence 
 than not maintain the truth. Now, 
 gentlemen, how could I conspire with 
 those individuals whom I never saw or 
 heard of, and whom I did not know 
 would be present at that conference at the 
 time I was elected in the town of Shef- 
 field ? The subject was not brought 
 under our notice before we arrived at 
 Manchester. We were ignorant of any- 
 thing of the kind. The object for which 
 we went to Manchester was to revise the 
 Ian of organization, settle the differences 
 etween our leaders, and commemorate 
 that important event in the page of his- 
 tory — the memory of the late Henry 
 Hunt. These were the objects for which 
 we met, and it was shown to you by the 
 preceding speakers that every means 
 were resorted to on that occasion by 
 the Hunt’s monument committee, for 
 the purpose of keeping the peace. I 
 saw no violence, and I know not 
 how .such a charge can be sustained 
 against me. There is no evidence 
 that I have taken any forcible step to pro- 
 
245 
 
 mote the object it is stated we had in into collision with the constituted authori- 
 view. There is no evidence that I per- ites but they would not prove by such 
 fornijed acts of force, or advised acts of means that Chartism was right. lean 
 force, either to one individual or another, ; only say that by those principles which 
 or the public at large. There is no evi- 1 1 hold I am prepared to abide. I w’ill 
 dence that I have taken such a course, j not give up my opinions, because I con- 
 and, consequently, the charge is rendered i tend that I have a right to hold those 
 null as against me. I understand, my opinions as a Chartist, as much as either 
 Lord, that when persons conspire together j a Whig or Tory has a right to hold his 
 they should know one another,, and have; opinions on political points. I love tlie 
 an acquaintance with one another; but I j principles which I have advocated, and by 
 have not, either by word of mouth, directly those principles I wdll abide. Gentlemen of 
 or indirectly, any knowledge of the get- I the jury, lam not at all daunted by ihecha- 
 ting up of a conspiracy, as is stated in the racters which have been brought into that 
 indictment, for the purpose of by force j box to implicate me on this charge. As the 
 and violence bringing about a change in preceding speaker said, I would not ex- 
 
 the law.” I have held it, as far as I have 
 been able to ascertain from my reading, 
 that I have a right to advise persons to 
 cease work for the gaining of a certain 
 object, but that I have no right — nor have 
 
 change 
 
 places with them ; for I appre- 
 hend that the curse of a justly indignant 
 people will be left on their brow, wdiile I 
 shall carry in my bosom the consciousness 
 that I have done my duty as a peaceable 
 
 I ever done it — to advise persons to a i and good subject in these realms. Gen- 
 breach of the peace — either the destruc- | tlemen of the jury, I appeal to you 
 tion of property or the taking away of j husbands, whether you have seen any- 
 
 human life. I hold this, that if it be 
 right on the part of the masters to compel 
 
 thing brought forward bj" the counsel for 
 the prosecution, sufficient to implicate 
 
 their workpeople to leave work on account | me in this charge ? If you conceive that 
 of usages, it is also right on the part of j I am guilty of inciting others to a breach 
 the workpeople to desist from labour until j of the peace — that I have contributed by 
 the masters gave them a fair remunera- | counsel, advice, or example to cause riot. 
 
 tion for that labour. If I recollect right ! disturbance, the destruction of property'. 
 
 in the trials at Stafford, when Cooper 
 one of the defendants, asked his Lordship 
 whether it was right or wrong to advocate 
 a cessation from labour in order to obtain 
 the Charter, the Judge did not venture to 
 give an opinion on the occasion. If I 
 have done anything ignorantly on this 
 occasion, be it so ; but I have not done 
 anything, in or out of the conference, that 
 would implicate me in a breach of the 
 peace myself, or of exciting others to do 
 so. My Lord and gentlemen, the pre- 
 ceding speaker, who came from the sapie 
 town I came from, has occupied the 
 ground which I intended to take, but 
 which it is unnecessary that I should go 
 over again. On our return to Sheffield 
 from the conference we prevented the 
 working classes from perpetrating any 
 acts of violence — we opposed eveiy at- 
 tempt to stand out either for wages or the 
 Charter on that occasion. And why ? 
 Because, as we told the people, we could 
 not conceive how they could justly force 
 other persons out of employment. ^ They 
 might by such an act bring themselves 
 
 or the taking away of life, then give ymur 
 verdict accordingly ; but I have not done 
 these tilings. Conscious of my own in- 
 tegrity, the uprightness of my motives, 
 and the purity of my actions, I leave 
 myself in your hands, believing you will 
 properly exercise your legitimate right, 
 and come to a just and honest conclu- 
 sion ; and that, as there is no evidence 
 against me, you will acquit me of this 
 charge. Gentlemen, I thank you for 
 your patient hearing of my imperfect 
 remarks. If I go to prison I fear it not. 
 I know the way of the righteous is fre- 
 quently paved by persecution. I am 
 glad to take my share in the persecution 
 for those great principles which I profess, 
 and by those principles I will stand or 
 fall, in prison or out of it. 
 
 The JUDGE; — Is there any other 
 defendant to address the jury ? 
 
 RICHARD OTLEY: — Gentlemen 
 of the jury, the charge against me 
 is of such a trivial nature that I might 
 venture to leave it with yon, with one or 
 two very cuisory remarks. I shall not, 
 R 
 
246 
 
 I am sure, occupy your attention long. 
 I only remember my name being men- 
 tioned twice during the whole inquiry ; 
 once by the witness Cartledge, and once 
 by Griffin. Cartledge, it appears, did 
 not so much as know my name. Griffin 
 did nothing more than state that I was 
 at the meeting on the 17th of August. 
 If it were not for the peculiarity of the 
 law I would leave the evidence entirely 
 with you without observation ; but it 
 appears that having been present at the 
 meeting on the 17th of August, I am 
 liable to a charge of conspiracy ; and, 
 therefore, it will be necessary for me to 
 attempt to clear myself of the charge 
 brought against me. It is not so much 
 that I fear bodily incarceration, but as a 
 man who has spent the whole of my life I 
 in attempting to communicate correct in- I 
 struction to the labouring classes, and 
 never liaving before been entangled in 
 any such situation as I am in at present, 
 I am so much the more concerned in re- 
 pelling the accusation under which I 
 labour. It is the danger of hazarding 
 the good will of my countrymen, rather 
 than the fear of incarceration, that con- 
 cerns me. You will remember, gentle- 
 men, when the learned Attorney-General 
 opened his case that he said — and on this 
 subject I wish to caution you, I will 
 prove so and so.” I do not know whether 
 this is the legal manner in which im- 
 peachments are laid down, but it appears 
 to me to be an assumption. If the learned 
 gentleman had said, I will endeavour 
 to prove so and so,” I think it would be 
 perfectly right. But, you have heard the 
 witnesses and all they have advanced. I 
 am not accustomed to hear witnesses, but 
 I never heard such imperfect testimony 
 brought forward as on the present occa- 
 sion. I dare say some of you have heard 
 of a certain fruit which grows on the 
 shores of the dead sea ; it looks beautiful 
 to the eye, but when seized it crumbles 
 to ashes. The Attorney-General’s proof 
 resembled that fruit. The evidence was 
 very specious in its appearance, but, when 
 tested by being brought before this court, 
 it crumbled to ashes, and was of no effect. 
 We are charged with having attempted, 
 by conspiracy, to effect a change in the 
 constitution of our country. Great la- 
 bour has been expended in endeavouring 
 to trace the turn-out for wages to us ; 
 
 but, gentlemen, take this into considera- 
 tion, that in the manufacturing districts 
 there are, at least, four out of every five 
 of the working classes, that either are 
 actually Chartists, or hold Chartist prin- 
 ciples. This being the case, it is quite 
 impossible that that there should be a 
 turn-out for wages, without having a great 
 number of Chartists among the turn-outs. 
 You all know that the people are labour- 
 / ng under grievances, and they very na- 
 turally turn round to that which they 
 believe to be the greatest evil under which 
 they are suffering. Now, you remember 
 it was stated that a certain Methodist 
 chapel was lent to the turn-outs. I an- 
 tic) pated that hundreds of thousands of 
 the new connexion Methodists would mix 
 with the turn-outs, but it does not follow 
 fron'. that that the Methodist society has 
 originated the turn-outs — no such thing. 
 This is the only connexion which I can 
 trace at the present time between the 
 Chartists and the riots and tumults which 
 have taken place during the outbreak. 
 Individual members of the Chartist body, 
 no doubt, joined themselves to the turn- 
 outs, and thinking the Charter the best 
 remedy for all their grievances, recom- 
 mended an agitation for its attainment. 
 It was in this way the question of the 
 Charter became mixed up with the turn- 
 out for wages. This I wish you to bear 
 in mind. But it has been endeavoured 
 to be fixed on us that w’e were accessories 
 after the fact, — That there was a con- 
 spiracy before, and that we abetted and 
 assisted it afterwards. From what has 
 been brought forward by the speakers 
 from the same turn-out that I came from, 
 it would appear that, so far from being 
 accessories after the fact, we were abso- 
 lutely the means of preserving, at a very 
 great risk, the peace of the town. There 
 is one expression — I don’t know whether 
 I have reason to allude to it or not — that 
 the Executive Placard is entirely cast off 
 from us. — 
 
 The JUDGE If you allude to any- 
 thing I said, that is not so. Because the 
 placard of the Executive is referred to 
 in the address of the conference. I should 
 not have interrupted you, but I was afraid 
 that you might be referring to anything 
 that I had said. 
 
 OTLEY No, my Lord, I was going 
 to make an allusion to one oassage in that 
 
247 
 
 address alluded to by the Attorney- 
 General in his opening speech. He laid 
 particular stress on the words, The God 
 of Battle.” At first sight these words, 
 perhaps, appeared a very dangerous ex- 
 pression. But if you consider only for 
 a few moments, you will find that when 
 we speak of the Deity we generally apply 
 some epithet to explain what we mean. 
 Sometimes we say the ‘^God of mercy.” 
 Our church service says, Fight for us, 
 
 0 liOrd, for we have no other to help 
 us,” or something to that effect. It ap- 
 pears to me, that the words God of 
 Battle ” are used in no other sense than 
 as an attribute of the God of Battle. It 
 was also stated, that some who were in 
 the conference were for moral, and some 
 for physical force. I believe, that, ac- 
 cording to what I hear around me, I am 
 not correct in that statement. There is 
 one proof that the Chartist body had no 
 intention of associating themselves with 
 the strike for wages, tumults and riots ; 
 and that is, that when the Chartist body 
 met, it appears from the evidence that 
 they had to take the question of the strike 
 into consideration. Now, if the whole 
 Chartist body had previously determined 
 to act in unison with those out on strike, 
 the question would not have to be mooted 
 afresh — the question then would be about 
 the propriety of going forward in the 
 movement already determined upon. But, 
 it appears, that, after the 17th of August, 
 there were very little riots and outbreaks 
 in the country. There is another obser- 
 vation to which I would invite your 
 attention before I enter on the chief body 
 of my defence. Taking the whole of 
 the evidence, from beginning to end, 
 it does not appear that there was one 
 instance of turning out the hands of a 
 single mill for the express purpose of 
 getting the Charter. There is not a sin- 
 gle instance of any person going to a 
 mill-owner’s and saying We insist on 
 your turning out your hands in order that 
 we may by force make the Charter be- 
 come the law of the land.” This, gen- 
 tlemen, is a material point. There is no 
 evidence of such a thing having taken 
 place, and you have no reason to conclude 
 that there was anything of the kind in- 
 tended by those who turned out for wages. 
 
 1 almost feel inclined to leave the mat- 
 ter with you without further observation 
 
 oj^y part because I am sure the length 
 of the trial and the time you have sat as 
 jurymen, are sufficient almost to exhaust 
 your patience, but, in justice to myself, I 
 think I should proceed with some argu- 
 ments to shew that the body with which 
 I am connected have not conspired to 
 produce those riots — that we have not 
 been conspirators. I have thrown these 
 arguments into the form which I hold in 
 my hand, as I am not accustomed to speak 
 on such an occasion as the present.” — 
 The defendant then commenced reading 
 from a thick quarto M.S. as follows : — 
 Gentlemen of the jury, for an English- 
 man to defend himself in a court of law, 
 which is not (perhaps arising from the 
 imperfections of human nature) always 
 one of justice, is nothing new. It is an 
 old right exercised by Englishmen at all 
 times, in order that these courts may not 
 become, as our institutions frequently do, 
 corrupt. I am aware that the adminis- 
 tration of justice maybe bad, but I slight 
 every law, as well as the administration 
 of law, which does not tend to the secu- 
 rity and prosperity of the whole, and not 
 of a mere section of society. But, recent- 
 ly, courts of law have been made, I am 
 sorry to say, the arenas of political par- 
 tizans. Men have been elevated to the 
 bench, I fear, not for the administration 
 of justice, but to terrify the oppressed 
 millions into submission to pallid w^ant, 
 and unjust, because unequal taxation. 
 Indeed the laws of England are at pre- 
 sent in opposition to the spirit of the 
 constitution — they are directly against the 
 the interests of the labourer. He is to be 
 governed, or have his property taken from 
 him, for the words are synonymous. 
 Others are exempt from government and 
 law. The labourer produces wealth ; 
 others seize and enjoy it. He feels the 
 gnawings of hunger, and is compelled by 
 the relentless hand of despotic power to 
 hear his children ask for bread without 
 having the ability to supply them. From 
 these causes I would observe, that by the 
 cruelty of the law he is driven to despair 
 and madness, until at last he bursts every 
 restraint, and convulses society to its 
 centre, till neither property, social insti- ^ 
 tutions, the sacred edifices of religion, 
 nor even life itself is safe — till like the 
 storm, or the whirlwind, he bears down 
 every opposition in tremendous and feai'^ 
 
248 
 
 ful” [Here Otley was interrupted by 
 
 several of the other defendants around 
 him, who suggested that the course he 
 W'as taking was highly prejudicial to their 
 cause as well as’his own.] From the ad- 
 vice I have just received, as well as from 
 several hints thrown out in the course of 
 my address, it would be best, perhaps to 
 adopt the first resolution with respect to 
 my situation as implicated in this charge, 
 and not go into any elaborate defence. 
 I will not, therefore, trespass on your pa- 
 tience. I hope you will take that into 
 consideration, and not consider me the 
 less innocent of the charge because I have, 
 at the suggestion of friends around me, 
 abandoned my defence — a defence got up 
 with some pains, and in which I had 
 drawn evidence from eminent men, and 
 great authorities — Blackstone, Coke, and 
 Fortescue — as well as the usages of our 
 country in ancient times — to demonstrate 
 that what we seek is not a change of the 
 constitution, but a reformation. Because 
 I have abandoned this defence, from the 
 considerations w’hich I have just quoted, 
 I hope you will not allow me on that ac- 
 count to suffer any inconvenience, or 
 consider me less entitled to an acquittal 
 at your hands. 
 
 RICHARD PILLING then rose to 
 address the Court, hut was interrupted 
 by 
 
 The DEFE\DANT OTl.EY, who 
 said : — May I beg one moment’s indul- 
 gence in order to show that I had no 
 connection with the riots or tumults. I 
 will just read a placard and letter from 
 the master cutler in Sheffield, who is 
 similar to a mayor, in our town. I wish 
 to have his testimony to show the way in 
 which the meeting was called to elect the 
 delegates for Manchester. I may also 
 state that I was only two days from Shef- 
 field. One of the witnesses stated that 
 we skulked out of iMan Chester. I wish 
 to disabuse your minds of that impres- 
 sion. I slept at the Temperance PI all 
 the night I entered Manchester. I walked 
 up and down the streets of Manchester 
 the following morniug for about an hour, 
 and I took a place at the railway jn my 
 own name when returning. I should 
 have brought forward this before, and I 
 trust you will excuse me for rising to do 
 so now. 
 
 * The JUDGE : — You are quite right. 
 
 OTLEY then proceeded to read the 
 placard calling the meeting: — 
 
 “PUBLIC MEETING. 
 
 TO THE MASTER CUTLER."— 
 
 The JUDGE : — This is the placard 
 calling the meeting at Sheffield ? 
 
 OTLEY Yes, my Lord ; to elect 
 delegates to attend this meeting on the 
 17th.— 
 
 “ We, the undersigned inhabitant householders 
 of the Borough of Sheffield, do hereby request you 
 to call a public meeting to be holden in front of 
 the Corn Exchange, on Tuesday, July the 26th, 
 1842, at half-past eight o’clock in the evening ; 
 to elect delegates to attend a conference of the 
 working classes to assemble in Manchester ; and 
 further to take into consideration the best means 
 of assisting a committee in erecting a monu- 
 ment to the memory of the late Henry Hunt, 
 Esq.” 
 
 I have no occasion to mention it further. 
 The Master Cutler declined calling the 
 meeting. He was culled upon when I 
 was in custody in Manchester, and hav- 
 ing lost the original document of the 
 requisition he sent me this letter — 
 
 Sir, — I have been this day applied to for the 
 document you waited upon me with, on or about 
 the 22nd of July last, which was numerously 
 signed, requesting that I, as Master Cutler, would 
 call a public meeting to elect delegates to attend 
 a conference of the working men. That docu- 
 ment being mislaid, I write these lines to certify 
 that such requisition was presented ; and though 
 I declined to call the meeting, I should regret 
 exceedingly if the absence of the document in 
 question should operate against you in your pre- 
 sent situation.” 
 
 The date of the meeting is the 26th of 
 July, 1842. The placard I have given 
 you. 
 
 RICHARD PILLING:— My Lord, 
 and gentlemen of the jury, I am come 
 quite unprepared with any defence ; 
 neither do I intend to take up much of 
 your time. I have took no notes of 
 what the witnesses have sworn against 
 me; but they have sworn hard — some 
 of them. I can prove, to demonstration, 
 thatMr.Gregory,the prosecutor’s attorney', 
 has sent home some of the first witnesses 
 and paid them off, because they would 
 not swear more against us than they did. 
 Gentlemen of the juryq it is staled by 
 one of the witnesses, that I was the 
 father of this great movement — the father 
 of this outbreak ; if so, then punish me. 
 
249 
 
 and let all the rest go free. But I say 
 it is not me that is the father of this 
 movement ; but that house. Our ad- 
 dresses have been laid before that house, 
 and they have not redressed our grievances; 
 and from there, and there alone, the 
 cause comes. The first witness that 
 spoke to me was a man of the name of 
 Wilcox. He spoke of being at a meet- 
 ing where he saw a placard headed — 
 
 but they did not put in the substance of 
 the placard. Now, I make application 
 to the Court either to make them put in 
 the substance of that placard as evidence, 
 or to return it to me for my defence. 
 They have it, and why should they not 
 produce it } But why mention the head- 
 ing of the placard ? Now, it is common, 
 in the manufacturing districts, to put 
 something striking on as a heading for a 
 placard, in order to get the work-people 
 to look at it. The working people rise 
 early and work late, and have no time to 
 spare. They have, some of them, miles 
 to walk to their meals, and three pence is 
 taken from each of them if they are not 
 back to their work in time. This being 
 the case w^e put anything on the head of 
 placards, or bills, merely to cause an 
 attraction that they may be read. Gen- 
 tlemen, I am somewhere about forty- 
 three years of age. I was asked last 
 night if I were not sixty. But if I had 
 as good usage as others, instead of look- 
 ing like a man of sixty, I should look 
 something like a man of thirty-six. T 
 have gone to be a hand-loom weaver, 
 when I was about ten years of age — in 
 1810. The first week I ever worked in- 
 my life, I earned sixteen shillings a- 
 week by the hand-loom. I followed 
 that occupation till 1840. Then I was 
 the father of a family — a wife and three 
 children. In 1840 I could only earn — 
 indeed the last week I worked, and I 
 worked hard, I could only earn six and 
 six pence ; but I should do that or be- 
 come a pauper. I should go to the fac- 
 tory, which I detested to the bottom of 
 ray heart, and work (or six and six pence 
 a-week, or become a pauper. But although 
 I detested the factory system, yet, sooner 
 than become a pauper on the parish I 
 submitted. I was not long in the factory 
 until I saw the evil workings of the ac- 
 
 cursed system — it is a system, whicb^ 
 above all systems, will bring this country 
 to ruin if it is not altered. I have read 
 some of the speeches by the late Mr. 
 Sadler, and I have read many letters of 
 that noble king of Yorkshire — Richard 
 Oastler — I have read many of his letters, 
 and very shortly I became an advocate of 
 the Ten Hours’ Bill. I continued to ad- 
 vocate the Ten Hours’ Bill up to the pre- 
 sent day, and as long as I have a day to 
 live, so long will I advocate the Ten 
 Hours’ Bill. After working in the factory 
 seven years, a reduction began to creep 
 in, one way or the other. I was a re- 
 sident at Stockport. A reduction crept 
 in on one side and another. There w^ere 
 some masters always who wanted to 
 give less wages than others. Seeing 
 this to be an evil, and knowing it 
 to be injurious to the master, the owner 
 of cottage-property, and the publican, — 
 knowing that all depended on the wages 
 of the working man, I became an oppo- 
 nent to the reduction of wages to the 
 bottom of my soul ; and as long as I live 
 I shall continue to keep up the wages of 
 labour, to the utmost of my power. For 
 taking that part in Stockport, and being 
 the means of preventing many reductions, 
 the masters combined all as one man 
 against me, and neither me nor ray chil- 
 dren could get a day’s employment. In 
 1840, there was a great turn-out in 
 Stockport, in which turn-out I took a 
 conspicuous part. We were out eight 
 weeks. We were up every morning from 
 five to six o’clock. Upwards of 6000 
 power-loom weavers were engaged in that 
 turn-out. We had our processions. We 
 went to Ashton, Hyde, and Duckinfield 
 in procession. We had our processions 
 in Manchester, and all over the country,, 
 and we were not interfered with. No one 
 meddled with us — no one insulted us. 
 We were never told, at this time, that we 
 were doing that which was wrong. Con- 
 sidering, from the act of parliament that 
 was passed when the combination laws 
 were repealed in 1825, that I had a right 
 to do so; I did believe, as an Englishman, 
 and factory operative that, in conse- 
 quence of that act, I had a right to do 
 all that ever lay in my power to keep up 
 wages. In 1840 the master manufac- 
 turers, to the number of about forty, had 
 a meeting, and they conspired together — 
 
250 
 
 if there is conspiracy on the one side 
 there is conspiracy on the other — and 
 they gave us notice for a reduction of 
 one penny a cut. Some people think a 
 penny is a small reduction, but it amounts 
 to five weeks’ wages in the course of the 
 year. It is 2s. 6d. a week. Thus by that 
 reduction, they were robbing every opera- 
 tive of five weeks’ wages. I knew that 
 Stockport would be injured in conse- 
 quence of that reduction. I knew the 
 result would be that the master-manufac- 
 turers themselves would be injured by it. 
 My prophecy is fulfilled. One-half of 
 them is broken, and the other half is in- 
 solvent. When they gave notice of that 
 reduction, they said — “ Blackburn, Pres- 
 ton, and all the manufacturing districts 
 are paying less than us, and we shall all 
 break unless we come down to the Black- 
 burn prices.” What was the result ? 
 Hyde, Ashton, Stalybridge, Bolton, Wi- 
 gan, Warrington, Preston, Blackburn 
 reduced. In another year all the towns 
 in the manufacturing districts reduced 
 again. Not content with that reduction, 
 about Bvelve months after they took off 
 another penny a cut, besides taking two 
 shillings off the Throstle spinners wdio 
 had only nine shillings a week, and 
 eighteen-pence off the card spinners, who 
 had only eight shillings a week, and so 
 on. When they took the other penny a 
 cut off, I pulled all the hands out, and 
 we went round again to all the manufactur- 
 ing districts, and brought things to a level 
 again. The manufacturers of Stockport 
 met again, and said — *Mve cannot com- 
 pete w'ith Blackburn and Preston, and we 
 must reduce again,” — and this is the way 
 they will go on until at length they re- 
 duce so low that we shall all become 
 paupers. Gentlemen, I w'ent to Ashton. 
 Myself and my two sons w'ere then work- 
 ing at the mills for twelve-pence half- 
 penny a cut. Our work was thirty cuts 
 a w^eek — w*hich makes £1 11 5. 3d. 
 When Stockport reduced, my employer 
 took off a penny a cut ; then he took off 
 a half-penny a cut. — I am not blaming 
 him ; he was only following others. If 
 one master reduces, the others mu si; re- 
 duce also. They all have to meet in one 
 market, and if one man at a certain price 
 has a penny profit, and the other only a 
 farthing, he who has only the farthing 
 will break. I w'as in very poor circum- 
 
 stances then, having a wdfe and seven 
 children to support ; and only three of 
 us earning wages, as I told you. My 
 wages then (two years and a half ago) 
 was £ 1 1 1 5. 3d. He then took a penny 
 off for every cut. I had to pay three 
 shillings for rent, one shilling and six- 
 pence for fire, sixpence for soap, and two 
 shillings for clothing, leaving, after reck- 
 oning ail up, about one pound a week for 
 provisions. When he took this penny off 
 it caused a reduction in my wages of 
 two shillings and sixpence. Shortly after 
 he took off a half-penny a cut, which was 
 a reduction of one shilling and three- 
 pence a w'eek more. Fifteen months 
 since they took another penny off ; then 
 they took a farthing a cut off, and at the 
 mill we worked at we turned out against 
 the farthing. Three men who were out 
 on that strike were turned off when the 
 hands returned to their work. I am not 
 ashamed to state that I did all I could 
 along with other individuals to prevent 
 the reduction. We accomplished that, 
 and there never was any good done either 
 to operatives, masters, or owners of cot- 
 tage property but some one suffered : 
 and if I am found guilty of doing 
 my best to promote the interests of those 
 whom I love, I shall still rejoice in con- 
 sidering that my exertions have prevented 
 a reduction which would have been inju ■ 
 rious to so many. Peace, law, and or- 
 der was our motto, and we acted up to 
 that motto. In Ashton-under-Lyne one 
 pennyw'orth of damage was not done to 
 property, although we w’ere out for six 
 weeks. My Lord, and gentlemen of the 
 jury, it was then a hard case for me to 
 support myself and family. My eldest 
 son but one, who was sixteen years of 
 age, had fallen into a consumption last 
 Easter and left his work. We were then 
 reduced to 9f d a cut, wdiidi brought our 
 earnings down to something like sixteen 
 shillings a week. That is all I had to 
 live on, with my nine in family, three 
 shillings a week going out of that for rent, 
 and a sick son lying helpless before me. 
 
 I have gone home and seen that son — 
 [here Pilling was moved to tears, and 
 unable to proceed for some time.] I have 
 seen that son lying on a sick bed and 
 dying pillow, and having nothing to eat 
 but potatoes and salt. Now, gentlemen 
 of the jury, just put yourselves in this si- 
 
251 
 
 tuation, and ask yourselves whether see- 
 ing a sick son that had worked twelve 
 hours a day for six years, in a factory — 
 a good and industrious lad — I ask you, 
 gentlemen, how you would feel if you 
 saw your son lying on a sick bed and 
 dying pillow, with neither medical aid, 
 nor any of the common necessaries of 
 life ? — Yea, I recollect some one going 
 to a gentleman’s house in Ashton, to ask 
 for a bottle of wine for him ; and it was 
 said, Oh, he is a chartist, he must have 
 none.” [Great sensation in court]. Oh, 
 such usage from the rich will never con- 
 vince the chartists that they are wrong. 
 Gentlemen, my son died before the com/< 
 mencement of the strike ; and such vras 
 the feeling of the people of AshJvO'n to- 
 wards my family, that they cr)llected £4 
 towards bis. bm-h).L G-C-u'tlemen of the 
 j-Ury, it was under these circumstances 
 that I happened to call at Stockport — ex- 
 cited I will admit by the loss of my son, 
 together with a reduction of 26 per cent; 
 for I will acknowledge and confess before 
 you, gentlemen of the jury, that before I 
 would have lived to submit to another re- 
 duction of 26 per cent., I would have ter- 
 minated my own existence. That was 
 my intention. Let us now come to the 
 facts of the case. I will tell you what 
 was the origin of the strike. Although 
 three men were discharged for taking an 
 active part in the turn-out, my master did 
 not discharge me on account of the sick- 
 ness of my son ; and I believe my mas- 
 ter did not discharge those men, but some 
 of the minions — the managers. Thei 
 bellman was sent round to create sympa- 
 thy for these men. One man had a wife 
 and four children, and nothing to depend 
 on ; another had a wife and two children, 
 and nothing to depend on ; and a third 
 was a single man. Mr. Rayners of Ash- 
 ton had given notice, within a day or 
 two of that time, that he would reduce 25 
 per cent. So indignant were the feelings 
 of the people of Ashton and the surround- 
 ing district, not only the chartists, but all 
 sorts assembled; a room that would hold 
 a thousand people was crammed to suffo- 
 cation, and the whole voice of the meet- 
 ing was, that it was of no use trying to 
 get up a subscription for others, but to 
 give up. And that was just the way the 
 strike began ; it rose in a minute from one 
 end of the room to the other; v/higs, to- ‘ 
 
 ries, chartists, sham radicals, and all sorts. 
 Then it was thought proper that a com- 
 mittee should be appointed, and that com- 
 mittee issued the placard headed The 
 day of reckoning draweth nigh ;” but, if 
 the Attorney-General had read the tail as 
 well as the head of that placard, it would 
 have been seen that not one single ^wrd 
 of political matter was in it. Le^t him put 
 in the tail — let it be brought forward, and 
 you will see that there is nothing political 
 in it. That heading Behold the reckon- 
 ing day draweth nigh,” was put on it to 
 cause an -attraction ; and, if my memory 
 does not deceive me, I really believe that 
 Wilcox was the man who suggested that 
 heading, and not me as he stated. But he 
 is craftier than I am. He went to Sir 
 James Graham, or wrote a letter to l)im, 
 and. now he is put into the witness-box 
 against me. That placard stated, that if 
 another reduction was offered we would 
 cease working till we had a fair day’s 
 wages for a fair day’s work, but the 
 Charter was never mentioned. That ad- 
 dition was put to it by the witness. Ano- 
 ther resolution was, that the reduction of 
 wages was injurious to all classes of the 
 community. This was done at a meeting 
 where there were 15,000 present, and the 
 entire population is only 25,000. Nearly 
 all Ashton was there ; shopkeepers, pub- 
 licans, spinners, lawyers, (no, not law- 
 yers, they live on the wages of others, 
 and they had no business there), all were 
 at that meeting. Nearly every operative 
 in the neighbourhood was there. All 
 held up their hands in favour of the 
 resolutions. The speeches were chiefly 
 shewing the evil tendency of machinery, 
 without any protection for labour. Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, if T were to tell you 
 what I know of my own knowledge of 
 individual masters you would be asto- 
 nished. One master, at Stockport, who, 
 ten years ago, had fifty men employed 
 at 1/, 6s. a w^eek, has now the same 
 quantity of work done by ten men at U. 
 a week. I know another case where the 
 work is all done by self-acting mules. 
 I know a place where forty dressers were 
 once employed, and the work is all done 
 now by machinery. Well, we had a 
 turn-out to prevent a reduction ; and when 
 Rayner saw tlie spirit of the meeting he 
 wiihclrew his reduction. A meeting was 
 then called at Sial} ! ridge, and every one 
 
252 
 
 withdrew the reduction except Bayley. 
 Now, if there is one man who ought to 
 stand here as a defendant that is the man. 
 If he had withdrawn the reduction there 
 would have been no strike; the people 
 would have settled down and enjoyed a 
 glorious triumph in preventing the re- 
 duction. A meeting was also held at 
 Hyde ; and the people of Hyde declared 
 that if the masters attempted to make 
 another reduction they (the working 
 people) would give over. At Droylsden 
 the same. This is the history of the turn- 
 out. I would say to the jury and the 
 people assembled here, that if it had not 
 been for the late struggle I firmly believe 
 thousands would have been starved to 
 death, for the cry of the manufacturers 
 was, “ we will reduce their wages ; the 
 operatives are running against each other 
 and we may do as we please.” That was 
 the feeling by which they were ac- 
 tuated ; but I am not one of those who 
 would, like the Irish, live on the lum- 
 pers — nor would I be, like a degraded 
 Ilussian serf, sold with the land. I want 
 to see the people here well educated ; and 
 if a man has the means in his pocket be 
 will get his children educated; and if 
 the people arc once well informed, then 
 the Charter must be the law of the land. 
 My Lord, and gentlemen of the jury, 
 I have only this to say, that whatever 
 evidence has been given against me, you 
 will make great allowance for the situa- 
 tion in w'hich I was placed, in respect 
 to my family, and the operatives with 
 w'hom I worked. I have seen in the 
 factory in which I have worked, wives 
 and mothers w^orking from morning till 
 night with only one meal; and a child 
 brought to suck at them twice a day. I 
 have seen fathers of families coming in 
 the morning and working till night, and 
 having only one meal, or tu^o at tlie 
 farthest extent. This was the state w'e 
 w^ere in at the time of the strike. In 
 consequence of w’orking short lime, at 
 low wages ; with little food, wuth oppres- 
 sion upon oppression, distress upon dis- 
 tress, the people were at length nearly 
 exhausted, both in strength, circum- 
 stances, and patience ; and theyi were 
 glad, as it w^ere, that the time was come 
 when there was some resistance ofiered 
 to the manufacturers. What was the 
 result of this ? After these public meet- 
 
 ings placards were issued by these com- 
 mittees, of which I will read one ; and 
 this will show you that we did every 
 thing plainly, and above board — every 
 thing that w^e considered strictly legal : — 
 “ THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS 
 THE VOICE OF GOD. 
 
 “ To the masters and tradesmen of Ashton- 
 under-Lyne, and its vicinities. — We, the opera- 
 tives of Ashton-under-Lyne, in public meeting 
 assembled, feel it our duty to tell you thus pub- 
 licly, that such are our sufferings in consequence 
 of low wages, and numerous other things, that 
 we can no longer tamely submit to it. We, 
 therefore, wish you to give us the same prices 
 that we received in the year 1840. If you say 
 you cannot pay it, it is time, you, one and alb 
 hold a general consultation, to find out the rea- 
 sons why the labourer cannot be sufficiently re- 
 munerated for his labour ; for it is a divine maxim 
 that the labourer is worthy of his hire. We solicit 
 the co-operation of all classes of society to pre- 
 vent the total annihilation of our commerce, and 
 the ruin of the British empire. The following 
 is the list of prices requested, and the same as we 
 received in 1840 Spinners, 46 dozens, weft 
 2s. 2\d . ; twist, 3s. per thousand hanks, 27 doz- 
 ens ; twist 3s. Id. do. All sizes of wheels to 
 be paid in proportion. Rovers, the same as 
 1840. Weavers, 22 picks, 28 inches, 72 reed, 29 
 yards, Is. 4df. per cut; 19 do. 27 do. 72 do. 29 do. 
 Is. LVi. ; do. 17 do. ; 27 do. ; 66 do. ; 29 do. ; 
 Is. ; do. 9-8ths of the same reeds to be paid 
 in proportion— Dressers, 7-8ths, 72 reed, 36's 
 first 2ld. per cut, and all other reeds in proportion 
 for numbers of ends and twists. — Strippers, and 
 Grinders, £1 per week. Twiners, lOO’s, 7i^f. 
 per lb. on 270 spindles, 58’s, weft. Is. Ad. per 
 thousand; do. 33’s twist. Is. 2J. do. ; twisters 
 in 7-8, 72 reed, b\d. per beam ; 9-8, 72 yards do. 
 38 inches, Id. per do. ; 9-8, 72 do. ; 42 do. 8<?. 
 per do. Piecers, winders, reelers, frame tenters^ 
 and all others to receive the same wages they re- 
 ceived in 1840. In asking for these, we ask for 
 nothing unreasonable, we hope you shall see at 
 once the justice of our claim.” 
 
 ACter some further remarks the placard 
 goes on to say — 
 
 ” The government of our country seem deter- 
 mined not to do anything that will remove the 
 all-pervading ruin that will take place. They 
 affect to believe that the distress of the people, 
 and the embarrassment of the middle classes, are 
 not so great as they have been represented. Let 
 the shopkeepers read the following account — 
 The placard then goes on to state that 
 the iiiteiests of the shopkeepers and the 
 working classes are identical, and shows 
 
253 
 
 that, in consequence of the reduction of 
 wages, £140,400 were taken out of the 
 pockets of the work-people, and the tills of 
 the shopkeepers during 11 months. This, 
 Gentlemen, is the terrible placard of 
 which the prosecutor put in the head, 
 hut not the tail. This was sent in par- 
 cels to the prosecutor’s attorney, and 
 now he has not one of them to put in 
 evidence. But if the Charter was on 
 the top of them, you would have hun- 
 dreds of them. 
 
 '‘Whether we succeed or not, we shall have 
 the satisfaction of knowing that we have asked 
 for nothing unreasonable or unjust. We want a 
 uniform price for the whole of the manufacturing 
 districts ; and it is the interest of masters to 
 have it, in order that one man cannot undersell 
 another in the market. Much is said about over 
 production, and about the market being glutted. 
 In order to obviate the past, let us all work ten 
 hours per day, and we are sure it will lessen the 
 amount of goods in the market. The home con- 
 sumption will also be considerably increased by 
 increasing the wages of the labourer. 
 
 “ The operatives of Ashton-under-Lyne, 
 
 “ John Williamson, Printer.” 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, after sending 
 out that placard the delegates assembled, 
 and sent deputations to all the masters, 
 requesting them to co-operate with us, in 
 reducing the hours of labour to ten hours 
 a day ; we wished them to adopt such 
 rules, that one house would have no ad- 
 vantages which would enable them to 
 undersell another. We said : — 
 
 “ Let honour and principle be established — 
 let all the masters work ten hours a day, and let 
 there be an end to all reductions and turn-outs.” 
 Some of the masters said, they were 
 willing to do so, but others objected. 
 
 [The jury requested, and were allowed, 
 permission to retire for five minutes. 
 
 On the return of the jury Pilling pro- 
 ceeded] : — My Lord, and gentlemen of 
 the jury, I shall not occupy much more 
 of your time. I was stating, that on the 
 20th of August, we had a delegate meet- 
 ing, from all trades in the manufacturing 
 districts, for the purpose of drawing up a 
 list of prices to submit to the masters. 
 Ihis shows at once that the public mind 
 was settled down in a firm resolution to 
 have the wages advanced. We put an 
 advertisement in the Manchester Guar- 
 dian. We endeavoured to find out the 
 secretary of the Manchester manufac- 
 
 turers to ascertain from him if they 
 would consent to reduce the hours of 
 labour to ten hours a-day, and give the 
 wages of 1840. I was one of a deputa- 
 tion that went to Sir Thomas Potter to 
 get him to mediate between us and the 
 masters, and obtain for us the wages of 
 1840. He told us he was not a manu- 
 facturer, and should be looked upon with 
 suspicion if he interfered; and desired us 
 to go to Mr. Brotheiton. We went to 
 his house, but that gentleman was not 
 at home. iVfter the advertisement ap- 
 peared in the Manchester Guardian, in- 
 viting the masters to meet us, we came to 
 this conclusion, that we would publish 
 the resolution we bad come to, and a list 
 of prices. Gentlemen of the jury, I have 
 not depicted to you so much as I could of 
 the factory system. Many of you are ac- 
 quainted with it. I know an instance in 
 Stockport where one master, the present 
 mayor of Stockport — Mr. Orrell, em- 
 ploys 600 hands, and he will not allow 
 one man to work within the mill. I have 
 seen husbands carrying their children to 
 the mill to be suckled by their mothers, 
 and carrying their wives’ breakfasts to 
 them. I have seen this in Bradshaws 
 mills, where females are employed in- 
 stead of men. I was one .of a deputation 
 to Mr. Orrell, and also 'to Mr. Brad- 
 shaw, requesting them to allow men to 
 work at their mills, but they refused. 
 One female requested most earnestly that 
 her husband might be allowed to go and 
 work alongside of her, but she was re- 
 fused. These are a few instances that 
 came within my own knowledge ; but 
 there are thousands of others. In con- 
 sequence of females being employed 
 under these circumstances, the over- 
 lookers, managers, and other tools, take 
 most scandalous liberties with them. 
 If I were to detail to you what I have 
 seen myself done by men of that de- 
 scription you would not be astonished that 
 fathers and husbands should have a feel- 
 ing for factory operatives — you would not 
 be astonished at any one endeavouring 
 to reform the system. This is what I 
 have been doing; this is my offence. I 
 will now conclude by reading this last 
 placard, and the resolution to which we 
 came : — 
 
 To the Operatives and the Public generally:— 
 We the delegates representing the cotton trade. 
 
254 
 
 having met in Manchester, on Thursday, Sep- 
 tember 1st, 1842, take the first opportunity of 
 laying our opinions before you concerning the 
 conduct of the masters, whom we in%ited to 
 meet us, for the purpose of arranging the existing 
 differences. They having declined to do so, we 
 consider such conduct most unjustifiable; it 
 being calculated to drive the w’orking people to 
 starvation and crime, and the shopkeepers to 
 bankruptcy and ruin. Fellow workmen, we 
 therefore call on you strenuously to adhere to the 
 following resolution agreed to by our represen- 
 tatives, as the means of redeeming you from your 
 present degraded state." 
 
 Then follows the resolution, in which 
 the tvorkmen declared their intention not 
 to resume tvork till they got the prices 
 they left off at — that is, the prices of 
 1840. Gentlemen, if there is any ille- 
 gality in that, I acknowledge I am guilty. 
 There is no evidence that I was at the 
 stopping of any mills, but merely that I , 
 was speaking at public meetings, as I j 
 have frequently done before in Stockport 
 and elsewhere. I firmly believe that we 
 have a right to send delegates to get sub- 
 scriptions for the purpose of relieving 
 those out of w'ork. As 1 never came un- 
 der any prosecution for these things be- 
 fore, I thought I had a right to do the 
 same things still. But the law of con- 
 spiracy, it appears, spreads its net so that 
 no one can tell who is safe. The manner 
 in >vhich the prosecution has scraped 
 things together, shews that they had a 
 had case. I once said to a lawyer — 
 You lawyers contrive to make up a 
 good deal of things out of nothing,” 
 and he said, In order to make up 
 good thing out of nothing, I take 
 
 care to get together 
 
 a good deal and 
 
 then I am sure to make up some- 
 thing.” So they have brought together 
 a great mass of stuff’ against us in order, 
 at all hazards, to ensure a conviction. I 
 hope, as Englishmen, you will feel for 
 us, and acting conscientiously, do your i 
 duty as Englishmen have done before. | 
 When was there such a prosecution as 
 the present ? When were fifty-nine men 
 prosecuted in one indictment, for a strike. | 
 There is no such thing in the a'nnals ofi 
 history. There never was a government 
 prosecution for a turn-out for wages, like 
 the present. Instead of progressing, the 
 government are going backward. But, 
 
 though the government and prosecutors, 
 I am sorry to say, are not progressing, 
 the people are. Suppose, gentlemen of 
 the jury, you were obliged to subsist on 
 the paltry pittance given to us in the shape 
 of wages, and had a wife and six helpless 
 children, five of them under thirteen years 
 of age, to support, how would you feel ? 
 Though you were to confine me to a 
 dungeon I should not submit to it. I 
 have a nervous wife — a good wife — a dear 
 wife — a wife that I love and cherish, and 
 I have done everything that I could in 
 the way of resisting reductions in wages, 
 that I might keep her and my children 
 from the workhouse, for I detest parish 
 relief. It is wages I want. I want to be 
 independent of every man, and that is the 
 principle of every honest Englishmen ; 
 and I hope it is the principle of every 
 man in this court. Suppose gentlemen, 
 that any of you had a wife and six help- 
 less children depending on your exertions 
 for support; and suppose that one reduc- 
 tion alter another took place in your 
 wages, till the remaining portion scarcely 
 proved sufficient to provide you with the 
 common necessaries of life ; and that on 
 Saturday night your sorrowful wife had 
 nothing for her family — that she saw her 
 dear children dying almost for want of 
 the common necessaries of life ; and that 
 you had a son as I had, on a dying bed 
 without medical aid, or anything to 
 subsist on, how would you feel ? I 
 was twenty years among the handloom 
 weavers, and ten years in a factory, and I 
 unhesitatingly say, that during the whole 
 course of that time I worked twelve hours 
 a day with the exception of twelve months 
 that the masters of Stockport wmuld not 
 employ me ; and the longer and harder 
 I have worked the pooler and poorer I 
 have become every year, until, at last, I 
 am nearly exhausted. II the masters had 
 taken off' another 25 per cent., I wmuid 
 put an end to my existence sooner than 
 kill myself woiking twelve hours a day 
 in a cotton factory, and eating potatoes 
 and salt. Gentlemen of tlie jury, I now 
 leave my case in your hands. Whatever 
 it may have been with others it has been 
 u w'age question wiili me. And I do say 
 that if Mr. O’Connor has made it a char- 
 tist question, he has done wondeis to 
 make it extend through England, Ireland, 
 and Scotland. But it w'as always a wage 
 
255 
 
 question, and ten hours bill with me. I 
 have advocated the keeping up of wages 
 for a long time, and I shall do so till the 
 end of my days. And, if confined within the 
 walls of a dungeon, knowing thatas an indi- 
 vidual! have done my duty; knowingthatl 
 have been one of the great spokes in the 
 wheel by which that last reduction of 
 wages was prevented — knowing that by 
 means of that turn-out thousands and tens 
 of thousands have eaten the bread which 
 they would not have eaten if the turn-out 
 had not taken place, I am satisfied, what- 
 ever may he the result. With these ob- 
 servations I shall leave you to perform 
 your duty. I have no doubt but you 
 will, by your verdict, allow me to return 
 to my loving wife, and loving children, 
 and to my employment. My master has 
 told me, coming away, that if I return 
 again he will not take advantage of me 
 as long as I am a good workman. With 
 these considerations I leave my case with 
 you, hoping and trusting you will not rely 
 on the garbled statements given by the 
 witnesses about the turn-out, but on the 
 honesty and sincerity of the indvidiial 
 before you. And, now. Gentlemen of 
 the jury, you have the case before you ; 
 the masters conspired to kill me, and I 
 combined to keep myself alive. 
 
 GEORGE JOHNSON:— I do not 
 intend to occupy much of your time. I 
 do say that I felt my mind wounded when 
 I heard an expression of discontent from 
 one of the jurors. I hope, however, he 
 mil bear in mind that the Crown has oc- 
 cupied a great deal of time in bringing 
 foiw^ard witnesses obtained at a great deal 
 of expense and labour, to make out a 
 case for the prosecution. I hope you 
 will therefore continue to give that atten- 
 tion you have hitherto shown us, while 
 we spend a very little more time in defend- 
 ing ourselves from what I consider to be a 
 very’ unjust accusation. What I repre- 
 sent as an unjust accusation is one of the 
 most solemn matters, perhaps, ever brought 
 before a British audience for considera- 
 tion. The event of which we are the 
 representatives was certainly an event 
 which struck terror — not merely into the 
 legislature — not merely into the hearts of 
 those who have been refeired to as enjoy- 
 ing so much of the good things of this 
 life, but which must have struck terror 
 into the hearts of almost every honest 
 
 hearted cottager in the country in which 
 it happened — an event which no man 
 could properly understand — an event with 
 which most men were puzzled, and with 
 which no one knew how to grapple— an 
 event, which, had it not been for the good 
 heartedness of all parties in politics — men 
 of all prejudices, and all opinions in the- 
 ology, had it not been for the good heart- 
 edness of those who dwelt on the very 
 spot, it might have proved an event which 
 would have done great injury to the in- 
 stitutions of this country. It was cer- 
 tainly, gentlemen, an event so sudden, 
 and unconcocted by either one party of 
 men, or the other, that all parties were 
 brought to confess that they scarcely knew 
 how to act, though act they must ; whe- 
 ther their acting would prove legal or other- 
 wise ; whether it would expose them to 
 trouble by subjecting them to an accusation 
 on the part of the government — interfere 
 they must, or the country would be in- 
 volved in dreadful anarchy. In the as- 
 semblies to which the several witnesses 
 have deposed, there was not a feeling of 
 rancour — not a feeling of ill-will — not a 
 feeling of revenge exhibited. This was 
 strange, when you consider that the 
 turn-outs had so many things written 
 upon their recollections which they could 
 not under any circumstances forget. So 
 mucli ill-usage and personal violence 
 were practised upon them in different 
 shapes by the manufacturers of these 
 districts, that the absence of ill-feeling 
 at all those meetings of turn-outs is most 
 unaccountable. Shopkeepers, tradesmen, 
 and turn-outs, seemed willing to lose all 
 their prejudices — to bury them — to de- 
 stroy them — to let them sink into obli- 
 vion — they seemed, all at once, to have 
 lost all party feelings as politicians, and 
 prejudices as religionists. 
 
 The JUDGE ; — There is no evidence 
 affecting Johnson, except that given by 
 the first witness. 
 
 JOHNSON : — I merely wish to make 
 a few observations. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN I think 
 there is, ray Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Does anybody speak 
 to you except Haigh } 
 
 JOHNSON: — Yes ; one witness said 
 they were going to throw me out of a 
 cart because I dwelt on the wage ques- 
 tion. 
 
256 
 
 The JUDGE : — Don’t let me inter- 
 rupt you. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWTN: — The 
 Attorney-General is not here this mo- 
 ment, my Lord, but I am quite sure, that, 
 if your Lordship thinks the evidence 
 against Johnson is not so strong as 
 against the others, he would not press it. 
 
 The JUDGE : — T do not wish to say 
 that. 
 
 JOHNSON : — I am spoken to by 
 Haigh, and Brierlev, of Stalybridge, my 
 liord. 
 
 Sir GREGORY J^EWIN:— He was 
 in the chair at a meeting there. 
 
 The .JUDGE: — Yes, and they had 
 like to have thrown him out of the cart. 
 
 Sir GREGORY J.EWIN: — I am 
 quite sure if your Lordship has any im- 
 pression on the point, that I would be 
 only acting in the spirit of the Attorney- 
 General to consent on his pait to an 
 acquittal of Johnson. 
 
 The jury, by the direction of his Lord- 
 ship, acquitted Johnson. 
 
 JOHNSON : — Then I suppose I shall 
 have no opportunity of saying any more. 
 (Laughter.) I am much obliged, my 
 Lord and Gentlemen of th- ,urv. 
 
 THOMAS SrORAH:— My Lord, 
 and Genilemen of the jury, in appearing 
 before you this day to offer a defence on 
 the evidence adduced against me, I feel 
 convinced that I shall not give you much 
 trouble. The whole of the evidence 
 adduced against me, is, that I attended a ! 
 meeting and spoke to a resolution. This 
 is all i know that has been given in 
 evidence against me in this Court. The 
 whole tenor of my speech at that meet- 
 ing was — advising the people t(» oe care- 
 ful how they went on. And, remember, 
 this meeting was held on the 2nd or 3rd 
 of August, before the turn-out com- 
 menced. The meeting was held at 
 Duckinfield. Brierlev deposed that 1 
 made a speech, but he never tells the 
 jury the tenor of that speech. He 
 merely says I was there. I believe, 
 he says, I spoke a resolution. I do not 
 understand the meaning of “ spoke a 
 resolution.” There is something in it 
 which, according to my idea, cannot be 
 unravelled I advised the people not to 
 strike for wages unless they thought it 
 likely that they could obtain those wages. 
 This is all I have to say on this occa- 
 
 sion, except that I have been indicted, 
 with fifty-eight brethren, because I hap- 
 pen to be one of those individuals who 
 professed Chartism. I have lived eight 
 or nine years in the town of Ashton- 
 under-Lyne. In that town I have main- 
 tained my position as a straight-forward, 
 honest, industrious operative. I have 
 been a severe opponent of the manufac- 
 turers, or, in other words, of the Anti- 
 corn Lfiw League, and, I believe, that is 
 the sole reason why I am indicted here 
 for conspiracy. For opposing the large 
 mill-owners of Ashton, they have deter- 
 mined to prosecute me, and that is the sole 
 reason why I am brought here. I believe 
 I have a right to hold what political 
 opinions I think proper. Every indivi- 
 dual in the realm has a perfect right to 
 think for himself, as has been observed 
 by a brother conspirator. I do not care 
 much for going within the walls of 
 tills or any other prison for what I have 
 done, because I believe I am innocent of 
 any crime whatever. I have advocated 
 the right of tlie people to enjoy political 
 freedom, because, m the ancient laws of 
 tlie country— if we examine the history 
 of the country — we will find that in the 
 reign of king Ethelred, univeral suffrage 
 was the law' of the land. I will not oc- 
 cupy more of your time, as my friends 
 here have urged the necessity of not de- 
 taining you. You have been detained 
 from home sadly too long, and, on that 
 account, I will not detain you any longer, 
 I believe that if you decide according to 
 the evidence given, you cannot do justice 
 to me unless you acquit me. 
 
 JOHxN ALLINSON, next rose to ad- 
 dress the jury. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Whatevidence is there 
 against him ? 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— He at- 
 tended the meeting of trades delegates, and 
 also the conference meeting. As the At- 
 torney-General is not here, I cannot un- 
 dertake to say any thing respecting Al- 
 linson. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hav- 
 ing entered the court. 
 
 The JUDGE asked : — What evidence 
 is there against Allinson ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— 
 At present I am not aware of any except 
 that he was one of the conference dele^ 
 gates at Scholefield’s. 
 
257 
 
 The JUDGE : — Do 3 ’^ou mean the 
 trades’ delegates ? 
 
 The A'JTORNEY - GENERAL : — 
 No, my liord, the conference at Schole- 
 field’s. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The names I have got 
 down as having been at that meeting are, 
 M‘Douall, the two Leachs, M'^Cartne}’’, 
 Otley, Harney, Cooper, Hoyle, Brooks, 
 Norman, Morrison, Arran, and Skeving- 
 
 ton. There is the evidence of a police- 
 man from Stockport, of his attending a 
 meeting after the business was over on 
 the 17th. If there is any doubt about 
 it we will go cn. Perhaps some other 
 defendant will address the jury in the 
 meantime. He w'as at a meeting at 
 Stalybridge, and w^as one of the most 
 active in the struggle for wages. He 
 told the Stalybridge people that the 
 struggle was now over, and that they 
 might go to their work, and endeavour by 
 every means to get the Charter. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— That is 
 the only evidence against him, unless he 
 was one of the delegates. 
 
 BERNARD M‘C ARTNEY : — My 
 Lord, I had contemplated remaining 
 almost, or as nearly as possible, till the 
 last of the defendants, who intend to ad- 
 dress you, had spoken ; but, although ar- 
 raigned in your presence to day as a cold- 
 blooded conspirator, I confess my blood 
 runs not cold enough to sit here, and with 
 callous indifference hear such details of 
 v/oe, misery, and destitution, as have 
 been given in the various speeches ad- 
 dressed to you. For this reason, and 
 this reason alone, I am desirous of ac- 
 quitting myself of that duty I owe myself, 
 and retiring, during the remainder of the 
 speeches, lor I am wholly inadequate to 
 the task of sitting here and listening to 
 such details of misery. I trust, gentlemen, 
 that the utmost indulgence of w'hich your 
 natures are capable, or which is consistent 
 with the forms of this court, will be given 
 to me on this occasion. Unskilled and 
 untutored as I am in all the forms and 
 technicalities of law, and surrounded, 
 
 too, by this judicial and legal so- 
 lemnity, suffering, also, under severe 
 indisposition, and, in the face of such 
 a combination of untoward circumstances, 
 having to defend myself from the charges 
 tvhich have been preferred against me by 
 the party for the prosecution, having to 
 
 defend my actions, my character, and my 
 honour from the distortions sought to be 
 given to the one, and the attempts made 
 to blast and sully the other, I have un- 
 dertaken my own defence, contrary, per- 
 haps, to the usual course on these occa- 
 sions, and also in opposition to the 
 counsel of friends, from various, to me 
 important, reasons ; first, that I would 
 despise owing my acquittal to the mere 
 introduction on my behalf of legal and 
 technical quibbling, and caring not so 
 much for the consequences in my own 
 person as I am desirous of guarding and 
 defending to the utmost of my power 
 and humble abilities those principles 
 which I have held for years, and which, 
 until I am convinced of their fallacy, 1 
 purpose maintaining. Also finding my 
 reputation and character, which I prize 
 above all earthly things, attacked ; smart- 
 ing under the underserved censure of the 
 Attorney-General — smarting under the 
 undeserved censure wutli whicli the world, 
 perhaps, may be too ready to visit me, 
 in consequence of the position which he, 
 with all his legal acquirements, backed 
 up by his high, commanding, and capti- 
 vating eloquence, has endeavoured to 
 place me in, from this censure, gentle- 
 men, I desire to rescue myself, and in your 
 presence to day not to exhibit anything 
 approximating to repentance — disdaining 
 to stoop to anything that can be consi- 
 dered subterfuge, I propose defending 
 every action of my past life; I propose 
 defending and substantiating everything 
 in connection with the late disturbances ; 
 I propose to prove to the world, gentle- 
 men, that I have been guided through 
 the course I have taken by the most ho- 
 nest and heartfelt conviction of the recti- 
 tude of my conduct, backed up by the 
 consciousness of the duty I owe to my- 
 self and my country, as well as the 
 duty I owe to the laws, which, up 
 to this moment I have never been 
 charged with violating — I have never 
 been charged with violating any of the 
 laws wdiich at present are placed upon 
 the statute book. I am fully aware that, 
 from the prejudices sought to be instilled, 
 and fostered with a careful but unworthy 
 assiduity into the minds of that class to 
 which you belong, with regard to those 
 principles of which I, amongst others 
 here, am the unworthy but sincere repre- 
 
258 
 
 sentative, that I might, perhaps, have 
 availed myself of a course of proceedure in 
 the conducting of my defence, more like- 
 ly to secure at your hands a verdict of 
 acquittal. But, gentlemen, I have come 
 here not anticipating anything from your 
 pity — I have no desire to avail myself, 
 perhaps of the fleeting sympathy which 
 in my address to you I might, in the cir- 
 cumstances I at present stand before you, 
 create by entering into some details, which, 
 if told to you here, might have the effect 
 of harrowing up the finer sensibilities of 
 your nature. No, gentlemen, I take 
 higher, more noble, and more elevated 
 ground ; I demand from your sense of 
 justice that which I would scorn to 
 accept from any other source. Turn, then, 
 your attention, for a moment, to the na- 
 ture of the evidence brought forward 
 against me by the prosecutors. To what 
 does the sum and substance of it, in your 
 estimation — to what will it, after a care- 
 ful, mature, and legitimate consideration, 
 amount ? Has it been proven in evidence, 
 that I have been directly or indirectly 
 connected with those to whom the wild- 
 nesses have spoken, as being present at 
 any of those disturbances which have pre- 
 vailed in various parts of the country ? 
 Has it been proven to you that I have re- 
 commended at any time, or under any 
 circumstances, a course, the tendency of 
 which would have been to lead to a vio- 
 lation of the public peace ? Have I re- 
 commended, gentlemen, the violat- 
 ing, or the bursting asunder of all, 
 or any, of those ties which bind so- 
 ciety together ? Have I incited the 
 people to acts of violence, outrage, phy- 
 sical force, or intimidation ? Nothing 
 of the kind, gentlemen, I submit, has 
 been proved in my case, nor, I sub- 
 mit, in the case of any of the defendants. 
 We have been arraigned under that 
 monstrous indictment, of such incom- 
 parable magnitude ; but could I, without 
 infringing on the forms of such a court 
 as this, refer you back to the circum- 
 stances connected with my arrest — could 
 I call to your recollection, without trans- 
 gressing the standing order of tliis court, 
 the evidence produced against me, on 
 v/hich the magistrates at Manchester 
 considered themselves justified in com- 
 mitting me for trial at the last special 
 commission - could I recall those wit- 
 
 nesses, and place them in that box, you 
 would then find that, instead of having 
 incited the people to acts of violence — 
 instead of having recommended the peo- 
 ple to any course at variance with the 
 usages, laws, and established customs 
 of the country, I had recommended, 
 gentlemen, not merely in general terms, 
 but plainly and directly, the preservation 
 and conservation of the public peace — 
 that I have inculcated doctrines wholly 
 in accordance with peace, law, and order, 
 and not with anarchy and confusion — 
 that I have urged, imperatively, the sa- 
 credness of property, and the inviolabi- 
 lity of 'person — that I have urged the 
 people to a peaceful demeanour in the 
 carrying out of that struggle, which they, 
 un fomented by me, unexcited by me, 
 and altogether unconnected with me, 
 thought proper to embark in — that while 
 continuing that struggle in which they 
 thought proper to be engaged, I incul- 
 cated on them the imperative and im- 
 portant necessity of respecting even the 
 opinions of those whom they conceived 
 to be their enemies, or from whom they 
 have felt themselves in duty hound con- 
 scientiously to differ. It seems to me 
 that there is something rather contra- 
 dictory, gentlemen, in the following up 
 of this very circuitous, ill-connected, 
 though, no doubt, in the estimation of 
 the prosecutor, very formidable array of 
 evidence — it seems as if something was 
 wanting in the closely connected links 
 by which they thought proper to trepan 
 me into the ranks of the defendants 
 ranged in that indictment. How is it 
 that the witnesses, on the strength of 
 whose evidence I was arraigned in Man- 
 chester, have not been brought into that 
 box, in order that they might give that 
 evidence here, before this tribunal, which 
 justified the magistrates committing me 
 for trial at the last assizes ? These wit- 
 nesses, on being cross-examined in the 
 Court at Manchester, swore distinctly, 
 and unhesitatingly, that I had recom- 
 mended the people — that I was so minute 
 in my definitions of property — that so 
 precise and concise was I, lest I should 
 be understood to speak in general terms — 
 they swore distinctly and unhesitatingly 
 that I recommended the people to protect 
 every blade of grass in their respective 
 vicinities, and to guard every square of 
 
259 
 
 glass in the town in which they resided. 
 I also recommended them to respect the 
 private opinions of those with whom 
 they conscientiously differed. Why were 
 not those witnesses brought forward ? 
 Simply that, in the absence of all the 
 truth, you might assume that I was 
 guilty — that you might form a judgment 
 from the garbled statements of those who 
 swore that they left the meeting immedi- 
 ately after I recommended the people to 
 continue a peaceful agitation for the 
 Charter. I allude now to the evidence 
 given at the meeting at Eccles, and to 
 that given by the foreman of the Wors- 
 ley Forge Company. I have yet to 
 learn, that to recommend a peaceful agi- 
 tation for the establishment of the prin- 
 ciples embodied in the People’s Charter, 
 is calculated, in itself, to subject me to 
 the pains and penalties of an indictment for 
 conspiracy. We had also a powerful array 
 of evidence brought forward in the witness 
 box at Manchester, speaking to a meeting 
 which I addressed at Leigh. You had 
 one witness here to prove that he drove 
 me in a post chaise a distance of eight or 
 nine miles, on Thursday the 11th of Au- 
 gust. Gentlemen, I admit all that is 
 sworn against me. I have never denied 
 being at Eccles, or Leigh ; but does the 
 bare fact of having been at either of those 
 places, and riding in a post chaise — does 
 this bare fact justify the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral in including me in the indictment for 
 conspiracy and sedition ? Gentlemen, it 
 is depose^ in order to lead to a convic- 
 tion, that I told the people they must 
 continue a peaceful agitation. I may; 
 perhaps, be out of the strict letter of the 
 evidence if I say that the witness deposed 
 to the word peaceful” — but, gentlemen, 
 has he sworn that 1 said, ‘Mvant was 
 stalking through the land ?” If he did 
 not, he, or some other person from the 
 same vicinity, swore it on a former occa- 
 sion. Gentlemen, I have yet to learn 
 whether all the evidence brought forward 
 by the poor law commissioners of the 
 state of this country, and reiterated by 
 me at the meeting at Eccles, is sufficient 
 to make me a criminal. I stated that 
 want was stalking through the land ? Is 
 this a crime ? Must penury and destitu- 
 tion lie concealed from the public eye, 
 and must he who attempts to lift the veil, 
 and expose the evils which want is pro- 
 
 ducing in the social fabric, have to an- 
 swer for his temerity at the bar of his 
 country ? Gentlemen, I trust that such 
 a gloomy day has not yet arrived. I 
 trust that Englishmen are not yet de- 
 prived of the liberty of speech — I trust 
 they are not yet under the domination oi 
 military despotism ; that that right which 
 has been guaranteed by the constitution ol 
 this country, will be this day, in my case, 
 confirmed and sealed by your verdict, 
 and that you will prove by my acquit- 
 tal that we yet retain some of tho:ve 
 functions, rights and privileges in the 
 enjoyment of which we are, on all occasions, 
 priding ourselves, as being in that respect 
 superior to all other nations of the world. 
 It is not for me to tell you that this right 
 is guaranteed to the people by our con- 
 stitution — that thatconstitution, with all its 
 defects, still holds that right sacred and 
 inviolate. That right may be, with truth, 
 said to be, in the language of an eloquent 
 and an impartial writer, the nation’s 
 safety valve.” It is the only medium 
 through which can be viewed, with any- 
 thing like exactness, the true state of the 
 public mind. The liberty of speech is 
 the mirror by which are reflected the 
 wishes, desires, and feelings of the go- 
 verned, so as to give to the governors a 
 right view of the state of those they pro- 
 fess to govern. If you dam up this legi- 
 timate medium — if you obscure this only 
 mirror — if you dam up this legitimate 
 channel through which we find access to 
 those who profess to be our representa- 
 tives — that medium through which alone 
 we can make them acquainted with our 
 desires and our wants — gentlemen, pause 
 ere you pronounce a verdict which will 
 go tc.stem this toiTent of free enquiry — 
 before you commit an act suicidal in 
 its tendency, and nationally disastrous 
 in its ultimate results. Ponder well what 
 you pave the way for by preventing the 
 legitimate, legal, and peaceful expression 
 of public opinion. You, gentlemen, do 
 one of two things; you either reduce 
 those, of whose freedom of thought and 
 action you take credit to yourselves of 
 being guardians, protectors, and promo- 
 ters, or, otherwise, you pave the way for 
 the p'eople having recourse to other me- 
 diums — to those other channels, through 
 which the indignation burning in their bo- 
 soms sometimes finds vent. Deprive men of 
 
260 
 
 tlie liberty of speech — pi event the free ex- 
 presson of thought, and you drive the peo- 
 ple to the adoption of those desperate reme- 
 dies which,! trust, will never be on this, or 
 any future occasion, the result of a ver- 
 dict of a British jury, empanelled for the 
 purpose of giving their deliberate, due, 
 and legitimate consideration, to a case 
 bearing on the liberty of the subject. 
 We stand here to day arraigned before 
 the tribunal of our country for express- 
 ing our desires, for giving vent to our 
 feelings, for giving expression to that 
 which we believe to be in accordance 
 with the truth, and which, gentlemen, 
 lias not led to one solitary violation of 
 the peace, or the destruction of one 
 penny-worth of property. It has been 
 proved on the part of the Crown, that 
 from the moment that conference was held 
 in Manchester, up to the present time, 
 every thing assumed a pacific character. 
 That from the 20th of August to the 
 present time, matters, all over the coun- 
 try, were tranquillizing down to their 
 formerly peaceful character. It is sur- 
 passing strange, that, in the town of 
 Liverpool, it was conceived to be ne- 
 cessary that six officers should be 
 dispatched to my residence for the pur- 
 pose of my arrest, though knowing that 
 my household was small and my family 
 not numerous — that the nature of my 
 pursuits was of an entirely pacific cha- 
 racter — it was thought necessary to 
 dispatch six police officers to my resi- 
 dence to secure my arrest, and place me 
 in the hands of the police authorities — it 
 is strange, I say, that none of these six. 
 police officers have been placed in the 
 witness-box. And how is it, that out of 
 almost 200 letters, from various parts of 
 the country, which they felt it to be 
 their duty to remove from my home, 
 and which, I am legally advised, have 
 been laid before the law-officers of the 
 Crown— how' is it, that in order to 
 prove this wide, and deep-seated con- 
 spiracy, nothing has been brought for- 
 ward to show that I held a correspon- 
 dence of a seditious and conspiratory cha- 
 racter with those parties from whom I 
 was in the habit of receiving letters — four 
 or five every day in the week ? Had there 
 been anything in existence approximat- 
 ing to a deep-seated conspiracy, I would 
 ask the A**orney-General would there be 
 
 anything so confirmatory of the accusa- 
 ■ tion, as the production of the documents 
 found in the possession of the various 
 conspirators, when they were pounced 
 upon unexpectedly, their homes searched 
 by those officials, and every document 
 taken possession of and placed in the 
 hands of the law officers of the Crown, by 
 w’hom they were, no doubt, carefully, se- 
 dulously, and vigilantly examined ? But, 
 no doubt, all these matters, though of a 
 strictly penal character, did not at all im- 
 plicate those W'ith whom I held corres- 
 pondence, or myself, to as to justify the 
 prosecutor in bringing them forward to 
 sustain the indictment to which I have 
 referred. Permit me to ask, was there 
 anything unusual in my riding from Ec- 
 cles to Leigh in a post-chaise ? Was it 
 anything unusual in the coachman on his 
 return, after having refreshed himself and 
 his steeds, to see me addressing a meet- 
 ing, the numbers of .which he deposes 
 not to, (I confess it was a large meeting) 
 and to see me removing my hat, and bow- 
 ing to the audience.^ It is passing strange 
 that nothing is deposed to, as to what 
 transpired at that meeting in Leigh. I 
 found that the whole country had volun- 
 tarily ceased from labour, i tried, in the 
 first instance, to ascertain why they had 
 ceased from labour, but no man to whom 
 I putthe question could give me anything 
 like a legitimate answer. I then told the 
 meeting, which was composed of several 
 thousands — As long as you have no 
 legitimate object in view, my advice 
 — nay, my command is — if I have any 
 influence — that you return to labour till 
 you see something legitimate to justify 
 you in ceasing from that labour. That 
 was on Thursday evening. Gentlemen, 
 it looks rather suspicious that all evi- 
 dence, as connected with the proceedings 
 of that meeting, is carefully kept back 
 from the witness box. Nothing has trans- 
 ired at that meeting, you may rely on it, 
 ut what is in the possession of the par- 
 ties conducting this prosecution. From 
 the indefatigable exertions on the part 
 of the Crown to bring to a successful issue 
 this prosecution, forget not this fact — that 
 the credit, importance, standing, and high , 
 legal ability of all who conducted this 
 prosecution are more or less at stake in 
 the result which may attend your verdict. 
 Then, gentlemen, how is it that all evi- 
 
dence as to wliat transpired at Leigh — at 
 the meeting at which I took off my hat 
 and bowed to the audience — how* is it 
 that such evidence is carelully kept back 
 though in the possession of the prose- 
 cutor ? Because, as 1 shewed, the people 
 of Leigh could give no definite answer 
 why they had left their work. They said 
 that the people in other parts of the 
 country had ceased from labour. Fol- 
 lowing out the fashionable excitement 
 then going the round of the country, they 
 thought proper to cease from labour also, 
 not knowing why or wherefore they did 
 so. I could put witnesses into that box 
 to shew that they, acting on my advice, 
 returned to their work on Friday morn- 
 ing, but I could not be with them on 
 Friday night, and they were so infatuated 
 with the reports reaching them from other 
 places, that they again left their employ- 
 ment on Friday evening, and I know 
 not when they returned. At all events 
 they went to labour on Friday morning 
 in consequence of the imperative urgency 
 of my request, that they would go to 
 work until they knew why they had 
 ceased their labour. Very great stress 
 has been laid on the meeting of the 
 17 th of August. Mr. Cartledge, I 
 think, said that two men were ordered 
 away from Mr. Scholefield’s chapel be- 
 cause they said they wished the meeting 
 to be private. But two reasonable de- 
 ductions may be drawn from this. You 
 may probably suppose that we wished 
 the meeting to be private in consequence 
 of its very seditious character. Nothing 
 of the kind, gentlemen ; nothing could, 
 he further from the truth than to draw 
 any such conclusion from the evidence. 
 It was detailed to you in evidence, that 
 Mr. O’Connor was so desirous of avoiding 
 the gathering of mobs about the place 
 where he was, that he took precautionary 
 means to prevent it. He escaped in pri- 
 vate from Noblett’s house, that there 
 might not be a crowd flocking there to 
 witness his arrival in Manchester. Two 
 men were ordered away from the front of 
 the chapel, because these two men would 
 he the means of collecting two men 
 more ; the four would soon increase to 
 eight, the eight to sixteen, and so on by 
 gradual progression till a large crowd 
 would have assembled, which would pro- 
 bably require the interference of the 
 
 authorities to disperse them. In order to 
 prevent the possibility of large masses 
 congregating in that part of the town, 
 or anything calculated to cause the least 
 alarm to the authorities, it was resolved 
 that none of our friends, whom we could 
 make so free with as to order away from 
 the place, should be permitted to assem- 
 ble round the chapel, lest by any means 
 such results might follow^. You have 
 also had it in evidence, that a secretary 
 was appointed by the conference, to ex- 
 amine the credentials of the delegates. 
 In the cross-examination of either Griffin 
 or Cartledge, the nature of the duties of 
 that secretary appeared to be to ascertain 
 whether all the delegates attending that 
 conference were elected at public meet- 
 ings, legally called, to represent in that 
 conference the various localities from 
 which they were sent. Gentlemen, the 
 evidence of Griffin, so far as it affects me, 
 must give rise in your minds to some re- 
 flections of a rather painful character. You 
 must have discovered that all manly 
 feeling — all the higher and mere elevated 
 attributes of man, were wholly prostrated, 
 dormant, and destroyed in the bosom 
 of that man who could, in that witness 
 box, coolly, callously and indifferently 
 admit, in the face of twelve men appointed 
 to adjudicate on my case, that, when he 
 visited me in the prison, on the charge 
 for which I was arrested, he expressed 
 the utmost sorrow for my incarceration, 
 and the most lively sentiments of sympa- 
 thy with me. He was three hours with 
 me in the railway tavern, and shaked the 
 warm hand of liiendship with me on my 
 returning to my family ; having escaped 
 the bolts and bars and dungeon gales of 
 Manchester ; breathing once more the 
 atmosphere of heaven; free from the 
 hands of the law, and brought back again 
 to liberty — he could then shake hands 
 with me, and congratulate me on my re- 
 lease from prison, although he had just 
 gone to the Manchester authorities, and 
 had given that information on which I 
 was again, arrested after parting with him, 
 and having a friendly and warm-hearted 
 shake hands with him. Viewing, as I 
 naturally should do, conduct so utterly at 
 variance with all the best and noblest at- 
 tributes of our nature, the heinousness 
 and blackness that must pervade the 
 heart and mind of the man, who could 
 
so far assume the garb of black hypo- 
 crisy as to express bis gratification at 
 being in the man’s company whom be 
 expected to have again incarcerated, — 
 and, if be could but form an idea of the 
 magnitude and importance of that indict- 
 ment, he could have no guarantee but 
 that the probable result would be that I 
 should be sent across the seas — that man 
 now comes forward, and in the presence 
 of those who were once his bosom friends, 
 volunteers his services to confine again 
 to a dungeon, if possible, the man on 
 whose arm he leant, on whose shoulder 
 he reclined, at whose board he was enter- 
 tained, by whose money his expences 
 were often defrayed, and who has been 
 kept more or less from starving in conse- 
 quence of the exertions he used on his be- 
 half. Gentlemen, you must feel more 
 or less the blackness — you must feel more 
 or less that you had not prepared your 
 minds for such prostrate depravity in hu- 
 man nature. I presume you will make 
 very little reference to the fact imme- 
 diately after the sitting of that conference. 
 On the 17th of August, or, at least, im- 
 mediately after the 20th of August, all 
 indications of tumult and disturbance 
 had gradually subsided in Manchester. 
 This fact has been deposed to in that 
 box. This is an important fact, and 
 ought to be well and carefully consi- 
 dered by you, as calculated, in itsell, to 
 show that from the sitting of that con- 
 ference up to the present period, no such 
 results, as might be anticipated from the 
 charges in that indictment followed the 
 sitting of the conference in Manchester. 
 I have been recognised both by Cartledge 
 and Griffin, as being a member of that 
 conference. They have distinctly sworn 
 to me as being a member of that con- 
 ference ; but I think the legality of 
 that conference has already been so 
 sufficiently established by the learned 
 counsel who preceded me, as to make it 
 unnecessary for me to prove its lega- 
 lity. The only matter with which 
 I have to grapple is the evidence respect- 
 ing the two meetings at Leigh and Eccles. 
 In the neighbourhood of Eccles it is true, 
 that, as was sworn by Fryar, the hands 
 turned out. The first .meeting was held 
 at six o’clock in the morning, in the 
 Market-place, at Eccles, and, although 
 Fryar pleaded ignorance of the matter, 
 
 there were certainly two magistrates at 
 that meeting. One of these was in a 
 gig. I was surrounded by the consta- 
 bulary of Eccles. My address lasted one 
 hour and a quarter, and during the whole 
 of that time not the slightest displeasure 
 was evinced either by the magistrates or 
 constabulary by whom I was surrounded. 
 No, gentlemen, but had they conceived 
 that my language was calculated to excite 
 the people to acts contrary to the law- 
 had I counselled the destruction of pro- 
 perty, I feel convinced, gentlemen, as I am 
 sure you feel confident, those magistrates 
 would be placed in that box, to depose to 
 the seditious nature of that address which 
 I delivered at that meeting. Now, gentle- 
 men, this is merely inti'oduced in order to 
 claim for myself the legality of speaking on 
 subjects in connection with which I bold 
 strong opinions. This is introduced 
 merely to show, that it is not in the pro- 
 vince of the learned gentlemen conduct- 
 ing the prosecution, nor is it in the pro- 
 vince of any one of his order, to con- 
 coct an indictment, so as to show to 
 you that you can possibly bring a ver- 
 dict of guilty against me for having 
 spoken such words as were deposed to 
 by the witness, Joseph Fryar, in that 
 box. It is for this right alone I con- 
 tend — the right of speaking freely on 
 political subjects. Fryar said I recom- 
 mended them to continue the struggle 
 for the Charter. Gentlemen, it is neces- 
 sary for me to premise that, prior to my 
 visit to Eccles, two or three of the lead- 
 ing men of the turn-outs being invited 
 to give an address calculated to restrain 
 the volatile and refractory, and at the 
 same time infuse spirit among the turn- 
 outs, we met in order to prevent any- 
 thing leading to a breach of the peace 
 in that vicinity; and I feel proud, and 
 highly gratified, that such had been the 
 result of our visit to Eccles. And 
 should my visit to Eccles result in a 
 verdict of guilty, still the satisfaction I 
 shall have experienced in having re- 
 moved all asperity of feeling, through 
 my humble address then delivered, 
 which had the effect of restraining 
 bad feeling and the destruction of 
 property, will compensate for the worst 
 thing I can contemplate at your hands. 
 But I contemplate nothing of the kind, 
 for the evidence is of such a flimsy. 
 
263 
 
 trifling, and insignificant character, that 
 I cannot see how you can, on the 
 strength of Fryar s evidence, and the 
 evidence of the coachman who drove me 
 to Leigh, convict me of sedition, riots, 
 tumults, and all the vocabulary of things 
 comprehended in that indictment. Gen- 
 tlemen, extremely sorry should I be to 
 attribute anything to you like motives 
 after the painful exhibition of your pa- 
 tience, which you have given during this 
 very long and protracted trial for con- 
 spiracy. Sorry would I be, indeed, to at- 
 tribute to you anything approximating to 
 unworthy motives, whatever may he the 
 result of your verdict, but I must confess 
 that, from the nature of the evidence, I 
 cannot divest my mind of the latent 
 conviction working there, that, if I he im- 
 prisoned, it surely cannot be from the 
 insignificant nature of the evidence 
 which the Attorney-General has brought 
 forward. But I anticipate no such 
 thing. In consequence of the many 
 speakers you have yet to hear, and of 
 the numbers who have already addressed 
 you ; and the protracted nature of the 
 attention, which you, in your official ca- 
 pacity had to pay to all and everything 
 since the opening of the Court, I shall 
 not detain you much longer. I must 
 say that I had prepared a far different 
 defence, which I should have made, if I 
 had not sympathized with you in the 
 onerous duty you have to perform. But, 
 gentlemen, in conclusion, should my im- 
 prisonment be the result of your delibe- 
 rations — should you convict me in order 
 to prevent the spread and progress, 
 teaching and expounding, of those opin- 
 ions, of which I am the sincere, and not 
 less honest, though humble advocate, I 
 would be far from imputing to the jury 
 in that box such a desire, but I have 
 known from reading history, that, in 
 times gone by (and human nature, more 
 or less throughout all stages of the 
 world’s history is the same), it was suf- 
 ficient to lead to conviction, that the 
 party accused held opinions at variance 
 with the received and acknowledged 
 dogmas of the age in which they lived'. 
 Should you, by your verdict, confine me 
 to the restraints and indignities of a pri- 
 son, I need not tell you that that verdict 
 cannot affect my mind. You may, gen- 
 tlemen, within the enclosure of the stone 
 
 walls of this castle, incarcerate my mortal 
 and material part, but the mind will 
 be free to range in all the buoy- 
 ancy and elasticity of its native charac- 
 ter ; it will rise superior to all the bolts, 
 and bars, and dungeon gates in which 
 my body lies concealed, and soaring 
 aloft on the radiant wings of sanguine 
 hope, revel in the anticipated noontide 
 blaze of my country’s freedom. He 
 who undertakes to stand boldly forward 
 in opposition to the popular opinion of 
 the day in which he lives, need not 
 set himself up as the opponent of the 
 already-received opinions of ages, unless 
 he has well calculated the costs which 
 are to follow as the results of such oppo- 
 sition. But, gentlemen, I have not 
 opposed opinions that have been re- 
 ceived and acted upon from ages, but 
 from a sincere and heartfelt conscious- 
 ness of the rectitude of the position 
 which I assume. I have but little fur- 
 ther to say, but, in conclusion, to remark, 
 that whatever may be the conclusion of 
 this trial, I shall, with perfect submis- 
 sion — without a feeling of remorse — 
 without the slightest indication of regret, 
 receive your decision. I have never, 
 by my teaching or example, at any time 
 throughout the course of my life, violated 
 that duty which I owe to myself, and 
 to those with whom I have been for 
 years engaged ; I have done my duty as 
 a citizen of these realms, in endeavour- 
 ing to do, for the hulk of the population, 
 the greatest possible amount of good, — 
 the greatest possible amount of happi- 
 ness of which their nature is susceptible 
 of enjoying. It may be in your opinion, 
 that my opinions are at variance with 
 any thing you ever heard asserted in 
 a Court like this, hut the novelty of the 
 doctrine does not militate against its 
 truth. I have been at the meetings in 
 Eccles and Leigh, I acknowledge having 
 been at the conference — that is the only- 
 evidence adduced against me. I now 
 leave my case in your hands, patiently, 
 though rather indifferently, awaiting the 
 result of your verdict. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL:—! 
 have looked over the evidence, and do not 
 find that there is any evidence that 
 Allinson was at the conference on the 
 1 7th of August. There is some evidence 
 of his being seen there after the meet- 
 
264 
 
 ing was over, but I would not rely upon 
 it. 
 
 The JUDGE: — In the evidence I 
 have taken he said — “The struggle was 
 over, and he advised them to go to 
 work, and get the Charter by lawful 
 means.” 
 
 The Jury then, by the direction of the 
 Court, acquitted Allinson. 
 
 WILLIAM BEESLEY I will not 
 occupy much time as lam conscious that 
 you are already fatigued and wearied with 
 the incessant attention which this case 
 required at your hands. I would briefly 
 allude to those ciicumstances of it which 
 concern m^ self, and I trust they will receive 
 from you that consideration which will 
 enable you to uive an impartial verdict. 
 It is indeed difficult to see in what way 
 the evidence hears against me at all; I 
 shall, perhaps, best consult my interest by 
 saying notbing, for I really cannot con- 
 ceive that there is any evidence at all 
 against me. Nothing has been brought 
 home to me in connection with the case; 
 I have not been identified in or with 
 it. No charge has even been prefer- 
 red against me, for I have never been 
 arrested on the charge contained in this 
 indictment, nor have 1 ever pleaded to it, 
 guilty or not guilty, never having been 
 required to do so. True, it 'has been 
 sworn by Cariledge, that I was at the 
 conference; but no effort has been made 
 to bring home this evidence to me. It 
 has not been shewn that I was the 
 Beesley meant. J'here are many Bees- 
 leys besides me, and I am not bound to 
 assist the Government, by my admission, 
 in securing my conviction. But though 
 I am aware of this, 1 have no wish to 
 avail myself of quirks and quibbles. I 
 am not the man to shelter myself under 
 the false mark of evasion; I will assert 
 the truth always without fear of conse- 
 quences. It has not been proved that I 
 was at the conference; but I am not 
 going to deny it; I was at that conference, 
 I went there at the request and as the 
 representative of the inhabitants of myown 
 locality; and if another such conference 
 should be called, having like purjioses in 
 view, and if my neighbours and friends 
 should again elect me, I should again 
 feel It my duly to attend. I have yet to 
 learn, — and 1 tiust that from your verdict 
 I shall not learn it, —that the bare fact 
 
 of my attending that meeting can be con- 
 strued as a crime; for I was there, I took 
 part in the proceedings of the conference, 
 and the parti took was in opposition to the 
 strike ; not because I consider the strike 
 to be unjustifiable or illegal, but because, 
 in my judgment, it is impolitic to mix up 
 the Chartist movement with it. I think 
 it calculated to retard that movement 
 which my heart holds dearest of all things, 
 and hence my opposition to the proceed- 
 ings of those who sought to use it as a 
 means of advancing that movement. If 
 I thought that the Chartist movement 
 could be thereby accelerated, I would up- 
 hold the strike, though I might for so do- 
 ing be called conspirator, or branded with 
 any other epithet which the Crown law- 
 yers might think fit to apply to me. In 
 my own district I have laboured to re- 
 press violence, and to cause life and pro- 
 perty to be respected. I am too poor to 
 bring witnesses to speak to these facts, but 
 I know them to be within the knowledge 
 of the Attorney-General, and I might ap- 
 peal to him as my best witness. The 
 learned gentleman has sent out a com- 
 mission to enquire into the state of my 
 neighbourhood, and I know that the com- 
 mission has been informed that the pre- 
 servation of peace has been mainly owing 
 to my exertions. The Attorney-General 
 knew this, and it would have been candid 
 in him to have told it to the jury, and 
 have saved me the trouble of doing so. 
 I know it was told him, that through the 
 exertions of myself and other friends we 
 were enabled to keep the peace of the 
 country. So deep was the distress, so 
 universal was the poverty and destitution 
 of the people, that they had to eat the dead 
 carcases of cows, dug up after they were 
 buried. The men were taking the car- 
 cases of dead calves to their wives for 
 food w'hen they were confined. Through 
 my instrumentality the peace of that dis- 
 trict was kept. I had at one time much 
 to do with the spies employed against me. 
 At this time there is a spy in the employ- 
 ment of that man (M'Cabe) who swore 
 to the resolution. That spy was turned 
 out of my doors. He is now a local con- 
 stable. He came to my house lime after 
 time lo persuade me to bring out the peo- 
 ple, that we might get up a physical re- 
 volution — (this he did to entrap me) and 
 that he would take part in destroying the 
 
265 
 
 mills. This policeman is not ignorant 
 of this, but I have lodged informations 
 against him. Why is not he arrested ? 
 Why is not he placed here in the position 
 of a defendant ? Is it I that ought to be 
 standing here ? No, but this man, and 
 the superintendent who employed him to 
 drag others into the commission of acts of 
 violence, in order that he might turn round 
 to give evidence against them. The oath 
 of the individual to whom I have alluded 
 is taken against other parties, and on his 
 oath they have been committed. The 
 oath of an individual now confined in this 
 castle is also to be taken against the de- 
 fendants. He dare not show his face, 
 nor associate with the working classes, 
 for they detest him for his base actions. 
 It is on the evidence of such men as these 
 the Government expect to get a conviction 
 against us. During the whole of the 
 strike notone panicle of property was de- 
 stroyed in the neighbourhood where I re- 
 sided. They have not been able even to 
 Ibriiig forward evidence that the Executive 
 "hill was posted in that neighbourhood. 
 They have not brought forward a special 
 constable, policeman, or any other person 
 to show that I have taken part in any 
 .public meeting, riot, or anything by 
 which the public peace could be endan- 
 gered. I do not know, therefore, to what 
 to direct my defence. The only other 
 matter of evidence against me is that of 
 Superintendent M'Cabe, who deposed to 
 having found in my carpet bag, when 
 taking me into custody upon a former 
 ■charge, several printed papers, purporting 
 to be the resolution of the conference. I 
 have no recollection of these papers. I 
 am not aware that they were in my car- 
 pet bag, nor has any proof been adduced 
 that the papers produced were the same 
 that were alleged to have been found on 
 me. But, supposing them to be so — and 
 I have no disposition to be nice about the 
 matter — what then? What is therein 
 the possession of these documents to cri- 
 minate any man ? I am sorry they have 
 pot left me an odd one, or I woulh read 
 it to you. (A laugh.) 
 
 TbeATTORNEY-GENERALhand- 
 
 ed Beesley a copy of the resolution passed 
 at the conference of delegates in Man- 
 chester. 
 
 BEESLEY : — This, I suppose, is the 
 lesolution found on me. I do not re- 
 
 member having any of them in my pos- 
 session, but I suppose the oath of a 
 policeman will be taken before the oath 
 of any other man, especially when the 
 policeman is swearing lor the Crown, 
 Remember, it is an acknowledged fact, 
 that I attended that conlerence for pur- 
 poses legal in themselves, arid different 
 from those now charged in the indict- 
 ment. Here is the resolution : — 
 
 “ Resolution of the Delegates : — That whilst 
 the Chartist body did not originate the present 
 cessation from labour, this comerence of dele- 
 gates from various parts of England, express 
 their deep sympathy with their con>tituents, the 
 working men now on strike ; and that we 
 strongly approve the extension and the conti- 
 nuance of their present strai; le till the People's 
 Charter becomes a legislative enactment, and 
 decide forthwith to issue an address to that 
 effect ; and pledge ourselves on our return to our 
 respective localities, to give a prosier direction 
 to the People’s efforts. 
 
 (Signed) James Arthur, Chairman, 
 J. ."Yrran, Secretary." 
 
 r have been dl^uded to by my friend 
 Harney^ in his address, as one who op- 
 posed this resolution. 1 would not have 
 referred to this if it had not been noticed 
 by bim< I now say, tbut I approve of 
 every act of this conference ; fur 1 believe 
 the people of this country have a right, if 
 the majority ot them think fit, to change 
 the laws ol this country. If the people 
 think right to do so, and call for my as- 
 sistance, I will give it to them willingly; 
 I opposed the late turn-out with all my 
 might. The magistrates nf Accrington 
 and Hcpwood requested me to become 
 a special constable, and so far was the 
 peace preserved in that neignhoiirhood, 
 that not a pane o( glass nor a blade of 
 grass was destroyed. Every thing passed 
 off quietlv. I myself, and many of the 
 enrolled Chartists, were so far opposed to 
 the strike, that we tendered ourselves to 
 be sworn in as special constaliles. It was 
 by a meeiingol special coiisiables ibatl was 
 elected to go and sit in the Manchester 
 conlerence. I could not, theiefore, have 
 conspired with any one to create any 
 revolution or rebellion. I was opposed 
 to the strike, because I llunight it was 
 got up and concocted by the Anti-corn- 
 law League ; I wish to give no offence 
 to any genllegian. I attended meetings 
 
at that time, and I advised the people 
 to have nothing to do with the strike, 
 for that party who got it up had a power, 
 behind the scene, that would soon enable 
 them to put it down. This was the rea- 
 son why I recommended the people to have 
 nothing to do with it. And when I sat 
 in the conference I voted against the 
 Chartist cause being mixed up with 
 the turn-out, not because I thought it 
 was wrong, but because I knew we were 
 not the originators of the strike, and 
 therefore we should not be identified 
 with it. But if convinced, that by a 
 general cessation from labour we could 
 have carried our object, then I would 
 bave been the first to recommend the 
 people to cease from labour. Whether 
 that recommendation be called conspi- 
 lacy or not, I have always understood 
 that it has been the privilege of 
 Englishmen to meet for the purpose 
 of expressing their political opinions. 
 We met for the purpose of reconsider- 
 ing our plan of organization, and we 
 bad no idea that anything of an illegal 
 character, or tendency, should take place. 
 So far were we from intending to do 
 anything illegal, that we admitted to the 
 meeting several parties who were not 
 members. But we even admitted re- 
 porters. Consequently I can see no 
 conspiracy in the case. I will not enter 
 into a long justification, or speech, for I 
 bnow that you yourselves are as much 
 tired of this as I am, and I am sorry that 
 you should have been kept so long with 
 the speeches of counsel, and the exami- 
 nation of witnesses. It is not our fault, 
 but that of the Crown. I have been 
 dragged from home before I could make 
 the necessary arrangements for my de- 
 fence ; and I have been in this court since 
 last Saturday week, and ordered not to 
 depart the Court, though others were not 
 lequired to attend here till Wednesday. 
 But an insignificant lawyer in Burnley 
 served me with this notice. I made ap- 
 plication to know who desired him to 
 serve it, and his answer was — You 
 must go ; it is my business to serve him, 
 and you have no right to ask any ques- 
 tions.”- Thus have I been treated at the 
 bands of those who served me with a no- 
 tice to attend this court. Can I expect 
 that a verdict will be pronounced against 
 me on the evidence adduced ? Neither 
 
 Cartledge, nor Griffin, recognized me as 
 being in the conference. But, gentlemen,^ 
 it is not for being a member of the con- 
 ference, or a conspirator, that I have been 
 arrested, but simply for being a Chartist. 
 
 I believe that is the sole cause why I have 
 to stand before you in this place. If that 
 be so, then let me tell the Crown and 
 the Attorney-General, if they want to 
 suppress Chartism in this way, they will 
 be much mistaken. They may imprison 
 us within the precincts of this dreary pri- 
 son — they may incarcerate us within these 
 walls, but can they stop the enquiry that 
 is going on among the people ? You 
 may, gentlemen, by your verdict, lock me 
 up in prison, but the moment I get out I 
 will begin again to advocate my princi- 
 ples. My principles will remain unalter- 
 ed, and my determination to assert them 
 equally so. I am a Chartist, and what- 
 ever amount of persecution or imprison- 
 ment that may subject me to, I w'ill re- 
 main a Chartist. Your verdict may con- 
 sign roe to a dungeon for a season, but 
 tbe time will soon pass over ; and when 
 the gates shall be again unbarred, and I 
 am permitted to emerge once more into the 
 free air of heaven, I wdll be the same man. 
 Ten thousand prosecutions cannot alter 
 my principles, for I am determined, while 
 life lasts, to sound the tocsin of the Char- 
 ter as the death-note of tyranny and fac- 
 tion. Let 10,000 convictions be obtain- 
 ed against me, and I will be a Chartist 
 still. 
 
 CHRISTOPHER DOYLE: — My 
 Lord, and gentlemen of the jury, I will 
 not do as several of the gentlemen who 
 addressed you. I will not make any 
 apology for trespassing on your time. I 
 have a good reason for doing so. In fact 
 I consider it no trespass. My liberty is 
 at stake, and therefore I think you will 
 bear wfith me, and hear me patiently. 
 This is the first time in my life I have 
 had to defend myself, and, I assure you, 
 I am rather diffident in doing so, more 
 especially when I consider that several 
 gentlemen who have sat here — some of 
 whom belong to the legal profession, are 
 more able to defend me than I am myself, 
 so far as law is concerned : but with all due 
 deference to the legal acquirements of those 
 persons, I think I know my own case bet- 
 ter ; and because I never will endeavour to 
 I escape getting off punishment by getting 
 
267 
 
 another man, who, having a better educa- 
 tion and being more eloquent, can better 
 advocate my case. I have every respect 
 for the gentlemen of the bar, I can assure 
 you ; there are many of them ornaments 
 to society, and many of them who have ad- 
 vocated those political principles which I 
 in common with the other defendants hold. 
 Gentlemen, I am charged in this large 
 indictment — I will not call it monstrous, 
 because, probably, it would not be polite 
 to do so — I am charged in this indictment 
 with being a conspirator — with associa- 
 ting with others and conspiring with them 
 in order to upset the laws and institutions 
 of the country. If I were guilty of such 
 a charge I assure you, gentlemen, I would 
 deserve punishment ; I dare say I would 
 not at all feel angry at your bringing in 
 a verdict of guilty against me. But I am 
 not conscious of conspiring with any 
 party, by illegal means to upset the laws 
 and institutions of this country; which 
 laws and institutions I believe to be im- 
 perfect. I have no desire to do so. I 
 never had. But I have a desire, and have 
 previously had a desire, to change the in- 
 stitutions of this country by legal and 
 constitutional means ; by appealing to the 
 reason of man, and not to his passions ; 
 by endeavouring by the sword of argu- 
 ment to convince every man of the abso- 
 lute necessity of joining with me to suc- 
 cessfully carry out the great principles 
 emdodied in the Charter. We are told 
 by the learned Attorney-General that I, 
 amongst others, did Irom the 1st of 
 August, up to the 1st of October, con- 
 spire to upset the laws of the country. 
 Gentlemen, on the 1st of August, I 
 bad no more to do with this strike 
 than the man in the moon, as the com- 
 mon phrase is ; I just know as much about 
 it as a pig would know about geometry. Up 
 to the 11th, or rather the 10th, of August, 
 this indictment does not bring me in con- 
 nection with the turn-outs. It appears 
 that a man, who styles himself a dresser 
 by trade, states, that I was at a meeting, 
 in Stockport, on Thursday. He states 
 that he did not hear me say anything. 
 He also states, that I was in a pri- 
 son. Why, gentlemen, lean assure you, 
 as an honest man, that I was] not in 
 Stockport on that day at all. I was in 
 the town of Manchester — six miles from 
 Stockport— on that day ; I never did go 
 
 to a meeting there that day. I knew 
 nothing of the meeting, and, if his Lord- 
 ship will call to mind the evidence, be 
 will find I was not there at all that day. 
 He will find, from the governor of the 
 union-workhouse, that certain parties — a 
 mob as it is called — meetings of the 
 people, now-a-days, are termed mobs — he 
 will find, from this man’s testimony, that 
 the union-workhouse was attacked; but 
 no mention is made of my name. But, 
 suppose I attended a public meeting of 
 the people, in Stockport, would I act 
 illegally by so doing ? If I did not use 
 inflammatory or seditious language, I 
 certainly would not be acting illegal. I 
 have attended scores and hundreds of 
 meetings ; I have attended meetings where 
 there was a great deal of angry feeling ; 
 I have opposed certain parties on political 
 questions; a great deal of angry feeling 
 was evinced at those meetings ; — none on 
 my part ; the people felt exasperated 
 against those who were opposed to me, 
 I did not. They maybe right or wrong; 
 that is none of my business. If I had 
 attended a meeting in Stockport, it does 
 not appear to me how, by so doing, I 
 could have acted illegally, or broken what 
 are called the laws of my country. The 
 next witness who appears against me is 
 a man of the name of Crompton, a po- 
 liceman. I confess I have no great relish 
 for policemen, generally; others may 
 have respect for them, but I confess I have 
 not. I assure you I would rather there 
 was such a state of society that there 
 would he no necessity for them. I would 
 like to see the people so happy and com- 
 fortable, and so intellectual, that there 
 would be no necessity at all for policemen, 
 to preserve the peace of the country. 
 However, this policeman appears in that 
 box; he reads evidence; he reads his 
 notes, which he says he took while I was 
 addressing some thousands of the people. 
 He was surrounded by the people while 
 taking those notes, and yet we find the 
 notes in that book written very straight. 
 How is it possible that a man who was 
 not a short-hand writer, who never took 
 notes before, could take correct notes of 
 what occurred at that meeting ? I would 
 appeal to any experienced reporter if this 
 could be done. I defy any short-hand, 
 writer to take a correct note of my speech. 
 It would be utterly impossible for him. 
 
268 
 
 Yet this man takes notes very straight 
 while standing in the midst of a crowd ! 
 Gentlemen, I am sure it will be much in 
 my favour that the people saw this man 
 taking notes, and, according to his own 
 admission, never interfered. Does this 
 shew a desire on the part of the people to 
 do anything illegal or improper ? A 
 gentleman named Shepley, a manufac- 
 turer, was at that meeting. I admit that 
 I was at that meeting. I will not tell a 
 lie to get off. O no, my friends. Well, 
 this Shepley heard me deliver this speech. 
 He was asked about Doyle’s speech, and 
 he said he did not agree with certain 
 parts of it. He was a Chartist, and I 
 don’t like Chartists.” Here is a master 
 who employs 400 or 500 persons, and he 
 did not come into the witness box to 
 shew that I advised the people to break 
 tlie peace. Did I advise the people to 
 stay out till the Charter became the law 
 of the land ? Suppose I did so ; was 
 that illegal ? No, 1 have a perfect right 
 to do so. Mr. Dundas, a legal gentle- 
 man, says, every man has a right to do 
 so, provided he does not advise them to 
 break the peace. Did I do so ? No, I 
 did not. On the contrary, the witness 
 admitted that I w'as the means of obtain- 
 ing permission for a gentleman to have 
 his work finished when it was spoiling, 
 and had I not been there that gentleman’s 
 work would not have been finished. I 
 was applied to, and I told them that this 
 gentleman should be allowed to finish his 
 work — that no party had a right to inter- 
 fere with any gentleman carrying on his 
 business. I never went to any factory — 
 I never attempted to head a mob to turn 
 out the work people. 1 had no con- 
 nexion with the people causing that 
 strike. True, I took some part in the 
 struggle. I did so, convinced that the 
 people had a right to meet for the purpose 
 of considering the Wages Question, or 
 that of the Charter. I have still the same 
 opinion, and I have as good a right to 
 political power as any gentleman in the 
 court. The fact of my being poor is no 
 reason why I should not have a voice in 
 making those laws which I am callec^ on 
 to obey. 1 believe that, unless the Charter 
 becomes the law of the land, the people 
 will have no protection for their labour 
 or their property. I shall hold that 
 opinion until I see that measure carried 
 
 into operation. Gentlemen, this witness 
 goes on to state, that a procession took 
 place aftervyards and that I headed that 
 procession ; and that I was from forty to 
 fifty yards from the people while they 
 were breaking the lock-gates. This is 
 his statement. My back was to them, 
 he admits, and, consequently, I could not 
 see what was done. But, I assure you, 
 gentlemen, and I vow before God and 
 my countrymen, that I know no more 
 about those lock-gates than you do now, 
 beyond hearing of it. But if I had the 
 means of bringing witnesses, I could 
 prove, as I said be! ore that I was in the 
 town of Manchester at the time, and knew 
 nothing of what was going on at the ca- 
 nal. Gentlemen, I am well known in 
 this country as a political agitator. I 
 have agitated, and will again ; but I have 
 done so fairly and honestly, and I defy 
 any man to bring proof that on any one 
 occasion I disobeyed the laws. I have advis- 
 ed the people to obey the laws ; though bad 
 I believed they were, yet, as far as they 
 were concerned I advised them to obey 
 them, until by union of action, and the 
 spread of brotherly affection, they com- 
 pelled the government to give them those 
 rights which God and nature intended 
 they should possess. Gentlemen, you 
 ought to be always doubtful of the evi- 
 dence of a policeman, for there are many 
 facts to prove that these men would swear 
 oaths by the hundred — that they would 
 swear black was white, and that blue was 
 no colour, if required. I do not say that 
 this gentleman has done so, altogether, 
 but I say he has not told what was the 
 strict truth. I admit his evidence so far 
 as being at the meeting. I do not regard 
 being at the meeting, for I believe that so 
 far from breaking the peace, I kept it. I 
 can refer to Beswick and McMullen, the 
 latter of whom Mr. Dundas termed a 
 most respectable witness — I know them 
 well for years, and I defy them, or any 
 other set of men, to say that, directly or 
 indirectly, I induced any party to break 
 the laws of my country. So much for 
 the evidence of this policeman. What is 
 the next evidence against me ? Why 
 gentlemen, that I have been at the con- 
 ference. Granted — I have been at many 
 a conference. Have there not been corn- 
 law repealing conferences, and has any 
 party been prosecuted for attending them f 
 
269 
 
 To be sure they have a right to meet. 
 They are men of property, station, and 
 influence in society. They believe that 
 the corn-laws operated against the com- 
 merce of the country, and against the in- 
 terests of the working classes, and there- 
 fore they felt themselves called upon to 
 meet and deliberate on those laws, and to 
 ascertain if possibly there was a moral 
 power in the country sufficient to induce 
 the legislature to repeal those laws. They 
 met, and they had a perfect right to meet, 
 but if [ were to go into the speeches of 
 those men, which I will not do, I would 
 find in them far more violent language 
 than was used at any of the meetings of 
 the chartists. The complete suffrage 
 men have held conferences, and they had 
 a right to do so. We did so ; and from 
 what has been stated by Mr. Dundas, 
 the learned counsel lor the defence, 
 you will come to the conclusion that 
 the objects for which that confer- 
 ence was called, weie strictly legal. 
 We had no other object in view than 
 that of reorganizing the Chartist body, 
 and if we found anything illegal in it, 
 to alter it, so as to make it legal ; to 
 heal those differences which unfortu- 
 nately crept in among us, and to open 
 the monument erected to the memory of 
 that immortal patriot, the late Henry 
 Hunt, Esq. We met there for the pur- 
 pose of celebrating his anniversary. We 
 had no object in view but those I have 
 mentioned. We had a perfect right to 
 suf)port our principles, as long as we 
 did so legally. I apprehend there has 
 not been any evidence adduced in this 
 court, to prove, that we, the Chartist 
 body, or those supposed to be leading 
 men in it, have taken any other steps 
 than those which are strictly legal, and 
 in accordance with the laws of the land. 
 Gentlemen, allow me to tell you, and T 
 think I niay do so without being consi- 
 dered intrusive, that great men have 
 advocated, in this country, the great 
 principles of democracy. The Duke of 
 Richmond, a man of high standing, 
 was an intelligent and eloquent advocate 
 of those principles, in 1718. This man 
 did not believe, what certain parties would 
 have you to believe, that the Chartists 
 wanted to cany their measures for the 
 purpose of destroying the property of 
 the rich. This man was not afraid of 
 
 the working -classes ; he had great con- 
 fidence in them, and believed, that if 
 complete suffrage was carried out, the 
 property of the rich would not be in- 
 jured, but the poor would be enabled 
 to live by the sweat of their brow, and 
 the labour of tlieir hands. This great 
 nobleman — an aristocrat too — was not 
 afraid that the working classes would 
 take his property from him. We also 
 find that Charles James Fox — a great 
 man before he was seduced — an honest 
 man before he took money, had an 
 association in this country for the pur- 
 pose of carrying the Charter. The Mar- 
 quis of Lansdowne, another great man, 
 advocated the same views, and he was 
 not taken up lor doing so. I assure 
 you, most respectfully', that we have 
 been basely maligned and calumniated 
 by a great part of the press of this 
 country, who have attempted to show 
 to the w'orld that we were bad characters, 
 and that our objects were wholly^ at 
 variance with the rights of men. The 
 press, certainly, made a great impression 
 on the minds of men ; but, gentlemen, 
 whatever my political opinions may be, 
 or, whatever the opinions of those 
 who surround me may be, recollect, 
 that if you were, by your verdict, 
 to put a stop to us giving full 
 expression to our opinions, you do 
 not know how soon yourselves may lie 
 under the lash of the law. Ijiberty of 
 speech has been well spoken to by my 
 liiend M‘Cartney, and therefore 1 will 
 not dwell on it; but let me, as one ac- 
 quainted with the conference, and as one 
 who voted on that resolution which has 
 been read in evidence, say, that I believe 
 the purport of that resolution to be strictly'’ 
 legal. We believed that unless we strug- 
 gled — struggled hard for our rights, we 
 could not obtain them. It has been cus- 
 tomary with the Chartists to move reso- 
 lutions in similar terms to the one passed 
 in that conference. One of the speakers 
 read the resolution ; so have I and will 
 again. The resolution is quite legal in 
 its wording. We have struggled, and 
 will continue to struggle, for without 
 struggling no great object can be gained. 
 If 1 were to tell you the reasons that in- 
 duced me to hold such opinions P could 
 give you sufficient ones, but I will not do 
 so. I am not here to advocate Chartist 
 
270 
 
 principles, exactly, because I know, my 
 Lord would at once say that that would 
 be wrong, but to grapple with the evi- 
 dence adduced against me, and leave the 
 advocacy of my principles for other places 
 more suitable than the present; though 
 I would rather, if permitted, give an 
 exposition of those principles here in 
 order to remove all false impressions from 
 your minds respecting them, and the 
 object we had in view. Gentlemen, in 
 all the agitations that have taken place in 
 this country for what is called Chartism, 
 I think you will recollect that, generally 
 speaking, if there be any party, who more 
 than another ought to be thanked for 
 reserving the peace, it is the Chartist 
 ody. Their struggle has ever been a 
 eaceful one ; their constant motto has 
 een, peace, law and order.” Of course 
 wages became mixed up with the Chartist 
 question — a fair day’s wages for a fair 
 day’s work ; and where is the man so bold 
 and daring as to say that he who pro- 
 duces should not have a fair chance of 
 consuming that which he does produce ? 
 I believe. Gentlemen, that the labour of 
 the people of this country will never be 
 protected until the working classes have 
 a voice in making those laws which they 
 are called upon to obey. We have strug- 
 gled peacefully for this right, and I 
 believe that by struggling peacefully, 
 though the struggle may be long, we will 
 ultimately succeed. We have no object 
 in view but to regenerate our country- 
 men by the adoption of our principles. 
 We have contended for these principles 
 before every party ; we have heard their 
 arguments ; we have not fallen out with 
 them, believing that by peaceable and 
 friendly discussion we would come to an 
 agreement by means of which the people 
 would be greatly benefitted. I will now 
 draw to a conclusion. I will not beg of 
 you to acquit me, because I believe I 
 am not guilty. I do not ask for pity or 
 favour. I am conscious that I have not 
 broken the laws of this country — I am 
 not sure of having done anything that I 
 would not do to morrow if permitted ; 
 consequently, I will not appeal ' to your 
 pity, or your mercy. I ask for no more 
 than justice ; and if you conceive in your 
 conscience, that I have broken the laws of 
 the country, of course you will give your 
 verdict accordingly. I want no more, 
 
 but let me imprets on your minds, before 
 I sit down, the necessity of your calmly 
 considering the evidence adduced before 
 you in this Court — of your carefully ex- 
 amining the evidence, and taking into con- 
 sideration the character of some of the 
 witnesses who have appeared in that box; 
 and weighing well in your minds whether 
 those who are traitors and renegades from 
 their principles are worthy of your attention. 
 Gentlemen, I am sure I cannot but feel 
 thankful to you, as one of the delendants, 
 for your patient hearing of the evidence, 
 as well as of the speakers who have ad- 
 dressed you. It gives me this gratifying 
 consolation that you will not come to a 
 hasty conclusion— that you will calmly 
 examine whether what the learned Attor- 
 ney-General has brought forward as 
 evidence to convict us, is of such a nature 
 as to warrant you in bringing in a ver- 
 dict of guilty ” against us. I have 
 that confidence which will make an ho- 
 nest man bear with fortitude whatever the 
 Court may inflict on me. Whoever 
 endeavours to effect any great good must 
 be prepared for contumely and oppro- 
 brium of the most wicked description, if 
 he means to stand firm to the principles 
 he has promulgated. Our principles are 
 in exact accordance with that divine and 
 moral maxim which says, “ Do unto 
 others as you would they should do unto 
 you.” But, if you come to the conclu- 
 sion that I am not guilty, then, when I 
 retire to the circle of my friends, I will 
 have to say, that at all events I was not a 
 conspirator ; that if there was a conspi- 
 racy at all in the country it was the con- 
 spiracy of poverty. Poverty was the cause 
 of the discontent, and I do not expect 
 that there will be peace in the country 
 while the people are distressed. Can 
 you expect, gentlemen, that while mil- 
 lions are starving the people will be 
 satisfied ? No ; if they could be satisfied 
 with oppression they would be base, 
 mercenary slaves. They should have 
 a fair remuneration for their labour, 
 and until they have that, you will not 
 have peace or content in this country. 
 I say that, and depend upon it if a 
 thorough change does not take place 
 in the institutions of this country you 
 will see nothing but discontent among 
 the working classes. I thank you for 
 your patient hearing of me, and will 
 
271 
 
 now sit down, leaving my case in your 
 hands, confident that, as men who love 
 justice and truth above all, you will 
 bring no verdict against me only that in 
 accordance with the evidence brought 
 before you. 
 
 JONATHAN BAIRSTOW : — My 
 Lord, this is a new position in which I 
 now stand before you — a position which, 
 though I have never previously occupied 
 it, and which, however great may be the 
 embarrassment which I feel in rising be- 
 fore such an array of legal talent as that 
 presented in this court — yet it is a posi- 
 tion which I feel -justified in occupying 
 in my own defence. I feel justified in 
 rising to offer a few observations for the 
 purpose — not of explanation — but of lay- 
 ing before you with the utmost clearness 
 the facts connected with the circum- 
 stances sworn to by the two witnesses 
 who have mainly tendered evidence 
 against me. It is my object, gentlemen, 
 to strip all external and extraneous 
 matter, as far as I can, from the few 
 observations I intend to offer ; and while 
 I do most cordially thank you for the 
 patience, and candour, and impartiality 
 with which you have listened to the very 
 lengthy and able defence of some of my 
 friends who preceded me to-day, I trust 
 you will lengthen that patience to hear 
 from myself a few observations likewise. 
 And to the learned judge I accord like- 
 wise my humble meed of approbation, 
 for the strict and severe impartiality 
 which he has displayed, from the com- 
 mencement of the prosecution to the pre- 
 sent moment. And to the learned At- 
 torney-General I likewise accord my 
 praise for the dignity, calmness, and un- 
 impassioned manner in which he brought 
 this case before your attention. And 
 trusting, gentlemen, that, laying aside 
 every prepossession which may have for- 
 merly possessed your mind — every pre- 
 . judice either against the principles of 
 that Charter, with the agitation for which 
 I have been hitherto identified, that I 
 may, in the course of the remarks which 
 I shall make in my personal defence 
 bere to-day, secure an anchorage in 
 your hearts and consciences for that in- 
 nocence which I believe has charac- 
 terized my past life, so far as a breach of 
 the law of my country, and so far as a 
 Tile intention of upsetting the law of that 
 
 country are concerned. I stand before 
 you, gentlemen, charged with the crime 
 of conspiracy — a crime, the legal de- 
 finition of which I am utterly unac- 
 quainted with. I heard, since my pre- 
 sence in this Court on last Wednesday 
 morning, that an individual who has 
 been engaged, in concert with others, 
 aiding and abetting them, to excite her 
 Majesty’s liege subjects to attempt, forci- 
 bly, illegally, and unconstitutionally, to 
 change the institutions and laws by 
 which the people of this empire are 
 governed, is a conspirator. The facts 
 deposed to before his Lordship and the 
 jury, are in connection with ^ certain 
 delegate meeting which took ""place on 
 the 17th of August last, in the town 
 of Manchester. It is my purpose, gen- 
 tlemen, to detail to you, shortly, and with 
 as much brevity as possible, the circum- 
 stances connected with my conduct on 
 that occasion, and then to conclude, with 
 a brief, but passing, reference to the 
 circumstances which immediately fol- 
 lowed. I was elected during the last 
 Summer Gloucester assizes. The city’ 
 of Gloucester is one of the towns I was 
 sent from to that conference. I repre- 
 sented a meeting, called by a public 
 placard, and at which meeting upwards 
 of 2000 were present, among whom 
 were several legal gentlemen, and a num- 
 ber of the operatives of that city. A 
 resolution was proposed, seconded, and 
 carried unanimously, that I should go 
 to Manchester, for the purpose specified 
 in the convening notice that was inserted 
 in the Korthern Star of the 13th of 
 that month, which paper has been 
 read, and put in before his Lordship 
 as evidence. After that I went to the 
 town of Cheltenham, and, at a public 
 meeting there, I was elected for the same 
 purpose, to sit at the same conference. 
 Thence I went to Bristol, and at a public 
 meeting there, convened by a similar 
 placard, posted on the walls — a meeting 
 of which due notice was given to the 
 authorities of the town, — I was elected 
 as at Gloucester. On the Monday morn- 
 ing, preceding the Wednesday on which 
 this conference met, I departed from 
 Bristol, and arrived at Manchester the 
 da}’- following. In Bristol, Gloucester, 
 and Cheltenham, there was then no strike 
 or cessation from labour, and, till cog- 
 
272 
 
 nizant of the circumstances that occuiTed 
 in connection with the origin and progress 
 of the strike, I had not attempted to ex- 
 cite the people in that locality where I 
 had been labouring, as a public lecturer, 
 for three months, to adopt such measures, 
 seeing that the strike could not he made 
 acceptable unless it were the spontaneous, 
 voluntary, and universal desire of the 
 people to accomplish their object by such 
 means. These are the circumstances under 
 which I was brought to this meeting, and 
 thrown into the immediate vicinity of 
 those exciting circumstances, and of those 
 exciting days, to which reference has 
 been made by several witnesses who have 
 stood in that box, during the last few 
 days. Last Christmas, whilst sitting at 
 the Birmingham conference, T was ar- 
 rested by a bench-warrant, sent by my Lord 
 Denman, hurried away like a convict for 
 felony, and confined in prison for ten 
 days, subject to nearly the same treat- 
 ment as a felon, though waiting for bail 
 on a charge of misdemeanour. Up to the 
 present moment I have received no notice 
 for trial in any way, neither have I 
 pleaded guilty or not guilty. Whether 
 my not having put in any plea, either as 
 guilty or not guilty, makes my special 
 and personal case different from the rest 
 of the defendants or not, I am not aware; 
 but! have determined, in conjunction with 
 the rest of my friends the defendants, to 
 ut in my plea of not guilty,” as 
 eing that which T could not do other- 
 wise without violating iny conscientious 
 convictions; The evidence that has been 
 given against me from that witness box 
 has been, in my opinion, of a very slight 
 and flimsy character, and given, too, bv 
 two individuals with whom I have been 
 formerly acquainted, and with whom I 
 have been on the strictest terms of private 
 friendship and intimacy. Judge my sur- 
 prise, gentlemen, after being the personal 
 friend of these two men, Cartledge and 
 Griffin, who stood in that box — ^judge 
 my surprise, after years of acquaintance 
 with these men — ^judge my surprise, after 
 having sat with them, slept with them, 
 eaten with them, sat down to thte same 
 table with them, assisted them in their 
 poverty and sufferings — after having 
 shook and grasped their warm hand of 
 friendship — after having entrusted them 
 with the innermost feelings of my heart — 
 
 after having connected and wound our- 
 selves into one — conceive, if you can, 
 gentlemen, what must have been my 
 feelings, when, after the unbroken stream 
 — the incessant torrent of evidence, which 
 had been pouring forth from that box 
 for four days, these men were brought 
 up in my presence, and, with bloodless 
 lips and unmoved countenance, ejaculated 
 with terms of cold indifference, if not a 
 positive and palpable falsehood, such 
 gross and malicious misconstructions 
 of statements, or one statement at all 
 events, as totally to change it, and 
 convey to your minds a statement 
 lotally different from that which was 
 uttered on the occasion adverted to. 
 Gentlemen, from the knowdedge and con- 
 fidence I have in the hearts and feelings 
 and desires of Englishmen and Britons, 
 
 I have not the slightest shadow of doubt 
 that the plain unvarnished tale which I 
 have given you, will at least set before 
 you clearly, the circumstances connected 
 with my being a delegate to that confer- 
 ence, for which I am here arraigned 
 before this bar as a conspirator, en- 
 deavouring to undermine and destroy the 
 institutions of this country. Did I at- 
 tempt, prior to coming to this conference, 
 to incite the people to cease labour ? Is 
 there one fact — is there the slightest 
 shadow of a fact, adduced by either of 
 those witnesses, or by the police from 
 any of those tliree towns, from which I 
 was sent to the conference, to show that I 
 used the slightest influence — immense as 
 that influence was at the time — to cause the 
 people to cease from their labour ? Were 
 any of the shops closed in these towns in 
 consequence of any disturbances that 
 took place ? Were there any processions 
 of turn-outs, carrying flags and banners, 
 and having clubs, sticks, and bludgeons 
 in their hands ? Not one such fact is 
 mentioned. I was elected as a delegate 
 to that conference which met on the 17th 
 of August, for the simple purpose sped- ' 
 fled in the special notice put in before 
 your Lordships, as evidence of the pur- 
 pose for which that conference was con- 
 vened. Judge my surprise and astonish- 
 ment on my arrival at Manchester, to 
 find that, notwithstanding I had read ia 
 the newspapers reports of the commence- 
 ment of the strike — to find that it had 
 been carried to such an extraordinary 
 
273 
 
 extent. The only evidence, which I con- 
 ceive to be evidence at all, and which, no 
 doubt, will be regarded by the Attorney- 
 General as of great importance, is, 
 the moving of a certain resolution in 
 the conference, I am not here to deny 
 that I moved that resolution, but to admit 
 fully, clearly, and unequivocally, that T 
 did move it, and that in moving it I did 
 that which in the circumstances, and 
 with my designs, could not be done bet- 
 ter, more innocently, and with less of- 
 fence to the laws of my country. Judge 
 of a man like myself, who, being inured 
 from earliest childhood to manual labour 
 to procure the means of subsistence — a 
 handloom weaver from the age of ten, 
 and now but twenty-two years of age ; 
 for the last four years engaged as a pub- 
 lie lecturer in connexion with the Char- 
 tist movement ; and, therefore, could not 
 but sympathize with the working men. 
 Ay, this resolution, when it says — This 
 conference of delegates from various parts 
 of England, express their deep sympathy 
 with their constituents, the working men 
 now on strike,” expresses the genuine 
 feelings of my heart now as well as then. 
 Like to my Iriend Pilling, who has re- 
 lated a soul-harrowing tale of the suffer- 
 ings of his wife and family, I have been 
 mixed up with working men, I have been 
 identified with them, I have seen their 
 misery, woe, and want, I have witnessed 
 their physical and mental degradation, I 
 have seen them subjected to treatment 
 like that contemplated by a certain gen- 
 tleman at Stalybridge, who offered a re- 
 duction of twenty-five per cent, on their 
 wages, and tiierefore I should have 
 deemed myself the worst apostate from 
 the principles of humanity that ever wore 
 a head above his shoulders, or looked at 
 the sky above his head if I had not ex- 
 pressed my sympathy with the working 
 men, and if I refused to aid them in that 
 struggle for better wages, and better re- 
 muneration for their labour, and to direct 
 them to the polar star of that great object 
 which I had ever in view, the obtaining, 
 by legal and constitutional means, the 
 People s Charter. Gentlemen, I will 
 read this resolution, and having sub- 
 mitted it to your calm consideration, you 
 will ask yourselves then, whether there 
 is anything in it that should lead you to 
 regard me as a conspirator ; — 
 
 " Resolution of the Delegates : — That whilst 
 the Chartist body did not originate the present 
 cessation from labour, this conference of dele- 
 gates from various parts of England express 
 their deep sympathy with their constituents, the 
 working men now on strike ; and that we strongly 
 approve the extension and the continuance of 
 their present struggle till the People’s Charter 
 becomes a legislative enactment, and decide 
 forthwith to issue an address to that effect ; and 
 pledge ourselves, on our return to our respective 
 localities, to give a proper direction to the peo- 
 ple’s efforts. ^ 
 
 (Signed) James Arthur, Chairman. 
 
 J. Arr^n, Secretary.” 
 
 There is one word in this resolution which 
 the Attorney-General remarked on, to 
 which I beg your attention. That we 
 strongly approve the extension and the 
 continuance of the present struggle.” — 
 Struggle, what is the meaning of this 
 word, and what could be [the purpose of 
 the Attorney-General in making a parti- 
 cular stop here, and directing particular 
 attention to this word above all the rest ? 
 Why, gentlemen, what was the struggle 
 for ? The first origin of this strike was 
 at the Staffordshire potteries, where acon- 
 servative iron master offered a reduction 
 of seven shillings a week to his hands. 
 At Stalybridge a reduction of ^5 per 
 cent, was contemplated. But what was 
 the cause of the strike at Bolton, Ashton, 
 Hyde, Mottram, Manchester, Oldham, 
 Preston, and other places ? Simply a 
 struggle for better wages. The struggle 
 had commenced prior to this conference — 
 prior to the strike we had been elected to 
 sit in this conference for other purposes 
 already alluded to ; and immediately af- 
 ter we met, it appears from the evidence 
 given from that box, the workpeople gra- 
 dually, and continuously, began to return 
 to the mills. So that, in fact, we rather 
 sobered down the public feeling than ex- 
 cited it. Instead of flinging a firebrand 
 among the combustible materials, we flung 
 oil upon the troubled waters. I have 
 stated, gentlemen, before, that out of fifty 
 witnesses, or nearly that number, who 
 were examined on behalf of the Crown, 
 only two have offered the slightest evi- 
 dence against myself, This resolution — 
 which, 1 believe, has been laid before your 
 lordship, has been put in evidence against 
 me, and I believe it constitutes the head 
 and front of my offending. My guilt 
 
274 
 
 consists in nothing more, and nothing 
 less, than having moved that resolution at 
 the conference to which I have called 
 your attention on this occasion. Is that 
 resolution illegal ? That is a question 
 for you, gentlemen, to decide. The At- 
 torney-General, in opening this case, re- 
 marked well, thatthe question was notwhe- 
 therotherpartieshad acted aswe did, illegal- 
 ly — this was not wdiat this prosecution was 
 instituted to prove, but to prove thatwe, the 
 defendants, acted illegally. But, gentlemen, 
 I ask you whether you can find an indivi- 
 dual guilty of conspiracy, because it is prov- 
 ed that he attended a public meeting of de- 
 legates, of which due notice was given by 
 placards and by the public newspapers — to 
 which reporters were admitted, and also 
 other parties to hear the proceedings — 
 can you as sober, intelligent, calm, and 
 intellectual Englishmen bring in a ver- 
 dict of guilty against the humble indivi- 
 dual that stands before you, on such 
 grounds ? I apprehend not, gentlemen. 
 I possess not superior tact or talent ; I 
 possess not the power of throwing the var- 
 nish or gold of embellishment over my case; 
 I possess not the power of splitting legal 
 straws with that acumen which distin- 
 guishes gentlemen of the bar — I have all 
 those advantages opposed to me ; but I 
 rely simply on the plain, naked, and un- 
 varnished facts in contradistinction to the 
 evidence given against me by Griffin and 
 Carded ge, both of whom acknowledged 
 themselves Chartists — both of whom ad- 
 mitted so fully and unequivocally that 
 they had formerly been in connection 
 with the Chartist body — one of whom 
 (Cartledge, I mean) admitted that he w'as 
 in that conference, and supported the re- 
 solutibn for which I am arraigned ; and 
 likewise stated that he came to that con- 
 ference, not with the intent of breaking 
 the law, or counselling the conference to 
 do anything that would implicate its 
 members within the meshes of the law. 
 Having laid before you the plain and 
 simple circumstances of my case, and not 
 wishing to protract this trial beyond rea- 
 sonable limits — not wishing to make a 
 display — conscious of the purity of my 
 principles and the rectitude of my mo- 
 tives, I am convinced that, after mature 
 deliberation, you will bring in a verdict of 
 ^'not guilty.” And if you do not do so 
 —if you should bring a verdict against 
 
 me, at the same time I shall acquit you, 
 each and all, of the slightest uncharitable 
 feeling towards me ; believing that an 
 English jury cannot and will not in the 
 presence ot earth and heaven, and with 
 the prospect of an everlasting immortality 
 before them, and a future destiny aw^ait- 
 ing them, .give in a verdict other than 
 that supported by evidence, clear, strong, 
 irrefragable and incontrovertible. Gen- 
 tlemen, it is my wish likewise, that this 
 may be the last time I shall be brought 
 before the bar of my country, for an al- 
 leged crime. I have no desire to be 
 brought into a collision with the law. 
 During my past life, I never stood either 
 in the dock or in the witness box. This 
 is my first time to be arraigned, and as 
 it is the first I trust likewise it may be the 
 last ; but if a peaceful attachment to, and 
 advocacy of, the common principles embo- 
 died in the People’s Charter — if a straight- 
 forward and persevering agitation on be- 
 half of those principles bring me again 
 into contact of the law, then, I must 
 admit that my conscientious convic- 
 tion of what is right and just, and 
 due to myself, my country, and pos- 
 terity, will compel me to take that 
 line which I have hitherto adopted — will 
 compel me to take the same line of 
 policy on future occasions which I 
 have adopted and pursued on the past. 
 Though there are many, very many, cir- 
 cumstances in my connection with this 
 movement which I deplore and regret, 
 the general and leading features of my 
 conduct in that agitation convince me, 
 that, whatever may be the imperlections 
 and blots of my political escutcheon, 
 
 I trust it has not been dishonoured by 
 hypocrisy. I have ever pursued a 
 straight-forward and peaceable, but de- 
 termined course, while endeavouring to 
 make the principles of the Charter be- 
 come the law of the land. If, when 
 every man’s mind is taken aback, and 
 struck with consternation and horror at 
 the immense amount of physical force 
 brought to bear on trade and labour — 
 if trade is at a stand, and commerce 
 stagnated ; with the sufferings of the in- 
 dustrious millions before us — if seeing 
 poverty, and starvation, and mendicancy, 
 stalking through the streets, if, with all 
 these facts before us, we should feel 
 excited, and should, at times, verge 
 
275 
 
 into warm and impassioned language, i 
 then, gentlemen, you are to judge of i 
 that language according to the judgment 
 delivered by Chief Justice Tindal, at 
 Stafford, during the late trials at the 
 special commission. He declared, that 
 such language is not only tolerated, under 
 such circumstances, but is even not 
 considered illegal. For there are times, 
 gentlemen, when, whatever may be our 
 attachment to the law, judgment is almost 
 overbalanced and overpowered by feel- 
 ing and passion. If, on this occasion, 
 many of us may have acted warmly, 
 energetically, and beyond the strict line 
 of prudence, let me intreat of you, gen- 
 tlemen, fairly to estimate the situation 
 in which we were placed — the circum- 
 stances in which we were placed — that 
 is, fairly estimate what is for and 
 against us, and fairly to ascertain as 
 clearly as the evidence will enable you, 
 whether or no we have been guilty of a 
 malicious design to undermine the con- 
 stitution of the country. We can have 
 no possible interest in seeking to over- 
 turn the constitution. We are placed in 
 those circumstances that seem to favour 
 a peaceable and constitutional line of life 
 and conduct. We desire no blessings as 
 a class, but those that proceed from the 
 supreme providence and labour of our 
 hands; and if we have an interest in 
 any thing, it is cultivating industry, fos- 
 tering enterprise, giving additional elas- 
 ticity to commerce, and striving to incul- 
 cate on the present and rising generation 
 a strict love of justice, morality and 
 virtue. In the whole course of my agi- 
 tation did I ever violate these principles ? 
 In moving the resolution which I hold 
 in my hand, did I violate the one or the 
 other ? I contend that this resolution 
 is strictly legal. According to the opin- 
 ion expressed by his Lordship last 
 evening, (if I did not misunderstand 
 him) it is at least a moot point — a ques- 
 tion that has been discussed, and is still 
 debateable even amongst the highest 
 legal authorities, whether a voluntary ces- 
 sation from labour, or an approval of it, 
 was legal or illegal. Placing these cir- 
 cumstances before you, and relying on 
 your impartiality and determination to 
 do justice, I leave the case in your hands. 
 If the evidence befoit^ you shall convince 
 you that I am guilty, I shall walk with 
 
 a firm step and unblanched cheek — with 
 the same unfluttering heart and untrem- 
 bling hand, to the gates of this prison or 
 of any other in the kingdom, conscious 
 that I have done nothing wrong — con- 
 scious that in doing what I have done I 
 have been actuated by the purest and 
 most sincere motives. If I have acted 
 illegally, find me guilty ; if not, gentle- 
 men, you will be bound to acquit me. 
 But, if I am found guilty — if I have to 
 retire within the walls of a prison for 
 months, though I should exceedingly 
 regret the circumstance — though I should 
 extremely regret the painful separation 
 from mother, sister, brother, and wife— 
 though I should extremely regret this, 
 and though it will cause me hours 
 of poignant anguish to reflect that I 
 have left a weeping wife shedding bitter 
 and scalding tears over the sod beneath 
 which lies our departed and only off- 
 spring — though I should extremely re- 
 gret this circumstance, I shall yet feel 
 supported by the strong and fearless con- 
 viction that the cause for which I have 
 struggled will succeed : that the cause 
 of right will eventually triumph against 
 the cause of might, that justice and 
 plenty will, the one rule the population, 
 and the other bless the inhabitants of 
 this sea-girt isle. I leave, brethren, with- 
 out further remark or observation, the 
 case in your hands, thanking you for 
 your kind and impartial attention. If I 
 be not acquitted, (and I do not wish 
 1 to be acquitted except on your judgment 
 [ and from the evidence) still I shall feel 
 
 - that E have not attempted to conspire— 
 
 * that I am not a conspirator. I shall feel 
 1 happy in suffering for that which yon 
 } may believe to be an infringement of the 
 I laws of the country, but which in my 
 
 - soul, and before man and the Creator, I 
 t believe to be nothing more or less thaa 
 I a sincere and peaceful attempt to carry 
 
 - on the agitation for the principles of the 
 1 People’s Charter. 
 
 t The JUDGE : — Any other defendant ? 
 
 - ALBERT WOLFENDEN : — On 
 , looking over the evidence, I thought the 
 
 - Attorney-General had no intention what- 
 1 ever of prosecuting me. The circum- 
 ) stances against me are so extremely 
 ;. trivial, that I can hardly think it his 
 e intention to retain me under this mon- 
 ilstrous indictment. I would, therefore^ 
 
276 
 
 trouble your Lordship to look over the 
 evidence put in as a plea to reach me 
 under this monstrous indictment. 
 
 The JUDGE If you are asking me 
 what the evidence is, I will tell you as I 
 did the others. 
 
 WOLFENDEN : — If you please, my 
 Lord, one of the witnesses who spoke 
 to me w’as Buckley, and the other 
 Brierly. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The first witness who 
 spoke against you was on the first day — 
 the witness Brierly. He mentioned a 
 meeting on the 14th. — Sunday fore- 
 noon, Camp Field, Mottram Moor, 
 Stephenson was there. Nothing said 
 about the Charter. In the afternoon 
 Stephenson was in the chair. Wolfenden 
 began to lecture. Both mentioned the 
 Charter. Wolfenden mentioned the 
 Charter.” I don’t think he [the witness] 
 mentioned anything more. The next 
 witness who mentioned your name is 
 Buckley. The meeting he speaks to 
 took place on the 12th of August at 
 Stalybridge, at seven o’clock in the morn- 
 ing. Crossley, Fenton, and Wolfenden 
 were there. Crossley and Fenton advised 
 them to stick to the wage question. Wol- 
 fenden told them to stick to the Charter.” 
 In the evening there was another meeting, 
 you were not there. Then, it was proved, 
 yesterday, by the witness, Hanley, that 
 the meeting of the trades’ delegates ad- 
 journed to Carpenters’ Hall; the chair 
 was taken by Alexander Hutchinson. 
 Present, M'Cartney, Taylor, Morrison, 
 Woodruffe, from Ashton, and Wolfen- 
 den, from Ashton. Speeches were made. 
 Huffy complained that the Anti-corn 
 Law League were the originators of the 
 disturbances. There is no other evidence 
 against you. 
 
 WOLFENDEN:— My Lord, and 
 gentlemen of the jury, the reason why 
 I thought the charge in the indictment 
 could not be pressed against me, was, 
 first, that the individual who was in the 
 chair at that meeting (Wilde) was dis- 
 charged ; and next that, he who was 
 represented, and sworn to as ^ 
 
 delegate with me at that conference of 
 trades’ delegates, is also discharged. 
 Under these circumstances I thought 
 the Attorney-General could not do less 
 than let me off also. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Who do you allude 
 to as being discharged } 
 
 WOLFENDEN : — Thomas Pitt. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He is not sworn to. 
 He is not mentioned as being in that 
 meeting. 
 
 WOLFENDEN : — I was under the 
 impression that the Attorney-General 
 would not press the case, unless he 
 had some other positive reason for 
 doing so, which reason is not pointed out 
 in the evidence against me. I never 
 conspired to injure any party in society, 
 nor any individual. If it he a conspi- 
 racy to acknowledge certain principles — 
 I believe I recommended them with mo- 
 deration, and I laboured to prevent the 
 people from breaking the peace — if that 
 he conspiracy, so far I do acknowledge, 
 gentlemen, that I am a conspirator. But 
 I feel persuaded that you cannot convict 
 me on the evidence of such a man as 
 Brierly, his character stamps him at once 
 with infamy. He acknowledged here„ 
 that he received money for the purpose 
 of obtaining a conviction. Gentlemen, I 
 labour under considerable disadvantage, 
 both from poverty and want of learning, 
 in contending against the array of learn- 
 ing and talent against me. I could bring 
 forward witnesses to prove that I never 
 was at Mottram-moor on the 13th of 
 August. 
 
 The JUDGE On the 14th. 
 
 WOLFENDEN : — I understood from 
 the depositions taken that this meeting 
 was on the 8th, perhaps some misunder- 
 standing occurred in the swearing of the 
 witness, but a meeting took place on the 
 8th. Evidence was produced from Ash- 
 ton-under-Lyne, in order to impress on 
 this court, that it was a Chartist question 
 which was then agitated. I do declare 
 before God and you that the whole of the 
 documents and placards made use of in 
 the towns of Ashton and Stalybridge, 
 never once as much as mentioned, the 
 name of the Charter. I do not deny the 
 principles of the Charter ; I would sooner 
 suffer — I would be ready to undergo any 
 punishment — I wmuld not forego to de- 
 clare those principles for any considera- 
 tion, but this charge of conspiring to up- 
 root society and destroy the government 
 by illegal means, I <^ d eny with the great- 
 est asseveration. ^Every circumstance 
 connected with the locality from whence 
 
277 
 
 I came, would prove that no such thing 
 as a Chartist conspiracy did exist. The 
 whole of the arrangements, everything 
 connected with the matter, the delegation 
 and instruction of the delegation, and 
 every arrangement of the delegate meet- 
 ings, were directly, purely and strictly in 
 connection with the trades. I do presume 
 that an expression, that I was favorable 
 to the principles of the Charter, that [ was 
 ready to support those principles consti- 
 tutionally, when called upon, is not a 
 crime. I am innocent even of the ap- 
 pearance of the crime charged against me, 
 and I cannot discover from anything that 
 has been stated in that box why iny name 
 is retained in this indictment. But the 
 character of Buckley, who is the princi- 
 ple evidence against me, must have a 
 deadening effect against gaining a con- 
 viction. That man declared, that T sup- 
 ported the Charter, and that I said 
 much against the mill-owners and manu- 
 facturers. In another court of judica- 
 ture he declared that this was the language 
 I used : — that they w'ere the greatest 
 enemies of the working classes, who 
 under any circumstances were the cause 
 nf breaking the peace; and that if they 
 would achieve any great and good object 
 it must be with strict attention to peace, 
 law and order. This very witness de- 
 clares from that box, that he told his 
 mother-in-law, Susan Green, that if it 
 were not for the speakers, there would be 
 much more mischief done. But there 
 was no mischief done. I never saw 
 any mischief done. I was acquainted 
 with no circumstance of riot. I did all I 
 possibly could in order to support the 
 peace. I do say that the best thanks 
 ought to be given to those who took part 
 in these proceedings from the manly 
 manner in which they restrained the 
 manufacturing operatives from those acts 
 of violence, which, from the sufferings 
 which they had endured and the exciting 
 circumstances in which they were placed, 
 they were likely to commit. I do con- 
 tend, my liord, and gentlemen of the 
 jury, that so far as I have been concerned 
 in the matter, I have acted purely and 
 solely in the character of a peace-maker, 
 and as such I claim your indulgence if I 
 have transgressed. On the principle of 
 the Attorney-General, I have not trans- 
 gressed. If it be a crime to be in favour 
 
 of the Charter, then I am guilty of a 
 crime, which nothing can move, but con- 
 viction from argument. My Lord, and 
 gentlemen of the jury, as you have had so 
 long a sitting, and must have suffered much 
 inconvenience, I shall not at this late hour 
 of the day trespass further on your time. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — My Lord, 
 and gentlemen of the jury, after this 
 long and painful investigation — after 
 bringing into this court evidence from 
 all parts of this county, and some from 
 the adjoining counties, how little, 
 indeed, has been laid before the jury 
 and this court, to prove what was the 
 cause of those results which brought us 
 here before this bar. I perceive, my 
 Lord and gentlemen, that so far as my 
 name is mixed up with this matter, there 
 is very little evidence. There is not the 
 slightest reference whatever to any meet- 
 ing I have attended ; my name v/as 
 never mentioned in court till this inves- 
 tigation was going on for nearly three 
 days. After all the meetings and speeches 
 you have heard about, and all the tur- 
 moil, agitation, confusion, and disorder 
 that have occurred, it turns out, on the 
 evidence, that I was only present at one 
 meeting — the conference meeting, as it 
 was called — and for that I am here. I 
 am here to answer, on a charge of con- 
 spiracy, simply and solely for attending 
 that meeting. But, my Lord and gentlemen 
 of the jury, it shall be my province here 
 to introduce to your notice that which I 
 believe to be the real conspirator — those 
 circumstances which I believe had the s 
 effect of producing that wide spread of 
 discontent that seems to have been felt 
 with the oneness of feeling and sympatliy, 
 and to have displayed itself under such ap- 
 earances, that it was at length brought 
 efore the notice of this Court. We are 
 charged with conspiring together to pro- 
 duce discontent, disaffection, disorder, and 
 confusion in society, with a view forcibly to 
 change the institutions of the country, and 
 with a view to the enforcing the adoption 
 of those principles, said to be inimical to 
 the public weal and tranquillity of her 
 Majesty’s liege subjects. But it is not 
 easy, my Lord and gentlemen, to per- 
 suade people, well fed and clothed, that 
 they are naked and hungry ; neither is 
 it in our power to produce, on the minds 
 of the people, discontent with the insti- 
 
 T 
 
278 
 
 tutions of the country, and their own 
 position, bad those institutions, and that 
 position, been what they ought to he. 
 On the contrary, the labouring classes of 
 England would look with jealousy and 
 suspicion on any one who would endea- 
 vour to produce discontent among then.’, 
 if they were receiving a fair remunera- 
 tion for their productions and the labour 
 of their hands. But we are charged with 
 being the originators of that, with which 
 any one acquainted with the history of 
 the last few years, knows we can have 
 nothing to do. It is true we have taken 
 some part in agitating this question, (the 
 Charter) not only among the lower classes 
 hut also among the higher ranks of so- 
 ciety. This question is now discussed 
 W'ith an earnestness which shews that the 
 time is not far off when the people of 
 this country must have such changes — 
 such an alteration in the institutions of 
 this country as will guarantee to labour 
 that protection which it so imperatively 
 demands, and which, in my opinion, must 
 be conceded before there is anything like 
 a return to that state of happiness, and 
 contentment, which every well regulated 
 mind must desire to see established and 
 adopted. You have had many witnesses 
 placed in that box, and I was much sur- 
 prised you had not more of them; for 
 when I was brought before the magistrates 
 several other witnesses were examined, 
 whose evidence was thought important. 
 Why were not they produced in court ? 
 Why was not their evidence produced ? 
 You have had a placard produced here. 
 When before the magistrates it was stated 
 that that placard was at my door, and a 
 witness was brought up who swore that 
 he saw me in my shop, and a great crowd 
 of people at the door discussing the merits 
 of the placard. That witness is not now 
 in court. Why ? Because the prosecu- 
 tors knew he was not swearing the truth. 
 He also swore to another meeting which 
 he said I attended, and at which I used 
 seditious language. Why is he not here 
 now to swear to that language and that 
 meeting, gentlemen of the jury ? Simply 
 and solely because I had the means of 
 producing in that box incontrovertible 
 evidence that I was not at that meeting 
 at which he swore I had used seditious 
 language. What then has been pro- 
 duced to criminate me in this charge of 
 
 conspiracy ? Carlledge and Griffin said 
 I was at IMr. Scholefield’s chapel on the 
 17th of August. A vast deal of evidence 
 might have been spared here. If the 
 Attorney-General had asked ns that ques- 
 tion he might not have brought forward 
 so many witnesses to prove it. We 
 would have admitted the fact. But a 
 certain resolution was passed at that 
 meeting, and for that resolution we are 
 to be charged as conspirators. What 
 are the words on which so much stress 
 has been- laid ? “ We approve of the 
 
 present struggle.” Why, the word strug- 
 gle is so familiar to the people of this 
 country — so often put before them — so 
 interwoven with all their political asso- 
 ciations, that you can scarcely think of 
 speaking of anything without u.sing the 
 word. Here is a document headed 
 ‘‘ STRUGGLE,” [The defendant ex- 
 hibited one of the publications of the 
 Anti-corn-law League] and the strength 
 of the language from beginning to end 
 of this, far exceeds any thing ever 
 used by the Chartist body, either in 
 their resolutions or placards. But there 
 is no proof here that I was elected 
 to sit in that conference. I was there as 
 any other individual who of his own 
 accord thought proper to go there. But 
 what is it that occasioned this vast uneasi- 
 ness— this terror and wide spread rancour 
 and discontent which had pervaded the 
 country ? What is it, 1 would ask, that 
 has produced that? Is it the Chartist 
 conference in Manchester ? It could not 
 be the Chartist conference, because notice 
 was given of that assembly some seven 
 or eight weeks before anything occurred. 
 You had a man put into that box who 
 told you that he paid the same wages to 
 his hands now that he paid twenty- 
 five years ago ; and he would have you 
 to infer Lorn that, that the people had no 
 reason to complain of the distress or po- 
 verty afflicting the working cla.sses at the 
 time to which he referred. Now what 
 are the facts ? I shall not attempt to 
 lead you into all the details of that heart- 
 rending system that is ruining the labour- 
 ing classes of Englishmen, and bringing 
 sorrow and even insolvency on a vast 
 number even of the middle classes them- 
 selves. I hold it to be true, that wherever 
 the labouring classes of any country in 
 the world are in a state of distress and 
 
279 
 
 destitution — wherever they are not enjoy- 
 ing a portion of that which their own 
 labour creates, the social pillar on which 
 the superstructure of society is raised is 
 in danger. Where a population are ren- 
 dered ragged and discontented in the 
 midst of the abundance they created, 
 there never can he anything like secu- 
 rity for the property of the rich, or 
 content for those who ought to bring con- 
 tentment to the hearth-stone of every cot- 
 tager in the land. I need not attempt to 
 bring any details before you, for you 
 know as well as I do that at this moment 
 nine-tenths of the labouring classes of 
 England are in a state of insecurity, po- 
 verty, and wretchedness. What are the 
 opinions of those who have spoken on 
 this subject ? I need not ask. Her 
 Majesty herself says, in her speech from 
 the throne, that she much deplores the 
 distress that exists among her subjects. 
 The House of Lords acknowledges the 
 truth that the people are starving in the 
 midst of plenty. The House of Com- 
 mons acknowledges the distress v/hich 
 pervades all classes of society. The 
 Church itself had acknowledged the dis- 
 tress, and the Lords Spiritual had lately 
 published a form of prayer, and sent over 
 the country a sort of letter, enjoining the 
 ministers of the gospel to solicit sub- 
 scriptions from their respective congrega- 
 tions to relieve the distresses of the people 
 in their several districts. How, then, 
 can we he the cause of the turmoil and 
 discontent with which we are here 
 charged ? Well, then, we will he 
 told that, if we did not create it, we 
 took advantage of it. What evidence 
 have you to prove that we took an undue 
 advantage of this strike ? It is said that 
 this was a conspiracy. Can it, after hear- 
 ing the evidence on the part of the Crown, 
 he said for a moment to bear anything of 
 that character ? What is the real history 
 of this strike ? I do not remember the day, 
 but I recollect the circumstance well, lor 
 I live near that part of the town which 
 the people first reached when they came 
 from Ashton, and invaded Manchester. 
 What were they ? A few drabbled half- 
 starved creatures, and half wet, chiefly 
 women and chi'.dren, came to Manchester, 
 and, in about five hours afterwards, 
 upwards of 150,000 people were in the 
 streets. So vast a number of people 
 
 could not have collected so suddenly, 
 if it were not that they sympathized with 
 the wrongs which they endured in com- 
 'mon with the operatives from Ashton. 
 Could it be believed for a moment that 
 a few people coming from the mills where 
 they were half-sweated to death, could 
 stop the mills, mechanics’ shops, iron 
 founders, and cause every description of 
 labour to stand still in that line of indus- 
 try, as you were told by one of the learn- 
 ed counsel who addressed you ? No, the 
 real truth is this ; discontent and penury 
 created a oneness of action among the 
 working classes, and w^hen notice was 
 given that the small remnant of wages was 
 about to be made less, they thought it bet- 
 ter to starve and play, than work and 
 starve at the same time. What was the 
 question asked by the magistrate at Man- 
 chester ? Why do you not go to work ?” 
 — ^^Ah!” said they, we are deprived 
 of a fair remuneration for our labour, and 
 the consequence is, we are starving.” But 
 the witness in the box yesterday said, there 
 was no alteration in the wages of the 
 working classes. His lordship thought 
 that the improvements in machinery were 
 such as gave to the working man the ad- 
 vantage of that improvement ; but what 
 are the real facts of the case ? Why, the 
 wages have been cut down to one-half 
 of what they were twenty-five years ago. 
 In the county of Lancaster the wages of 
 any given number of hands engaged in 
 the cotton trade have been cut down to less 
 than one-half what they were twenty-five 
 years ago. But how many thousands of 
 the people have been turned upon the 
 streets without any wages at all ? In twenty 
 of the largest mills in Manchester, 'which 
 in the year 1825 employed 1,018 spin- 
 ners, there are now only 500 spinners, so 
 that the improvements in machinery have 
 had the effect of turning more than one- 
 half the hands out of employment since 
 1825, and also of diminishing the wages 
 of the remainder fifty per cent. Some 
 of the operatives once employed in those 
 factories are now going about the streets 
 selling salt, gathering rags, and shouting 
 ballads. Others are sent, under the d irection 
 of the commissioners, to sweep the streets 
 of Manchester for a few shillings a week. 
 But even that is no sanctuary for them, 
 for a machine has been invented v\ hich 
 sweeps the street and throws the dirt into 
 
280 
 
 the cart at the same time. These men 
 had profitable employment befoje the al- 
 terations introduced by machinery. These 
 are the causes of the distress which now 
 afflicts a great portion of the labouring 
 classes of the country. But not only 
 has one half of the hands been thrown 
 out of employment in the same twenty 
 mills, but 144,878 spindles in the aggre- 
 gate have been added since 1825. There 
 is a large body of printers in Lancashire, 
 and what is their condition ? At the 
 _ Bury-groimd Print-works, near Bury, 
 twenty years ago, 100 men were getting 
 thirty shillings a week for printing calico 
 cloth. These men were happy at that 
 time. What is the result now } Instead 
 of 100 getting each thirty shillings a 
 week, there are only eleven employed 
 altogether now, three out of the eleven 
 have only three shillings and sixpence a 
 week each, three more have ten shillings 
 a week each, and the other five are get- 
 ting something like reasonable wages. It 
 is not that there has been any diminution 
 in labour or commerce, that these men 
 were thrown out of employment. No, 
 on the contrary, more pieces are now 
 turned off by four machines, than would 
 give successful and continuous employ- 
 ment to 400 hands, if it were not for the 
 invention of those machines. The trade 
 has increased from one to fourfold, while 
 these men are diminished from 100 get- 
 ting thirty shillings each to eleven, six 
 of whom are only getting ten shillings, 
 and three boys attending them at three 
 shillings and sixpence each. I see from 
 a petition sent from the block printers, 
 that their numbers are 7,000, 4,000 of 
 whom are out of employment The 
 question the same body put last year to 
 Sir Robert Peel was simply this, What 
 are we to do ? Machinery has taken from 
 us our employment ; we have no other 
 desciiption of employment to fall back 
 upon, and what is to become of us ? Are 
 we to conclude that machinery, made of 
 iron and wood, is to be considered by the 
 legislature of more importance than the 
 flesh, blood, and bone of those whose la- 
 bour it has supplanted i' Are we to con- 
 sider that there is to be no protection for 
 us ; that we are thus to suffer ; and that 
 there is to be no commiseration for that 
 deep and wide-spread distress from those 
 who have thus taken away our la- 
 
 bour, and are giving us nothing in re- 
 turn ?” And because we speak of these 
 things to what conclusions do they ar- 
 rive who do not take the same view.of the 
 subject that we do? ^"Ah,” they say, 
 you are revolutionists — you seek to des- 
 troy property but there is a great dis- 
 tinction between the people destroying 
 property, and the people endeavouring to 
 prevent property from destroying them. 
 There is a distinction between the use 
 and the abuse of anything. The people 
 never think of destroying property. I 
 have seen thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands of persons congregated in Lanca- 
 shire at different periods, but I never saw 
 them destroying property. It is true that 
 boys and girls occasionally pelted stones 
 and broke windows of mills, but I never 
 saw the men do so. They know that it 
 is labour which gives to property its 
 value — they know that it is valueless 
 without the labour of their hands ; and 
 they never will commit such a suicidal 
 act as to destroy that to which the labour 
 of their own hands has given its value. 
 But I cannot accord the same praise to 
 the middle classes, who, in the foolish ca- 
 reer of taking from time to time the 
 wages of the working classes from them, 
 are effectually undermining the only pil- 
 lar on which property can rest for secu- 
 rity. What is the present state of Man- 
 chester } By a report which I have lately 
 seen, I find there are 3000 empty cottage 
 houses, and 3000 more which pay no 
 rents. And why ? Because the working 
 classes do not receive such remuneration 
 for their labour, as will enable them to 
 occupy houses of their own. These are 
 the causes of the discontent. It is from 
 these sources that outbreaks, turmoils and 
 confusion occasionally spring forth, and I 
 trust these causes will be investigated. I 
 presume this is the subject, connected 
 with the present enquiry. We are charged 
 here with doing that with which we have 
 no more to do than the people on the 
 other side of the globe. We had nothing 
 whatever to do with the late insurrection. 
 It is a notorious fact, and one that cannot 
 be denied, and which can be proved in 
 this Court, and will be proved before this 
 investigation is over, that the parties in- 
 strumental in bringing us here were 
 themselves the parties who concocted that 
 strike, with the view of forcing the Icgis- 
 
281 
 
 lature to adopt those views which they 
 thought would be beneficial to their own 
 interests. The evidence in that box was 
 asked for my character — (I did not ask 
 It from them, for I would not accept it 
 from such a source) and they stated that 
 I was respected by all parlies in the 
 town were I was best known. Does that 
 look like a conspirator — to he respected 
 by all parties } I don’t think I have any 
 enemies. I know a considerable body of 
 men who differ from me, but they pay 
 me respect and deference. And, why ? 
 because they always heard me during 
 any agitation or confusion that might 
 reign in the town — exhort the people to 
 pay the greatest deference to the opinions 
 of others, and at all times to reason, as 
 men ought to reason, and that, when 
 they discovered that a certain opinion 
 was erroneous, it was their interest to 
 abandon it, and establish that which was 
 right, and bring about after conviction, 
 what might be necessary for the common 
 Aveal and interest of society. Those men 
 w^ho sw'ore that I was a conspirator gave 
 me that character. I don’t know, gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, that so much could be 
 said for themselves. I trust they also 
 have such a good character, but they will 
 have to purge themselves from much 
 wickedness before they get such a cha- 
 racter, as they have given me. But I 
 have called jrour attention to the distress 
 of the working classes, to show the real 
 cause of the disturbances. What is the 
 state of Stockport ? Four years ago this 
 question was mooted and discussed in the 
 Town Hall, before a meeting of the rate- 
 payers — “ Whether shall the poor-rate 
 that is to be levied be four-pence half- 
 penny or sevenpence in the pound ?” It 
 was carried that the rate should be seven- 
 pence in the pound. Now, here is the 
 next fact. Within the last four years, 
 the reductions of wages, with the stop- 
 ping of mills, had had the effect, accord- 
 ing to the masters themselves, of with- 
 drawing from circulation, as wages, 
 £1,500 a week, less than was paid to the 
 working classes five years ago. What 
 are the rate payers now discussing ? 
 Not whether the poor-rates shall be four- 
 pence halfpenny or sevenpence, but whe- 
 ther they shall be three shillings and six- 
 pence or four shillings and sixpence in 
 the pound. Thus, whenever the wages ' 
 
 of industry diminish — wherever the 
 means are taken from the producers of 
 wealth, it follows, as a natural conse- 
 quence, that the reduction in wages 
 must fall back in some shape or 
 way upon the property of the middle 
 classes. Are not we right, then, in 
 stating, that this is the cause of 
 the discontent. As Englishmen, is it 
 too much for us to say, that we have 
 a right to attend public meetings, to 
 speak at them, and pass resolutions 
 at them, as long as those resolu- 
 tions have no tendency to injure pro- 
 perty or life, or to interfere with the 
 established order of things, or the peace 
 of society ? No doubt you will be told 
 that that was not the result of our reso - 
 lution. I think, however, there will be 
 great difficulty in proving to you that 
 any other result has followed from these 
 proceedings. I have not seen it at- 
 tempted to be proved, that any thing of 
 a painful nature has followed as a con- 
 sequence of the passing of this resolu- 
 tion. All the excitement is raked up, 
 and laid to our charge, as if we first 
 caused the distress, and then complained 
 of its existence. I see mj^ Lord Stan- 
 hope is now made the chairman of a 
 society, established for the sole purpose 
 of giving encouragement to native in- 
 dustry. What is the inference to be 
 drawn from that ? There is but one 
 inference; that the labouring classes of 
 England, who produce the wealth that 
 adorns our country, are themselves in a 
 state of wretchedness and destitution, in 
 consequence of their labour being ex- 
 ported to foreign lands, while they them- 
 selves are left naked and ragged lor w'ant 
 of that which they produced. Is it not 
 notorious that, in proportion as we in- 
 creased our productions, the working- 
 people sank down into wretchedness and 
 want ? At this very moment the agri- 
 cultural labourers are pining and getting 
 a very scanty portion of food, in the 
 midst of the vast accumulation of the 
 produce of their own labour. In pro- 
 portion as they have thus multiplied 
 what ought to have given blessings to all, 
 they are themselves in want, woe, and 
 sorrow. Is it not a truth, that, while 
 the warehouses of Manchester are at this 
 moment ready to break down with the 
 superabundant weight of the goods piled 
 
282 
 
 in them, the result of the slavery and 
 toil of the industrious classes of England, 
 those who produced the cloth have not, 
 themselves, a decent suit of clothes to 
 put on their hacks, and cannot attend a 
 place of worship on Sundays, because 
 they are in rags, and would he despised 
 hy the better classes ? Is it not a 
 truth that the poor hand-loom weaver, 
 whose useful toil produces all those 
 splendid garments worn by his superiors 
 in society, is slaving from morning to 
 night, with scarcely a shirt upon his 
 back, scarcely a bed to rest his weary 
 limbs upon, scarcely clothing to cover 
 the bodies of his children, or a proper 
 meal to eat from Monday morning to 
 Saturday night, —from year end to year 
 end ? How is it possible, then, with a 
 population like this, that contentment 
 can reign amongst this order of our 
 fellow-creatures, so long as this is the 
 result, — increased labour and toil, dimi- 
 nished means, and increasing sorrow 
 and destitution ? These are the real 
 causes of the discontent. Gentlemen 
 of the jury, you may convict me of 
 being a conspirator for complaining 
 of these things; you may by your ver- 
 dict send me along with others to a dun- 
 geon for a time, but rest assured that, 
 whether that may be the result or not, 
 there will be a continuation of the mur- 
 muring and discontent, and of those very 
 justifiable complaints, till the cause be 
 removed, by protecting, in some way or 
 other, the industry of the people, which 
 makes all the property we have great and 
 valuable. The Attorney-General insisted 
 in his opening address that property 
 could not be secure if we were allowed 
 to go on in our wild course, endangering 
 the social fabric and bringing confusion 
 into society. Gentlemen, the cause I 
 mentioned is the real instigator to con- 
 spiracy and sedition, or whatever else 
 you may call it. Property will be best 
 respected when those wlio possess it do 
 their diny to those who created it. We 
 have it placed on record by the first 
 writers of the day, that property^ has no 
 exchangeable value, but that which la- 
 bour gives it. Then labour must have 
 justice done it in order to strengthen and 
 give value to jiroperty itself. There is 
 no sentence which I ever read that I ap- 
 prove of more than that, property is the 
 
 only offspring of labour.” Labour there- 
 fore is the foundation of property. It 
 follows then, that those who enjoy pro- 
 perty should look with respect to, and do 
 justice to, those who produce property. 
 The working classes are entitled to have 
 that at their hands. The great mass of 
 the working classes believe that those 
 who possess property have neglected the 
 duties annexed to it, that those who make 
 the laws and frame the institutions, and 
 legislate under the constitutional autho- 
 rity of kings, lords, and commons, have 
 not done their duty to the working 
 classes. Hence they have very loudly 
 and incessantly proclaimed that truth ; 
 and, I would admit, rather turbulently 
 demanded a repeal of those institutions 
 so as to be admitted within the pale 
 of the constitution. Put, gentlemen 
 of the jury, this is the first time that 
 ever my name was ushered into a 
 court of justice on a charge of conspi- 
 racy. And what has been told to the 
 jury ? Why, that M‘Douall was seen at 
 my house. Well, in the midst of all our 
 follies, I trust.it is not a crime to be hos- 
 pitable. He came to my house, and he 
 had a perfect right to do so. I respect 
 him, as I do many others who come to 
 my house as a friend, and I consider that 
 it was no sin or evil on my pai't to admit 
 him, and allow him to stay thei’e as long 
 as I liked. Next to that, I was traced 
 to Nobleit’s house, where I was in the 
 habit of going for three or four years, and 
 which I have resorted to since. I was there 
 once or twice a week since I was set at 
 liberty, after being arrested on this charge. 
 Was anything illegal proved as having 
 occurred between me and Dr. M'Douall 
 on this occasion ? Then comes the Ex- 
 ecutive Placard ; there is not a tittle of 
 evidence to show that I had anything to 
 do with this placard, except that it was 
 posted at ray door I shall put into the 
 box the man who made me the board on 
 which that placard was posted, and who 
 saw the bill-poster putting the placard at 
 the door, 'i'hey posted those placards 
 not only at printers, but even at the bar- 
 bers’ shops. They put bills there an- 
 nouncing what is to be sold by auction, 
 the contents of newspapers, meetings that 
 are to be held, lectures that are to be 
 given, &c. These bill-stickers are sent 
 round the town to post those hills on 
 
283 
 
 boards, walls, and such places. The 
 only connection ever attempted to be 
 proved between me and that placard was 
 simply that I allowed it to be on a board 
 at my door; and you have it from Bes- 
 wick and the other officer who came to 
 arrest me, that they had reason to be- 
 lieve [ was not at home when that ])lacard 
 was put up at my door. Then, what am 
 T here for ? Is it for attending the con- 
 ference meeting ? If that be a crime, 
 then of that crime I plead guilty. But I 
 do not plead guilty to the foul charge of 
 conspiracy for attending that meeting. 
 My whole life gives the lie to any such 
 charge. There is not a man that would 
 be brought from Manchester but could 
 give evidence, in that box, that I would 
 never conspire to change the laws and 
 institutions of the country, by force and 
 violence. Gentlemen of the jury, I 
 have as much reason to guard myself 
 against such things as these as any 
 man in the court. I have a large 
 family to provide for, and I trust I 
 have the feelings which a father ought 
 to have for his children. I should think 
 myself unworthy of the name of man — 
 1 should despise myself if I concocted 
 schemes to shed blood, or bring about 
 disorder or confusion in society. My 
 feelings revolt from the idea of concoct- 
 ing any private conspiracy to bring about 
 disorder or confusion, or anything bad. 
 No, my desire always was to inspire my 
 fellow men with feelings of brotherly 
 love and affection, one man with ano- 
 ther. I have always advised the adoj)- 
 tion of peaceable means, for the purpose 
 of effecting those changes which will 
 so mould the institutions of the country, 
 that protection may be given to ir.du.stry 
 as well as to that which industry creates. 
 It is for this reason that I have taken the 
 part I was able to take in the proceed- 
 ings of the Chartist’ l)ody. In Manches- 
 ter wc have an agitation of a very strong 
 and violent character indeed. I have 
 seen there a hand of ruthless ruffians 
 parading the streets like military, with 
 bludgeons in their hands ; hading the po- 
 lice as connlrymen. 's hesc fellows sought 
 to take my life, — they sought to destroy that 
 semblance of protection left us by the 
 laws. I have seen a mob of ruthless 
 harbarians, who were panting for the lives 
 of their fellow-workmen, addressed by 
 
 the policemen of Manchester, in these 
 words: ^^Fellow-countrymen, do your 
 duty, and we. won’t interfere with you.”* 
 I have seen heads broken, and blood 
 trickling down to the shoes of men 
 whose heads were almost split by those 
 ruthless savages, who were carrying out 
 this system of violence for party purposes, 
 and party purposes alone. I have, in 
 many cases, risked my personal safety 
 for the purpose of restoring such men to 
 a more orderly state, and bringing life 
 and property, and the opinions of otliers, 
 into respect. After all, I am arraigned 
 here as a conspirator. Well, be it so. 
 Rely upon this, that no lime ever will 
 arrive— it is impossible to expect it — 
 when the labouring classes will sit down 
 contented with slavery and starvation at 
 the same time. It is impossible to ex- 
 pect that they will ever be contented in 
 rags and wretch'edness, while surrounded 
 by the abundance and superfluities that 
 their own labour created. They will 
 never be content to see these things con- 
 sumed, even wasted by others, while they 
 themselves are wanting even the scantiest 
 portion of that which they themselves 
 created. In conclusion, I cannot say, as 
 some have said, that I look with indif- 
 ference to your decision. I do look with 
 a great deal of anxiety to your decision, 
 not only as it regards my personal safety, 
 but on still more imjDortant grounds. I 
 look with anxiety for your decision, be- 
 cause I am satisfied that, from the nature 
 and character of the evidence you have 
 had in that box, ard contrasting that 
 evidence with the lives of the men whose 
 conduct you are here to investigate and 
 try — considering the excitement that pre- 
 vailed at the time of the strike — and that, 
 afier that conference wdiich was talked 
 so much about, the people returned 
 quietly to their employment as soon as 
 they v/ere allowed (for I ha})pen to know 
 that in many instances, w'hen they begged 
 
 * The speaker here alludes to the Anti-corn 
 law meeting in Stephenson’s-square, in 1841, 
 where the Irish hludgeon-men of the Anti-corn- 
 law f.eague, and the Irish police, in the presence 
 of Corn-law repealing magistrates, assailed the 
 Chartists in a most brutal and ferocious manner, 
 for daring to express their opinions on the reso- 
 lutions submitted to the meeting. 
 
284 
 
 to be allowed to return to work, the reply 
 was, *^No; your month is not up yet; 
 you shall have a month’s holiday”).- 
 Believing from the patient and kind at- 
 tention you have paid to all that you 
 heard, things in’elevant as well as re- 
 levant, I am satisfied you will, by your 
 verdict, tell the Government and the 
 world that we are not those monsters and 
 conspirators who wanted to bring about, 
 by confusion and disorder, a change in 
 the institutions of the country. Thank- 
 ing you, gentlemen, for your attention, 
 and hoping you will give me that verdict 
 of acquittal which I fully deserve at your 
 hands, I leave the case with you, hoping 
 
 that, as Englishmen, you will give me 
 that which you are bound to award me 
 on this occasion. " 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR said he believed he 
 was now the last of the defendants who 
 had to address the jury. 
 
 The JUDGE asked if no other de- 
 fendant wished to address the jury in his 
 own defence ? No answer was returned. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR then asked his Lord- 
 ship to allow the Court to adjourn to the 
 following morning. 
 
 The JUDGE at once consented, and 
 the Court adjourned at half-past six 
 o’clock. 
 
 END OF SIXTH DAY’s TRIAL. 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 SEVENTH DAY, 
 
 Wednesday, March Sth, 1843. 
 
 At nine o’clock, as soon as Mr. 
 BARON ROLFE had taken his seat on 
 the bench, 
 
 Mr. FEARGUS O’CONNOR rose 
 and said, — May it please your Lordship ; 
 gentlemen of the jury; before I enter 
 into the consideration of this case, allow 
 me to add my meed of praise to that 
 which has already been bestowed upon 
 the manner in which this trial has been 
 conducted from its beginning to the 
 present moment. Gentlemen of the 
 jury, we have no right to complain ; we 
 have no fault to find ; and therefore we 
 do not complain. I do not look upon 
 this prosecution as an act of justice, or 
 of leniency or mercy merely ; I go fur- 
 ther, and say that I look upon it as re- 
 gards myself as an act of grace. Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, after the evidence 
 you have heard, if your verdict upon 
 that evidence were a verdict of guilty, it 
 would not convey to the public mind of 
 this country half that criminality which, 
 before this trial commenced, was attached 
 to my character Before this investi- 
 gation commenced, the press of all parties 
 teemed with the importance of the case ; 
 that it was one little short of high treason, 
 and that I, Feargus O’Connor, was the 
 prime mover in the several transactions 
 connected with it. I am well aware that 
 it is impossible for me altogether to re- 
 move all those prejudices which for years 
 have been engendered in your minds. I 
 do not seek to perform such Herculean 
 labour ; but if you leave that box with 
 less prejudice against my character than 
 you entertained when you first took your 
 seats there, then will I have achieved a 
 greater triumph than even your verdict 
 of acquittal would give me. Gentlemen, 
 
 you have heard several of the poor de- 
 fendants speak disrespectfully of your 
 verdict — that is, disregardingly of it, but 
 they only comparatively disregarded it, 
 but, gentlemen, if I destroy your pre- 
 .jiidices, though the law tells you that I 
 ought to be found guilty upon the evi- 
 dence, I shall hail your verdict of guilty 
 as a triumph. VVe are now to come 
 back, after this long and rambling inves- 
 tigation, to the consideration of the real 
 question ; and out of the multiplicity of 
 evidence thrown down before you, all 
 mixed together, it will be my duty — 
 though considerably relieved, however, 
 in consequence of the analysis made by 
 my Lord — to endeavour to bring your 
 minds back to the consideration of the 
 real question. In a prosecution of this 
 kind, M’e may naturally suppose the At- 
 torney-General, on behalf of the crown, 
 would lay his whole case before you ; and 
 that he would support it, not by such 
 evidence as has been given, but by the best 
 that could be adduced. I admit that the 
 o.pening speech of the Attorney-General 
 was what that of a lawyer and a gentle- 
 man always should be ; it was a very dif- 
 ferent speech from what we have been 
 accustomed to hear on such occasions; 
 but, taking it without contrast, and by 
 itself, it was the speech of a lawyer and a 
 gentleman. I agree with the Attorney- 
 General, that an investigation was not 
 only necessary, but indispensable. After 
 the state which it is proved to you this 
 country was in for a considerable time, 
 the Attorney-General would be justly 
 charged with a dereliction of his duty, 
 if he had not had this solemn inquiry in a 
 Court of justice. But another question 
 follows that — whether or not the right 
 
286 
 
 parties are before you ; and that is a 
 question which will afterwards be sub- 
 mitted to you. What is the nature of the 
 crime with which we have been charged ? 
 What is the reason that you, gentlemen, 
 in the course of these proceedings, have 
 been compelled to confess yourselves 
 somewhat puzzled with this heap of con- 
 spiracies, assemblies, tumults, riots, and 
 dilferent crimes, so mingled together that 
 his Lordship has had considerable trou- 
 ble in laying it before you in a clear 
 manner — clear to me but not clear to you 
 and the rest of the defendants — for there 
 has "^en a heap of charges so mixed up 
 together that it is impossible for any de- 
 fendant to justify himself against them? 
 Then, they are not more remarkable for 
 the period over which they range, — em- 
 bracing not less than two months, — than 
 for the various transactions to which they 
 refer. If these transactions and charges 
 had been brought before you in a legiti- 
 mate way ; if rioters had been indicted 
 for riot; if those who attended tumultu- 
 ous and illegal meetings had been in- 
 dicted for that offence ; and those guilty 
 of conspiracy for conspiracy ; then, gen- 
 tlemen, your troubles would be limited 
 and your course contracted ; each defen- 
 dant would have known what he was 
 called upon to justify. But how, after 
 having ferreted throughout the v.diole 
 country ; having first produced their case 
 before the magistrates, and having sub- 
 stantiated it there by the witnesses they 
 called ; there has not a single witness by 
 whom it w'as substantiated in the first in- 
 stance been produced in this court. We 
 are first committed, and then there is a 
 perambulation ihroughoiit tlie country 
 for evidence; we are first indicted, and 
 then there is a crusade to see what they 
 can rake up to substantiate the charge. 
 Conspiracy, to speak of it first; what is 
 it ? A definable thing, a fact ; and the 
 moment parties combine to do an illegal 
 act, or to do a legal act by illegal means, 
 that moment the crime is perfected. It 
 does not require from the 1st of August 
 to the 1st of October to complete that 
 crime. But it has been thought desirable 
 and necessary to prove a variety of acts, 
 such as illegal meetings, in order td sub- 
 stantiate the charge of conspiracy. Now, 
 as far as it regards conspiracy, there is no 
 evidence yet before you to prove that the 
 
 defendants have been guilty of that crime. 
 His Lordship will tell you wbat amount 
 of evidence is required by law to prove 
 conspiracy against any party. There 
 must not only be a common design, but 
 also a privity of that common design; 
 and all the acts of the parties must be in 
 pursuance of that common design ; and 
 every conspirator must go to the extent 
 that the other conspirators go, in the fur- 
 therance of that common design. This 
 will be laid before you by my Lord, and 
 therefore it is the more unnecessary for 
 me to dwell upon it at any consideVable 
 length. But let us see, in the first in- 
 stance, how and by whom the entire case 
 is proved. The Attorney-General, in his 
 opening speech, said that the charge 
 against us is that of having attempted to 
 force a change in the laws of this country 
 by tumult and riot — by tumult and riot. 
 Gentlemen, there might have been some 
 doubt as to the complexion which this 
 prosecution bore, up to the period of the 
 acquittal of Wilde. There was a desire 
 on the part of the Crown to evade the 
 evidence of their own witnesses on the 
 part of the strike of labour. I could not 
 discover, for the life of me, why the Crown 
 sought to gloss this case, and to put a 
 new face upon it; but when I found on 
 the second day that the Attorney-General 
 admitted Wilde’s innocence and con- 
 sented to a verdict of acquittal, because 
 he found he had not mentioned the Char- 
 ter, then I came to the conclusion for 
 the first time that this was a political 
 trial, and that the Attorney- General 
 was determined, whatever the evidence 
 might be, — no, not the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral — let it not be supposed that I lay 
 this at the door of the Attorney-General, 
 but those who got up the evidence pre- 
 sented to the magistrates in the first 
 instance, con*oborating the fact that it 
 was a strike for wages — none of the 
 witnesses who Were brought before the 
 magistrates have been called here; but 
 a different class of witnesses are now 
 called here to prove a completely different 
 conspiracy. That is an important fact, 
 and one which, I trust, you will bear in 
 mind. Then, gentlemen, we are charged 
 with a conspiracy on the 17th of August. 
 Upon this branch of the case, as I am 
 more immediately concerned than any 
 other, I think I may very briefly *deal 
 
287 
 
 with it. r am charged with having 
 excited and recommended the continu- 
 ance of the strike then in existence. 
 Gentlemen of the jury, facts are stub- 
 born thinge ; and, thanks to the At- 
 torney-General, and to that ingenuous- 
 ness which has marked his character 
 through life, he, before he commenced 
 the prosecution, or called any evidence, 
 acquitted me of every charge in the 
 indictment. Up to the time of the strike, 
 he not only acquits me of all cognizance 
 and participation in it, but he goes 
 further, and bore honourable testimony 
 to the fact, that I have resisted it. 
 Gentlemen, at the period I resisted it — 
 the 13th of August — to which period 
 the Attorney-General brings down his 
 character of me, I inserted, in the | 
 them Star, an article which strongly | 
 inculcated the necessity of observing ; 
 peace, law, and order; and that article,! 
 gentlemen, was again inserted in the ' 
 Morthern Star of the 20th of August — i 
 the very publication which the Attorney- 
 General has put in evidence against me. 
 But let us see what this conspiracy was, 
 how it was carried on, and what are the 
 documents referred to in the opening 
 speech of the Attorney-General, and 
 afterward read in evidence, what they 
 relate to, and what their nature is ; whe- 
 ther justifiable and legal, or not. Gen- 
 tlemen, you have it in evidence from 
 the two principal witnesses for the Crowm 
 — from whom the poor defendants would 
 not condescend to receive a character, 
 but felt themselves dishonoured and 
 lessened in their own estimation hy 
 receiving a good character from those 
 persons —these are the two men — the 
 Siamese youths, upon whose oaths 
 this charge is attempted to be supported. 
 What did we get out of them } Finding 
 the country in the state it was, according 
 to their evidence, who should be here to 
 prove the case ? Should it be left to the 
 policemen, to the garbled reports of men ! 
 v.lio went out as spies— men who were 
 sent out to prove everything connected 
 esj)Lcially with the Chartists, or should 
 it be pr(>ved by the gentlemen who had 
 an iiiierest in the preservation of the 
 peace ol the country ? Where is the 
 mayor of Ivlanchester ? Where is the 
 boivuighreeve of Salford ? Where 
 are the authorities ? Where are the 
 
 magistrates ? Where are the aldermen ? 
 Where is Sir Charles Shaw ? Where 
 is Mr. Maude ? Where is CoLW^'emyss } 
 Where is Captain Sleigh ? Where were 
 those who saw all, and could have spoke 
 to all ? No where. The crown could 
 have produced them ; they have failed : 
 I shall do so. The evidence that 
 should have been brought to substan- 
 tiate the case, I shall produce to answer 
 the case. This is an anomaly. This is 
 a charge of conspiracy ; the country is 
 all but in a state of revolution ; y’et 
 mind (as the Attorney-General wilWell 
 you in his reply), we are not charged 
 with producing a bloody revolution. 
 No ; hut we are charged witli a crime 
 which, if I were guilty of, I should blush 
 to stand up and defend myself against it 
 in a court of justice. There is some- 
 thing appalling to an honourable mind 
 in the charge of conspiracy ; it implies 
 not only secrecy, hut the secret machi- 
 nations of bad men to destroy some- 
 thing belonging to good men : it is the 
 most abominable of all crimes. But, 
 I ask, where are those parties ? They are 
 no where. Then what is proved by the 
 Siamese youths ? This, that the delegate 
 meeting was called two months before 
 the strike took place ; vre have it proved 
 by Cartledge that ii was an open meeting ; 
 and that a reporter, dismissed from my ser- 
 vice, and not reporting for my paper alone, 
 but lor the British Statesman, and otherpa- 
 pers, was admitted. W’e have it proved, 
 that there was no interruption to any one; 
 and this is supported by the evidence of 
 the first policeman. ]>ut when we ana- 
 lyse the facts what do Griffin and Cart- 
 ledge say ? I admit that this meeting of 
 delegates was projected two months be- 
 fore ; I admit that the delegates were 
 elected two months before, and that it was 
 to be held for the purpose of re.-organis- 
 ing the chartist constitution. We have a 
 right to ourconstitution,if legal ; I would 
 not support it if illegal. We also met to 
 heal our differences. Here, in the first 
 instance, you are asked to believe this, — 
 that men, known to differ, meet to con- 
 spire ; that men known to have dissen- 
 sions among themselves meet to combine. 
 Gentlemen, we did combine. When 
 had men conspire, good men must com- 
 bine.” We combined ; hut, as has been 
 well observed by a high authority, ** Ne- 
 
288 
 
 v^r did good men meet for a good pur- 
 pose without being thoroughly acquainted 
 with each other ; and never yet was there 
 an instance known of bad men uniting 
 and co-operating for a bad purpose with- 
 out being thoroughly known to, and hav- 
 ing entire confidence in, each other.” — 
 That the Attorney-General won’t deny. 
 Then you have here, combining together 
 in the character of conspirators, men 
 known to be at variance with each other ; 
 you have a reporter dismissed from my 
 sei^ce, and with a pique against me, re- 
 porting not for me, hut for other papers, 
 preserved in the meeting at my request. 
 After the character of some of the evi- 
 dence ; after the fact of the notes of 
 the policemen being preferred to their 
 own recollection, the notes of one being 
 taken in a fair legible running hand, 
 while his elbow was jogged by the crowd, 
 — I did hope that the same character 
 would have been preserved throughout 
 the examination. I did think that if the 
 notes of a policeman were better than 
 recollection, the notes of a reporter, taken 
 before he consented to become a witness, 
 and therefore independent of bias and 
 divested of that charge now brought 
 against him, might have purged off much 
 of the accusation now brought against us. 
 What was he examined upon ? His 
 recollection. What did he say ? That 
 he had full notes. He never was asked 
 for the notes. In his depositions they 
 were; here they are not. If the best 
 evidence that the case would admit of 
 was to be produced, why were not the 
 notes read ? If there was aught proving 
 anything against the conspirators, it 
 would be in the notes. It was said that 
 their speeches were to be suppressed. 
 They could not be suppressed from the 
 notes; therefore, you must inferthat there 
 was nothing in the notes of Griffin which 
 would tell against the conspirators. I 
 have shown, that men must have con- 
 fidence in each other before they can 
 conspire : why, there was a youth 
 amongst us, one of a deputation, to 
 whom we refused admission as a de- 
 putation. I said, No, they shan’t 
 come in ^s a deputation, because that 
 would be illegal ;” but we got it out of 
 Cartledge that they might come in as a 
 portion of the audience. You heard from 
 Griffin that he had two copies of the ad- 
 
 dress ; that he sent one to the Statesman', 
 and, if there were anything against us, 
 why did he not send a report to the 
 Statesman P Because it would not serve 
 his purpose. But first, as to the Attor- 
 ney-General. He confesses that I op- 
 posed the strike. Then you have only to 
 deal with me from the 13th to the 17th 
 of August. The Attorney-General, so 
 far as I am concerned, has limited the 
 inquiry to that period. Now, you are 
 perfectly aware of the manner in which 
 a charge of conspiracy can be got up. It 
 will be my duty, gentlemen, to take off 
 all the magic with which legal ingenuity 
 has surrounded this charge of conspiracy. 
 Gentlemen, you have heard of awful 
 practices; of mysterious doings ; of the 
 manner in which I travelled ; — so much 
 so, that I thought I was one of an audi- 
 ence listening to, and partaking of, some 
 melo-dramatic performance. I looked 
 for the properties, I looked for the scenery, 
 I looked for the masks, I looked for the 
 daggers, I looked for the blue fire — for the 
 torches — for the bayonets — for the sw'ords 
 and pistols, by which this conspiracy to 
 upset the government by tumults was to 
 be carried out. Gentlemen, I went at 
 night from London, by the railway train, 
 — with 300 other people, — as, I believe, 
 did Sir James Graham, when he came 
 hither the other night. I then went in a 
 cab by myself — because nobody else was 
 going my way — to Mr. Scholefield’s. I 
 went there at half-past five in the morn- 
 ing, — because that w^as the time the train 
 arrived in Manchester. I left my own 
 house in my own carriage, and proceeded 
 to the Victoria, Euston Square, and there I 
 waited till the train was ready to start. 
 Gentlemen, I went in the Coupe with an 
 officer of the Guards, — conspiring, of 
 course, — and there we went, in the dark- 
 ness and secrecy of night, rolling along 
 under the dark tunnels ; there I heard 
 the rumbling of the wheels, and the echo 
 of the conspirators’ voices, dinning in my 
 ears (liaughter.) Then I arrived at 
 the scene where the conspiracy was first 
 to be hatched ; I arrived early in the 
 morning ; I slept till three in the after- 
 noon ; I am never seen or heard of again 
 till three o’clock in the noon-tide sun of 
 an August day ; then I so conceal myself 
 in a cab that all see me, and flock around 
 me. They know me from the very ap- 
 
289 
 
 pearance of the cab ; it smells of brim- 
 stone ; there is conspiracy in its look ; 
 its very wheels knock fire out of the 
 stones ; it smells of nothing but Peterloo! 
 Hunt's monument! strike for wages! tu- 
 multuous meetings ! riots ! turn out the 
 hands ! and carry the Charter by tumult 
 and violence ! (Laughter). [This por- 
 tion of Mr. O’Connor’^s address was deli- 
 vered in a subdued but perfectly audible 
 tone of voice, analagous to what is usually 
 termed, a playhouse whisper,” and well 
 adapted for exhibiting the ludicrous cha- 
 racter of the charge of conspiracy. The 
 laughter produced in court was by no 
 means inconsiderable.] I passed down 
 to the Sherwood Inn ; because I was sent 
 for. For what? To ascertain whether 
 I would go to the tea-party that night. I 
 go to the Sherwood Inn (Tib-street) in 
 the most public part of Manchester ; a 
 crowd gathers round : I request them to 
 disperse ; and I say, Look out for a 
 place where we can meet without being- 
 interrupted.” I refuse to go to Carpenters’ 
 Hall for fear of the crowd. I see the 
 effect of my first appearance in Man- 
 chester; I leave the place; I abandon 
 my intention ; I go to Mr. Scholefield’s, 
 because he is an old friend of eight 
 years’ standing. Why ? Because I 
 learned that the procession was put off ; 
 and I went there to join in putting off the 
 meeting in his chapel also. Then I 
 learned that he had completed the good 
 work before me. I found that he had 
 come from the printer’s with the 
 bill. Gentlemen, I am now stripping 
 this conspiracy of all its technicalities, 
 and you will see which comports most 
 with the truth, my case or the case 
 of the Attorney-General. Mr. Schole- 
 field came in, and showed me the bill. I 
 clasped his hand, and said, Thank 
 God ; but if I had known this, I need 
 not have come at all.” But, gentlemen, 
 being there, was I, having been elected 
 two months before for a specific purpose, 
 — w'as I even then to refuse to throw my 
 weight, such as it was, into the scale, and 
 to endeavour, by the best means in my 
 power, to aid in turning this, which was 
 likely to be a disastrous strike, into a peace- 
 ful agitation even for the Charter ? — But 
 to return, gentlemen ; I left in a cab, at 
 three o’clock in the morning; I return at 
 half past three o’clock to Mr. Scholefield’s, 
 
 and I am seen no more till the 1 7 th. On fhe 
 17th we met. Circumstances had arisen, 
 which, from our political position, made 
 it desirable. Recollect you are not to 
 find us guilty for that. Let me now cau- 
 tion you, gentlemen, if you think me 
 guilty of too much popularity, find your 
 verdict so. Say O’Connor has too 
 much popularity,” if you think we ought 
 not to have interfeied, say so. But then, 
 say that no other party in the state had a 
 right to interfere in politics. Let the pro- 
 hibition be general. We met; the con- 
 spirators met; in the midst of tumult, we 
 met at eleven ; we separated at half-past 
 five, and had an hour and a half for din- 
 ner ; so that we were four hours sitting 
 in conclave, conspiring against the peace 
 of the country. We passed a resolution ; 
 we passed an address. Now take that 
 resolution. What did we get from Cart- 
 ledge ? That it was the character of every 
 resolution that was passed relative to the 
 Charter, and especially the words, ^‘That 
 we wish to continue the struggle, until 
 the Charter becomes the law of the land.” 
 Struggle,” says the Attorney-General, 
 what does that mean ?” Why, what does 
 an election struggle mean ? What does any 
 struggle mean ? What does a struggle in 
 the house of commons mean ? ])oes it 
 mean that the parties catch each other 
 by the throats and strangle each other ? 
 No ; it means that they are to contest, 
 contend, and stand together.” This re- 
 solution — this all important resolution, 
 this awful, this damning resolution, this 
 dark-lantern resolution, what did it refer 
 to ? That we were to have the Charter 
 then ? No such thing ; but that we W’ere to 
 continue, not the strike, but the struggle, 
 till the Charter became the law of the 
 land. Then,” says the Attorney-Ge- 
 neral, this is a tumult, a riot ; this is 
 not legal means. I admit (says the At- 
 torney-General) that you have a right 
 to contend by peaceful means, but not 
 by tumultuous meetings.” Now, gentle- 
 men, there is no one in this Court more 
 anxious and willing to receive a proper 
 definition of the law, on all matters con- 
 nected with agitation, and with public 
 meetings, and political movements of 
 every description, than I am myself. 
 Nor, gentlemen, do I consider that I 
 can produce to you a higher authority 
 than the Attorney-General himself as to 
 
290 
 
 waat vioes constitute a tumultuous meet- 
 ing. I don’t ask yon to take the law 
 from me, gentlemen ; I have attended 
 more public meetings than any man 
 living, or that ever lived before me, and 
 I was never charged with causing a sin- 
 gle breach of the peace : I have often 
 stopped it. But hear what the Attorney- 
 General considers a tumultuous meeting. 
 In addressing the Court at Newport, 
 upon an important transaction, this was 
 his opinion as to what constitutes a tu- 
 multuous meeting : — “ Gentlemen, the 
 law cannot be altered by the conduct of 
 those who are called upon to obey it ; 
 and 1 make that admission to my Lords 
 upon the bench, because, in the few re- 
 marks that I am about to make upon 
 this part of the case, I do not mean to 
 say that any change of the law has oc- 
 curred by reason of the relaxed discipline 
 of society that has prevailed for some 
 time past. But I do mean to say this 
 distinctly, that from what has actually 
 taken place, from that which has been 
 permitted, perhaps, gentlemen, in some 
 instances even sanctioned, a very dif- 
 ferent estimation is to be held of public 
 meetings, ay, gentlemen, and even of 
 armed meetings, from that which might 
 have been formed some twenty or thirty 
 3 ’ears ago, and that the object and the 
 intention of the parties may justly re- 
 ceive, at the close of the year 1839, a con- 
 struction far more favourable than, per- 
 haps, could fairly have been conceded 
 in earlier periods of the history of this 
 country, that you and I are familiar with : 
 for I donotgobackto very remote periods.” 
 Then the Attorney-General, in order to 
 be explicit in laying down the law for 
 us ; well knowing that those proceedings 
 would be spread throughout the length 
 and breadth of the land ; well knowing 
 that they would establish the character 
 of public meetings, goes through the 
 detail of that large public meeting, held 
 in London, of the trades, of 200,000 
 persons, and he shows that not one of 
 them were punished, and then he con- 
 cludes, Gentlemen, under the name of 
 agitation, what has not been done almost 
 in every town and in every corner of this 
 kingdom ? And if we pass — and, gen- 
 tlemen, I shall do this lightly, because I 
 do it reluctantly — if we pass for one 
 moment, and take a glance at the sister 
 
 kingdom, there familiarly we talk of a 
 petition from 500,000 fighting men. 
 Gentlemen, I say no more upon this 
 point, but I call upon you to remember 
 these transactions when you come to de- 
 liver your verdict on the guilt or the 
 innocence of the prisoner. And, let it 
 be understood, that so far as permission, 
 if not actual encouragement, has been 
 afforded to such proceedings, that it would 
 be most unjust to use the same measure 
 that was formerly in use as to the 
 motives of parties. It would not be 
 justice to weigh in the same scales as 
 were formerly used, the transactions about 
 which ^mu are making inquiry to-day.” 
 Gentlemen, we have only to come from 
 1839 to 1843, and give us an extension 
 of the rule the Attorney-General has 
 made, and, by^ the rule of three, give us 
 the benefit of one-third greater relax- 
 ation upon his construction of the way 
 in which the character of public meet- 
 ings ought to be estimated. The At- 
 torney-General told the jury, at Mon- 
 mouth, that the Reform Bill has altered 
 the character of those meetings ; that 
 armed men had passed unpunished ; 
 that they had heard of petitions from 
 500,000 fighting men in the sister king- 
 dom, and that the Penal Code had been 
 relaxed ; but the political code had been 
 cotemporaneously made more stringent. 
 But what sa)s the Attorney-General 
 now } That we have been guilty of 
 attempting to upset the constitution, 
 and to produce^i^a change in the laws 
 of this countrj*, iTy tumultuous meetings. 
 Then I give you the character of what 
 those tumultuous meetings are. But let 
 us see whether or no this comes late, 
 and wnth a bad grace; and if there is 
 (independently of what we learn from 
 the acquittal of Wilde, and the reason 
 assigned for \i) anything more lurking 
 at the bottom of this trial. You receive 
 evidence here; but there are other 
 sources from which you receive evi- 
 dence. You take the laws from the 
 legislature, as passed by Lords and Com- 
 mons, and assented to by the Monarch. 
 Are jmu not bound, then, on a national 
 transaction of this kind, where men in 
 the Upper House, of rank and property, 
 men in the Lower House of all descrip- 
 tions of wealth and property, — are you 
 not bound to take the uncontradicted 
 
291 
 
 opinions of siicli high aiubority as tlie 
 Lords and Cominons ? Let us see whal 
 they are. I give you the name of the 
 highest, best, and greatest men in this, or 
 any other conniry. I give you the name 
 of ilie most finished man, take him for 
 all in all, that England can now produce. 
 I much diilcr from him in politics; 
 hut I think there is not, in this country, 
 such another man, with such a mecha- 
 nical head, such comprehension, such a 
 power of mind, as Lord Brougham ; 
 and what does he say ? The Attorney- 
 Genertil has sought to drive me out of 
 my course : he will tell you that the 
 acts of another pa.rty are not acts that 
 we can justify ourselves upon. Lord 
 Brougham says, Tiials are about to 
 take place ; but I hope the paities I have 
 charged will be called upon to answer on 
 those trials.” They have sought to make 
 Lord Brougham a madman. Would to 
 God I were such a madman ! Was that 
 the speech of a madman? No: it was, 
 given upon his knowledge of the doctrine j 
 of the law of presumption Then let us j 
 see whether the House of fmrds and the 
 House of Commons agree upon one thing. 
 It is an extraordinary fact ; but so it is, 
 and you are cognizant of it. — [The At- 
 torney-General was quitting the court 
 te m porar ily . ] Be fore th e Attorn ey - G en e- 
 ral goes, speaking of the press, I have his 
 authority, in the most unqualined man- 
 ner, for saying that the statement imputed 
 to him in the papers, that he said iii the 
 House of Commons that he was coming 
 down here to prosecute “ tlie leading and 
 most important offender,” is not correct. 
 The Attorney-General assures me that 
 he never used one word of it. Gentle- 
 men, this will make you cautious about 
 receiving the reports of policemen. All 
 the papers, although reported by different 
 reporters, — tlie Herald, the Times, the. 
 Morning Chronicle, and the Morning' 
 .dduertiser , — all reported it in the same 
 words. The Attorney-General never 
 spoke them, and he has authorized me 
 to contradict them. The Attorney-Gene- 
 ral is there misrepresented; and I believe 
 it, for this reason, because reporters upon 
 some papers very often exchange their 
 slips, and it may happen tliat part of the 
 same speech may be reported for the 
 lour papers by one and the same indivi- 
 dual. Lord Stanhope congratulated his 
 
 ! countrymen upon the little damage that 
 had been done to property, and none to 
 life. Lord Brougham, together with others, 
 charges the league with being the cause of 
 the disturbance ; Mr. Waller cliarges the 
 poor-law as being the cause of the distur- 
 bances ; the league and Mr. Cohden 
 charge the landloi'ds as being the cause 
 of the disturbance; Loid Francis Eger- 
 ton charges the Anti-corn-law League 
 with originating the disturbance, and 
 others liave charged it upon the conseiva- 
 tives of Lancashire. Here is an extraor- 
 dinary thing ; six jrarties in tlie ikld ; 
 lords and commoners charge five di'ler- 
 eiU sources with being the cause of these 
 disturbances ; but no one, except tl;e At- 
 torney-General, charges the Chartists. 
 Until this trial took place, you heard of 
 no charge agiunst the Chartists. You 
 have heard from those parties tliat they 
 severally charged one another, but no one 
 but the Attorney-General charges the 
 Chartists. Ah ! but there is something 
 still more extraordinary in this most ex- 
 traordinary case. The gentleman who 
 got up this case for the prosecution, re- 
 minds me of a fine old hunter, which 
 required a saddle wide in the gullet, lull 
 in the seat and comfortable to ride on. 
 The horse died ; but the saddle was so 
 good that the hunting gentleman went 
 down into the market with the saddle to 
 find another horse that it would fit. So 
 j it was with the gentleman who got u]) the 
 I case for the piLsecution. He went down 
 into the manufacturing districts, with his 
 saddle to.find who it would fit ! lie tried 
 it upon the League; but finding that the 
 Chartists had the broadest shoulders, 
 and that it fitted them best, lie placed 
 the saddle upon their backs and gir- 
 thed it fast upon them. — (laughter.) — 
 A case was gone into before the magis- 
 ,trates before the learned gentleman un- 
 dertook to get up the case for the Crown. 
 Upon that case the magistrates themselves, 
 j who were most interested in preserving 
 j the peace, got evidence; and they brought 
 i that evidence to substantiate their case 
 before themselves. The gentleman who 
 came afterwards, went to the magis- 
 trates, to the parties who got up the first 
 case, and proposed his sliding scale : he 
 allowed those witnesses. who gave evidence 
 before the magistrates to slide off, and got 
 an entirely new batch of witnesses, save 
 
292 
 
 and except the Siamese youths. That 
 was the character of the conspiracy, and 
 ii6w, tve come to the resolution. That 
 tesoliition speaks of a struggle. Terrihle 
 word. 'What a Struggle the tories had 
 with the whigs during the last ten years ! 
 What a violent struggle they shall have 
 in the next ten years, if I can accomplish 
 it, until they do justice to the people; 
 that is, according to ray notion of justice ; 
 not hy violence. I am not a conspirator : 
 I never have been ; and what is extraor- 
 dinary, after all the pillaging, ransacking 
 and searching without search warrants, 
 alter all the breaking into houses, — I 
 being the gi*eat conspirator,— not a line is 
 found in any man’s house affecting me. 
 Where was the red box then — where was 
 then the red box of patches picked up 
 here and there, and which box I would 
 recommend the Crown to send to the 
 Chinese Exhibition. Not a single letter 
 is found, notwithstanding all their re- 
 searches, against me. Why ? Because I 
 never was a conspirator, and never wrote 
 a private political letter to any man in 
 my lite. But what does this resolution 
 do ? It approves of those who were 
 turning out of work remaining out, till 
 they got the wages they turned out for. 
 Then w^e come to the address. The 
 Attorney-General says it recommends 
 the Executive Address. What if it does? 
 There is nothing in that. Lord Chatham 
 approved of the defection of America, and 
 of the American declaration-of independ- 
 ance : a great many men, high in autho- 
 rity, approved of America separating 
 herself from England. Was that con- 
 spiracy ? But we are said to be acces- 
 sories after the fact in the riots. I should 
 wish to have some better definition of 
 the law. I don’t understand what an 
 accessory after a riot means. Does the 
 Attorney-General mean to say it is an 
 overt act of conspiracy ? Does the Attor- 
 ney-General mean to say, that, if a 
 man goes to a riot or a fight, and two 
 days alterwards returns and tells his asso- 
 ciates that he saw two parties engaged in 
 a riot, does that make him an accessory ? 
 I don’t .understand the law, gentlemen, 
 if approving of that which I have a right 
 to approve of makes me a conspirator. 
 I now eome to an important fact. The 
 trades’ resolutions are: spoken of; the 
 trades’ papers are seized ; the trades’ 
 
 address was passed in the face of the 
 magistrates ; we referred to them ; we 
 aid w'e rejoiced that the trades, after sc 
 long a struggle against us, had come but 
 for the Charter. Biit recognition is no 
 proof of conspiracy ; his Lordship will 
 tell you that ; and also, that every man 
 in that conspiracy must have consented 
 and joined in one common design to the 
 same extent as the others. I bdieve the 
 Attorney-General will not deny, that 
 every man in that conspiracy must have 
 consented to the same extent. Then 
 as to those addresses and resolutions, 
 I examined Cartledge at some length ; 
 Griffin not at such a length ; and why ? 
 Because he had not sworn to one word 
 contained in his depositions ; because the 
 Attorney-General was afraid of testing 
 Griffin’s memory too much, apprehensive 
 that he would not stand cross-examina- 
 tion ; and, to my astonishment, and the 
 astonishment of the Court, the man who 
 appeared before the magistrates to sup- 
 port the w'eight of the case, was let down 
 of a sudden, without proving anything at 
 all, except what made for us. What was 
 the evidence of these two men as to the 
 character of the meeting ? The Attor- 
 ney-General cannot get over it. If they 
 take their evidence against me, they must 
 also take it for me. What did Cartledge 
 say ? That he had attended hundreds of 
 meetings, and had never heard me say 
 one word at variance with the duty of a 
 good subject. I asked Griffin, and he 
 said the same. I ask you, could Griffin’s 
 notes tell against^me when Griffin’s tongue 
 told you (knowing these notes), that there 
 was nothing against me ? Then I am 
 seen with Dr. McDouall' and Leach, a 
 very natural consequence of our both 
 being delegates. Leach was no delegate 
 at all. He merely formed one of the 
 audience. Railton also was there. He is 
 here as a defendant, but he w^as not present 
 at the conference as a delegate. He was 
 admitted as a stranger, and had nothing 
 whatever to do with what was going on. 
 I now come to speak of the Executive 
 Address, which the delegates described 
 as a bold and manly address.” In the 
 year 1843 am I to be convicted because 
 of that ? Is that an offence, either at 
 common law or by statute ? Am I to 
 he convicted for saying that that is a 
 bold and manly address.” If I wished 
 
293 
 
 to go furtlier, miglit 1 not have adopted 
 that address ? But I did not ; nor am I 
 in any way connected with it ; for it is 
 proved to be in the hands of the printer 
 till ten o’clock ; I am not in Manchester 
 at half-past five that morning, and not 
 out of my bed till three o’clock in the 
 afternoon. Having laid before you, gen- 
 tlemen, the manner in which the con- 
 ference was brought together, just let me 
 see what we did at that conference, inde- 
 pendently of what is given in evidence. 
 How are you to learn that ? From con- 
 jecture, and conjecture only. But, having 
 failed to get the whole truth out of Griffin, 
 I am obliged to do what the crown ought 
 to do, to make patchwork of their evi- 
 dence, and show that they have not a leg 
 to stand on. They put me with rioters to 
 make me guilty of riot ; with men who 
 have attended illegal meetings that I never 
 saw, to make me guilty of that offence ; 
 they put me with men of all descriptions, 
 as they call them, in order to prove me 
 guilty of all sorts of offences. But I am 
 not proved to be a party to any riot, 
 tumult, or conspiracy, or of attending 
 illegal meetings. You will ask what 
 were the address and the resolutions of 
 the trades’ delegates, those resolutions 
 will be sent to you, and you put your 
 own construction on them. 250 or 350 
 in number were disturbed in their sittings, 
 and their papers were taken, and the 
 address which they had adopted. You 
 will ask what that address and those reso- 
 lutions were. You will ask why (the 
 magistrates being in pos^ssion of their 
 address and resolutions) they are not now 
 before the court ? Those are questions 
 you cannot get over, but must ask your- 
 selves. Every witness on the first four 
 days proved this important, this vital 
 fact; though the Attorney-General, or 
 rather, gentlemen,*! would say, the prose- 
 cution, did not see the drift of my ques- 
 tions. Every witness, on being ques- 
 tioned as to the time when the violence 
 ceased, and peace was restored, swore 
 that it was about the 20th of August, 
 about the 20lh — mind that, gentlemen ! 
 My character is established to the 13th. 
 
 I am not an ordinary man, I am only 
 obliged to prove character every Satur- 
 day night ; and the same article in the 
 JsTorthern Star of the 13th, which won 
 the good opinion of the Attorney-Gene- 
 
 ral for its powerful recommendation to 
 peace, was again printed in the Star of 
 the 20th ; and that was the paper which 
 announced the meeting of the conference; 
 and from that day peace was restored ; 
 the conspirators had done their w^ork. 
 That will be proof of something which the 
 Attorney-General cannot get over. What 
 is conspiracy ? It implies secrecy. What, 
 then, is the charge ? Secrecy. What is 
 the proof? Publication. — (Laughter.) 
 
 That is not the charge of an ordinary 
 conspiracy. II ^ey had done that, they 
 might have put ?,000 or 3,000 in the in- 
 dictment if they liked ; but they charge 
 us with a conspiracy wherein our trans- 
 actions were to be kept private, because 
 they w'ould not depend on Griffin, wdie 
 w’as discharged for giving w'rong reports 
 of the Chartist meetings. And then they 
 rely on this address; which does ivhat ? 
 Recognises the address of another body^ 
 Gentlemen, suppose a man commits a 
 very bad act; no matter how bad, and 
 suppose I direct attention to it as bold 
 and manly. Suppose one man meets 
 three men on the highway, and blows 
 their brains out, am I accessory to the mur- 
 der if I say that it was a bold and manly 
 act. Would you say I W'as a conspira- 
 tor ? Apart from these technicalities, take 
 all and not a part of the evidence intc 
 your jury box ; take no part of the evi- 
 dence by itself, but take the whole toge- 
 ther and see the effect they produce, and 
 that they were intended to produce ; note 
 that every speaker afterwards recommend- 
 ed a return to labour. Gentlemen, you 
 cannot hold I? e up as a conspirator; I 
 know that 1 deserve the character of 
 being a peace maker, I know’ that you 
 will not refuse me credit for it. Gentlemen 
 of the jury, w^e have that evidence so fnlT, 
 conclusive, plump, and genuine, that even 
 »the prosecution for the last day could rrot 
 contradict it. The Crowm, seeing wliaf 
 I was driving at, said, This won’t do 
 we must begin to look at the date on 
 which the disturbance terminated — w.e 
 must endeavour to prove that the outbreak 
 continued for a considerable time after 
 the publication of the executive placard, 
 and the article which appeared in the 
 Korthern Star," The Attorney-General 
 had borne testimony to my character up to 
 the 1 3th of August. Oh ! ” said they, ** the - 
 disturbances lasted five weeks after that/*' 
 V 
 
294 
 
 They took a respite, thej’^ had Sunday xor 
 breathing time, and they asked themselves 
 why this question was put to every witness. 
 Here is the Star of the 20th, and there 
 is proof that all crime was ceasing at 
 that period. ‘^That won’t do,” said 
 they, “ we must cany on this conspiracy 
 a little further.” Then they got a new 
 batch of witnesses, they procured fifteen 
 fresh witnesses, some of whom were con- 
 fined in Lancaster Castle. I ask w’here 
 was Luke McDermott, and all the others, 
 whose names were on the back of the 
 indictment? I have*^ been told that 
 McDermott was in the felon’s cell. 
 These are the kind of witnesses they have 
 been ferretting out to get up this case 
 against us. Now we come to ana- 
 Ij'se the evidence. Let us hear how 
 they opened this case for the conspi- 
 racy. Hildyard [Bell] a policeman, 
 swore he was at Mr. Scholefield’s at 
 nine o’clock on the morning of the 
 16th, and that he went there because 
 I was there, and it was to be a secret 
 meeting. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is that so ? I shall 
 look. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR I think it will be 
 in your Lordship’s recollection that he 
 swore he watched me. He swore he 
 went there, because he heard that Feargus 
 O’Connor was there, and that there was 
 to be a private meeting. The trades’ 
 meeting was dispersed by the authori- 
 ties. There were two meetings, gen- 
 tlemen, the trades’ delegates, and the 
 conference delegates. Never allow these 
 two to be mixed up, the one with the 
 other. On the 16th the trades’ meeting 
 was routed and dispersed, and on the 
 same day this policeman was sent to 
 W'atch me. 
 
 The JUDGE : — James Hindley — 
 is that the person ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR No, my Lord-:- 
 Bell, the policeman. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It is of no conse- 
 quence. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR; — He went there, 
 he said, because he heard that I was to 
 be there ; and that there was to be a 
 secret meeting. Now, did , he report 
 that to the authorities ? He knew that 
 the trades’ meeting of delegates was 
 dispersed ; but, in this disturbed state of 
 ^e town, did the policeman, sent to 
 
 watch for Feargus O’Connor, and know- 
 ing that there was to be a secret meet- 
 ing, and knowing, also, that Feargus 
 O’Connor w'as at that meeting — have 
 we any proof that this policeman re- 
 ported to the magistrates where they 
 might find this grand conspirator, who 
 was conspiring for the destruction of all 
 the property in the country. Talking of 
 the destruction of property, what say the 
 men of property of all parties ? They 
 say that it makes them rejoice more in 
 the name of Englishmen than ever, to 
 think that these people had so much 
 power in their hands, and used it so 
 mildly. It has been said in the House 
 of Lords, and in the House of Com- 
 mons — it has been re-echoed and re- 
 peated through the press, that there 
 could have been no conspiracies at the 
 bottom of this, because the working- 
 classes appeared to have so thorough a 
 veneration for property of all descrip- 
 tions, and for life. Why, many persons, 
 actually starving, went amongst those 
 whom they saw likely to break the peace, 
 and checked them. That fact we have 
 indisputably proved at the commence- 
 ment of the evidence ? This indictment 
 runs over with a continuando ; so that 
 there is no power to separate things. 
 The defendants have no power to justify. 
 This indictment was laid, as never was 
 indictment laid before. If we were 
 indicted for extorsively taking money, or 
 for assault or battery, we might set up 
 an alibi ; but here we cannot meet the 
 charge, we ^are so mixed up together. 
 But what i^^he first evidence of out- 
 break ? That Mr. Bayley’s mill stopped. 
 There was no riot up to that time ; 
 although the Attorney-General goes 
 back to the 26th July"; for he is not 
 satisfied with including two months in 
 this all-embracing indictment. On 
 that day a meeting was held, but 
 it was adjourned ; but, he says, the 
 adjourned meeting never took place. 
 Then he goes to the 8th of August, and 
 proves that in all these outbreaks Bayley’s 
 men, who were the first that were dis- 
 missed from their work, took the lead and 
 headed the processions. The men who took 
 part in this, were not men that I headed ; * 
 but the men who were told by their mas- 
 ters to go and play for a month. There 
 is the commencement, there the seat of 
 
295 
 
 discord, the centre, and cause of the con- 
 fusion, They are turned out by their 
 masters ; they are then seen at the head 
 of every procession ; they forced out the 
 others. Filling’s address you heard, gen- 
 tlemen. I wish I had not heard it ; I 
 wish the Court had not heard it ; I wish 
 there had not been a necessity for hear- 
 ing it. His case was the case of thou- 
 sands and tens of thousands, and those 
 men who are stricken — unnaturally 
 stricken — become themselves conspirators, 
 for the purpose of keeping up the price of 
 their own labour. Then you have had 
 all those defendants before you ; you have 
 seen their demeanour ; you have heard 
 their defences. Out of so many speeches 
 you must have discovered what was inge- 
 nuous and what was disingenuous. I ex- 
 tracted a good character for those who 
 were known to them, from the principal 
 witnesses. The defendants were not 
 obliged to me for it. You have learned 
 from them all what they say are the facts; 
 and, although not given in the form of 
 evidence, yet, as discriminating and dispas- 
 sionate men, put it altogether and see whe- 
 ther or no out of the lump you can educe 
 the truth. Chief Justice Tindal has spoken 
 to this case. He has very properly made a 
 distinction between a mountebank and a 
 zealous politician. He has told the coun- 
 try, that, if a man conscientiously and zea- 
 lously expresses his opinions, though he 
 may pass the prescribed limits of the Jaw, 
 still his opinions are to be respected. Chief 
 Justice Tindal did not tell the people that 
 they were to respect what was illegal, but 
 that the opinions of a man, however 
 warmly they might be avowed, if they did 
 not absolutely go beyond the law, were 
 to be honoured as the conscientious con- 
 victions of the man who uttered them. 
 Gentlemen, if I were asked, which party 
 in the country has been the most violent, 
 
 I might be disposed to allude to one 
 whose writi^^s and speeches were pro- 
 minently before the public ; but, as my 
 object is not to make out a case for pro- 
 secution against any party, I shall abstain 
 from any further reference to such a 
 topic. I have stood in a more prominent 
 position than any public man for the last 
 ten years in England ; and if I were to 
 ask for a character for zeal, if ihe forms 
 of etiquette will admit of it, but they will 
 not, I might say that I had the honour 
 
 of sitting with his Lordship (Mr. Baron 
 Rolfe) for three years in the House of 
 Commons, and with the Attorney-General 
 for three years in the House of Commons ; 
 and, during that period, I think they will 
 say I was as zealous a politician as ever 
 entered that House. I have been out Oi 
 the House of Commons for nearly seven 
 years, and during that period I hav« 
 spent more than 12,000/. of my own 
 money in advocating this cause. And 
 here I must rejoice, that I am able to say 
 this in this court of justice, in the pre- 
 sence of those who know me best, and 
 know every transaction of my life. That 
 I have an opportunity of giving a 
 triumphant refutation of the paltry asper- 
 sions of those who have insinuated that I 
 have been induced to pursue this course, 
 and give an impulse to this cause, from 
 pecuniary and interested motives ; for, 
 although the Attorney-General, in his 
 opening speech, said it mildly, yet at the 
 same time most pointedly, that I had pur- 
 sued that course because of some interest 
 or benefit I expected to derive from my 
 connection with the Northern Star. Gen- 
 tlemen, I never received a farthing, or the 
 fraction of a farthing, from any man, for 
 anything in connection with the Charter ; 
 I never travel at the expense of the 
 Chartist body ; I never defended myself 
 at the expense of the Chartist body; I never 
 received a fraction of their money; I have 
 often paid hundreds of pounds to their 
 funds ; and I am so delicate on this, that 
 I never attend anywhere as a guest that 
 I do not insist on paying for my ticket ; 
 and, to support their objects, I have 
 sometimes paid as much as 10/. for gas 
 for a meeting, Gentlemen, I shall place 
 my clerk, and other witnesses, in that 
 box, to produce my character; and so far 
 from making money by that extraordi- 
 nary golden thing — the Northern Star, 
 
 I came to it a rich man, and I am now a 
 poor man. I have spent a fortune in this 
 cause. I am represented as a political 
 trafficker. The whole tone of the press 
 has been to show, that I used the Northern 
 Star to excite the people, in order to 
 make it a medium of pecuniary profit to 
 myself. Gentlemen, I am not content 
 with that; I have got a witness from 
 Ireland, and I will give you my cha- 
 racter from those who have known me 
 from a child ; and you will discover, that. 
 
29C 
 
 before ever I had the Northern Star, I 
 carried into practice that which has 
 been, and still is, the theory of my 
 principles. You will find that I have 
 devoted my whole time and money to 
 the cause of the poor ; not to a mere lip 
 service ; but I have been, for years to- 
 gether, paying as much as £20 a week to 
 support people made paupers by oppres- 
 sion. And that is the reason I rejoice in 
 this trial. I think I have shown my zeal. 
 If I were a person, from pliancy of dis- 
 position, capable of fceing moulded into 
 a political mountebank, I might have had 
 £50,000 for my services ; but I refused 
 it as I would now refuse £100,000 if it 
 would purchase me your acquittal, if you 
 were not convinced of my innocence. I 
 use this as an occasion of triumph. I 
 scorn to be bought and sold.' I shall never 
 sell my principles to any party whatever. 
 A trafficking politician ! Why such has 
 been the pecuniary gain which I have 
 derived from the agitation in which I 
 have been engaged, that I have sold 
 landed estates — have sold as much as 
 £1000 worth of timber — to aid the cause ; 
 I have sold an estate bringing me in 
 £350 a year paid to the dajf' ; I have 
 conducted thirteen contested elections in 
 Ireland entirely at my own expense ; 
 never eating a dinner at the expense of 
 the candidate : in attending elections in 
 Ireland, as agent, I was entitled to my 
 fees ; but I never received a single farthing. 
 That was before I had the Northern Star. 
 You, gentlemen, may think this unim- 
 portant, but I will establish my character, 
 which is of infinitely more importance 
 to me than any of the technical forms of 
 law with which the Attorney-General is 
 surrounding me. My character, gentle- 
 men, is the more important to me, seeing 
 the manner in which I have been held 
 up to public odium by those wffio, having 
 no principle of their own, are ever ready 
 to impute dishonesty to others. I tell 
 you it is not from poor men- that I collect 
 fundsj I do not take the pence out of 
 the pockets of those who have but little 
 for themselves ; I did not take a farthing 
 out of the defence fund in 1839; on the 
 the contrary they owe me £280; for I 
 was their treasurer : I kept the account; 
 I balanced it, and there remains a debt 
 of £280 due to me. Gentlemen> I ad- 
 vanced a thousand guineas out of roy own 
 
 pocket when Mr. Frost was tried, before 
 a single penny was subscribed by the 
 Chartist body for defraying the expenses 
 of his defence. I have never allowed a 
 Chartist to be prosecuted without flying 
 to the rescue, and thus testing my prin- 
 ciples by my example and my practice. 
 Then you have heard of my popularity. 
 If this be a crime, find me guiltj' of 
 popularity if you please. But with all my 
 popularity, where is my offence ? Where 
 is my name mentioned, except by the 
 cracked-man. One man said he looked to 
 Bronten-e O’Brien, Feargus 0’Connor>. 
 and Dr. M'Douall ; but that was not evi- 
 dence. Another man said I was going to 
 Manchester,and several letters were proved, 
 but none of them contained the name of 
 any one of the grand conspirators. From 
 the ITth of August, no act of mine is 
 proved to be connected with the grand 
 conspiracy — not a single act. The At- 
 torney-General’s going to prosecute us, 
 and his acquittal of Wilde, shows that 
 we are indicted for advocating tlie Char- 
 ter. Now a nice question will aiise here 
 as to whether or no we are to take the law 
 as to the legality or illegality of ourprin-: 
 ciples from so high an authority as the 
 I Attorney-General ; and the question fojj 
 ] you is, whether the Attorney-General at 
 j Monmouth is to declare those principles 
 I legal, and then to come to Lancaster, and 
 prosecute us for the same thing. He wilt 
 I say, No, I don’t; it is for causing tu- 
 { mults.’’ Then I must ask the Attorney- 
 j General, whether the tumult charged on 
 ' us is as great as the tumult proved on 
 ■ that occasion at Monmouth and justified, 
 by him. Gentlemen, this is a long ques- 
 I tion ; you have heard the case of the 
 Crown for five long days. Ours won't 
 ! take as long ; but, under the circumr 
 I stances of the indictment being against 
 so many, it w ould be no w^onder if we oc- 
 cupied more of your tiin£. Now% ^entje- 
 I men, this is high au®>rity, telling us 
 I what the law is ; how far the law justifies 
 us in going ; and whether or no the agi- 
 tating of these principles is legal. Just 
 hear; and, although the Attorney-Ge- 
 neral denied it at Monmouth, after 
 you hear this I think you will say 
 he is a good Chartist. Gentlemen,” 
 (he said, speaking of Mr, Frost), 
 became a Chartist, and, in common 
 ! with many others, he adopted the opinions 
 
Uv; 
 
 S97 
 
 t^aVare supposed to belong to that body 
 of men. Gentlemen, I hardly know 
 what is meant by a Chartist.'* [He does 
 jhow, Gentlenien.} One of the witnesses 
 on the present occasion, spoke of five 
 articles; but what the five articles were 
 did not transpire. But the little that one 
 picks up from the intimations of the 
 newspapers on the subject, would induce 
 me to suppose that they carried their 
 ij^iews of Reform' far beyond the Reform 
 Bill introduced by Lord Grey’s adminis- 
 tration, and that they ardently desire to es- 
 tablish Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, 
 Annual Parliaments, no Property qualifi- 
 cation, and, according to some statements, 
 that they look forward to a better dis- 
 tribution of property. Gentlemen, with 
 respect to the first four of these matters, I, 
 for one, do not agree in any respect with 
 the Chartists ; but, I believe upon these 
 subjects their opinions are entertained 
 by many Members of Parliament of 
 undoubted respectability and honour, and 
 considerable talent. If what I have heard 
 upon the subject be true, many names 
 have been subscribed • to a document, the 
 avowed object of which is to frame what 
 is called the charter of the people, by 
 expounding the principles on which it is 
 to rest. Gentlemen, 1 have abstained, I 
 hope, from naming any person uncon- 
 nected with this case. I mean to adhere 
 rigidly to this, and to give no offence 
 to any absent person, and not to use 
 the privilege that I have — I ought also, 
 erhaps, to say the duty I have, of ad- 
 ressing you, so as not to create any feeling 
 of pain in any quarter whatever ; and I 
 am sure that I best fulfil my duty to Mr. 
 Frost, and most to his entire satisfaction, 
 if I refrain from making any remarks 
 upon any one that can create a moment's 
 pain, in respect of any past conduct or 
 transaction. These Chartists, however, 
 it must be admitted, stand at present pre- 
 cisely in the relation to the present con- 
 stitution as established in the year 1832, 
 in which the advocates for reform stood 
 in relation to the old constitution that 
 was remodelled by the Reform Bill; and 
 however differing from those who are 
 called Chartists in opinion, I must do 
 them the justice to say, that Chartism so 
 far is not treason, nor the public assertion 
 of it rebellion ; and I must go further 
 and say, that, although I trust never to 
 
 live to see the day, and I trust no' one in 
 whom 1 take an interest will ever live, to 
 see that day, (fatal ns I think it Would be 
 to the happiness, the prosperity, and the 
 well-being of this country) when those 
 principles shall be established ; yet I 
 must say, that if at any time it should be- 
 come the confirmed opinion of the large 
 mass of intelligence and of numbers — of 
 the strength and sinews of the commu- 
 nity — if the intelligence that oontrouls 
 that strength should finally determine to 
 adopt the Chartist code, doubtless adopted 
 it will be, as the Reform Bill was, and 
 mere wealth would struggle — [Strug- 
 gle ! struggle ! struggle ! gentlemen] — 
 against it, in my opinion, in vain.” 
 Now, gentlemen, what have I shown you 
 here ? Herd* you have at least a recog- 
 nition of the right to struggle for the 
 Charter. Then you have, at all events, 
 what constitutes a tumultuous meeting, 
 and afterwards you have the fact of this 
 prosecution of Chartists, for advocating 
 that struggle, even in milder terms than 
 those prescribed by the Attorney-General. 
 Gentlemen, though not confessedly, yet 
 impliedly, you will find, that, when or- 
 ganic changes take place in the constitu- 
 tion, a relaxation of the law is allowed. 
 You have a relaxation of the law urged 
 by the Attoniey-General in [839, in con- 
 sequence of an organic change which had 
 previously taken place ; so that, although 
 the Reform Bill left many without the 
 pale of the constitution, yet impliedly, as 
 shown by the Attorney -General, it guar- 
 anteed an increase of political power to 
 those men. Although not yet included 
 in the franchise, they went owpariyassu, 
 those without with those within ; those 
 within enjoying the benefits of the organic 
 change ; those loithout thinking there 
 ought to be a larger extension in the 
 outward details of the machinery by 
 which the thing is to he carried on. 
 Hence it is from the opinion given during 
 the agitation of the Reform Bill, from the 
 confirmation of the manner in which that 
 bill was forced upon a reluctant govern- 
 ment, that now the Attorney-General 
 places us in the same position in 1839 
 and 1843, that the Whigs and Reformers 
 were placed in, in 1831 and 1832. I am 
 contented it should be so : I will stand 
 the contrast. A conspirator, to des- 
 troy anything by force or tumult, must 
 
298 
 
 be a cruel man. I never inflicted an 
 injury or a wound upon any dumb 
 animal since I was born, and I trust in 
 God I never will. How was the Reform 
 Bill carried ? Where are our ashes ? 
 Where are our dead ? Where are our 
 smouldering cities ? Where are our gib- 
 bets ; where our transported felons, and 
 where our gaols ? Alas ! our gaols are 
 full now ; but not for tire same crimes. 
 Take the story of those men around me, 
 honest, unsophisticated, struggling most 
 righteously for their rights, yet respecting 
 the property of those who they thought 
 had injured them — even of those who 
 were their unnatural leaders in 1832. 
 Take them ; analyse them; look at them; 
 do they look like conspirators ? Place 
 them in the situation in whiclf flie Attor- 
 ney-General placed the reformers. Do 
 you see flames } Have you a Bristol on 
 lire — a Nottingham in flames — a New- 
 dhstle consumed ? Do you see an effigy 
 of the king with his head cut oflT, and 
 inscribed ‘‘ Reform, or the king’s head,” 
 and a bloody executioner with a weapon 
 in his hand ? Where was all this ? 
 No ; you only find such mottoes as 
 '^More pigs and less parsons.” — (Laugh- 
 ter.) There is another part}', gentlemen, 
 which has for one of its mottoes, “ They 
 that be slain w^h the sword, are better 
 than they that be slain with hunger, for 
 these pine away, stricken through for 
 want of the fruits of the field.” — Then take 
 us, what has been our conduct for seven 
 years ? I have been out of the House of 
 Commons seven years. I have been in 
 every town of England, Ireland and Scot- 
 land, always at my own expense ; I 
 have spoken to millions upon millions of 
 men ; and I have never been prosecuted 
 for a word I have spoken. No. I have 
 been well watched. The Argus-eye of 
 the law has never slept while I was at 
 work. Mr. Fox Maule admitted in the 
 House of Commons that he had sent a 
 special spy to watch me in Scotland. 
 
 I was much honoured, gentlemen. I 
 have been prosecuted three times before, 
 gentlemen. For what ? 1 ,was once 
 
 subjected to a trial by special jury, for 
 having taken four lines from another { 
 paper, to make up a column. They 
 were these : • 
 
 “A poor little fellow broke out of Warminster 
 workhouse on Saturday last. The overseers 
 
 ' custody ; and so great was his suffering, that 
 the poor little fellow ate part of his hand and 
 his arm off.” 
 
 I That is not a part of the libel, but the 
 whole of it. For that Chief Justice 
 i Tindal tried me. I w'as in Scotland at 
 the time. Another libel was published the 
 day I was on my trial ; I wrote imme- 
 diately to take it out, and proved that 
 out of 43,000 copies, it only appeared in 
 the first edition. I was tried again by 
 special jury, and found guilty. I received 
 nine months’ imprisonment for just taking 
 four lines from another paper. Now,, 
 although I had no more to do with the 
 authorship of that paragraph than any 
 one of the jury, although the paper in 
 which it first originated was well known ; 
 and although I proved that the paragraph 
 was taken out of a part of the first im- 
 })ression, still I w'as found guilty. Why ? 
 Because they wanted a Chartist. They 
 could not charge me ivith any act of my 
 own. Being a public writer in every 
 newspaper, and a public speaker in every 
 locality, and they being unable to charge 
 me with any illegal act of my own, they 
 brouglit an ex officio information against 
 me, put me to immense expense, and 
 found me guilty, and then they prosecuted 
 me for a matter which was published and 
 contradicted the very day the paper ap- 
 peared. I put in the affidavit of 4,800 
 working men, including some of the 
 officials of Rochdale, to state that my 
 speeches, in their opinion, had preserved 
 the peace of the country. Notwithstand- 
 ing that, I got sixteen months in a felon s 
 cell, in solitary confinement, in York 
 Castle; that was my punishment for that, 
 gentlemen. Then, as I say, in this and 
 other w'ays great prejudice was excited 
 against me. Perhaps you have not heard 
 many Irish anecdotes. I’ll tell you one. 
 Once upon a time there was"^!! old maiden 
 lady, who had an old cat and an old house- 
 keeper. W^hen the housekeeper grew some- 
 what antiquated, she began to be negligent, 
 and all the crockery began to go. Now ihe 
 old lady was very fond of her crockery : she 
 could stand all but this, and she began to ' 
 enquire for the various articles that were 
 broken — one of these was an old China 
 bowl, which was a great favorite : — 
 Molly, where is the china bowl ? 
 
 “ Arrah, musha ! God knows, ma’am. 
 
299 
 
 but tbe red cat broke tbe china bowl.” 
 A few days afterwards tbe china tea-pot 
 was missing; and the lady asked, ** Molly, 
 what has become of the china tea-pot ? ” 
 '^Musha, God knows, ma’am, but sure 
 the red cat broke the china tea-pot.” So 
 the red cat broke almost everything. At 
 last the red cat was turned away ; but then, 
 when anything was missing, the red cat 
 had always been there. At last the red 
 cat was doomed to death ; it was killed. 
 Notwithstanding this, the china salad- 
 bowl was broken. That was an heir- 
 loom in the I’amily, and the lady was 
 quite affected at its loss. “ Molly,” says 
 the lady, who broke the salad bowl ? ” 
 Arrah, musha, my lady, sure the red 
 cat has been here again.” Why, Molly, 
 how can that be; the red cat was killed.” 
 “Ah, I declare to God, ma’am, I always 
 heard that cats had nine lives; but now 
 I’m sure of it.” — (Laughter.) Now, 
 
 gentlemen, I think that you will find 
 that I am the red cat in this Chartist 
 movement. A riot took place at New- 
 port, in 1839 ; I was the red cat; I knew 
 all about it. I went down, and for eight 
 days attended the trial with the Attorney- 
 General here ; my name was never men- 
 tioned, for the best reason — that I never 
 heard of it till the accounts appeared in 
 the newspapers. A petition was pre- 
 sented to the House of Commons ; and a 
 little gentleman there, jealous of my 
 popularity, and who cannot acquire 
 any himself, said that I was the author 
 of it. Gentlemen, I never wrote a line 
 of it, or saw it in MS. I saw it 
 first, after its publication, in York Castle. 
 Then comes this address, which the 
 Times represented to be little short of 
 high treason. I was made to be the 
 author of that address all over the 
 country. Gentlemen, I never saw that 
 address till I saw it in print, placarded 
 on the walls of Manchester. So that 
 here we “have Newport, the national 
 petition, and the address ; I was the red 
 cat in them all. Gentlemen, I put my 
 name to my own acts. I stand by my 
 own acts; I never flinched from the 
 responsibility attached to my own acts. 
 A great deal has been said by those 
 behind me, as to their indifference to 
 your verdict. What has made them 
 Chartists ? In consequence of what 
 they have suffered on behalf of those 
 principles, what has not been said 
 
 to create prejudices against the Chartist 
 body P If a diversion is to be got up, 
 they can get a man to fire at his own 
 hat at Southampton, and then declare it 
 a Chartist move to shoot the Queen. If 
 the public mind is to be diverted, while 
 experiments of great changes in financial 
 and commercial affairs are getting on, 
 then some thing is got up, in which the 
 I Chartists always figure ; and we read 
 of a man riding on horseback from 
 Kent, carrying letters to the post-office, 
 and all of these developing a conspiracy 
 to destroy the Queen’s life. My answer 
 to that was, that the gentleman on horse- 
 back was not a Chartist, for Chartists 
 were always obliged to walk. But wdiat 
 do we hear more } This is the way to 
 inculcate respect for the laws in the 
 minds of the people. It is by calm dis- 
 passionate trials of this kind that 
 the people of this country will learn 
 to value the law. Teach them to re- 
 spect it, and keep within its bounds; 
 but so define those bounds that 'the 
 simplest man will comprehend them, 
 and know when he is outside the pale 
 of the law. Let those laws lean to 
 mercy, with a stern executive, exacting 
 implicit obedience to their mild autho- 
 rity, and then you will find no charges 
 for conspiracies, or anything of this 
 kind. Now, in the negative as well as 
 the affirmative, in acts of omission as 
 well as of commission, are sometimes 
 found cause for rankling and angry 
 feelings. In the midst of their su fir- 
 ings, all have borne honourable testi- 
 mony to the heroic fortitude and the 
 exemplary patience with which they 
 had borne their privations. Having 
 heard of their progressive state from 
 bad to worse, from the lips of Pilling, 
 his son on a death-bed, while his 
 wages were being reduced ; and consider- 
 ing that his case is the case of thousands, 
 let us see whether or no they have a right 
 to have something of anger and irritation 
 in their minds. Since the first of these 
 prosecutions, there have been a royal 
 marriage, two royal births and a jubilee 
 for the termination of two sanguinary 
 wars ; there have been congratulations on 
 the termination of a peaceful winter, 
 which, it had been foretold, would be one 
 of riot and bloodshed. We have had the 
 hulks searched for objects of the royal 
 clemency, and the debtors’ prisons. 
 
300 
 
 wlience cheats were set at liberty, to make 
 the nation’s jubilee more joyous ; but not 
 a single political offender was liberated to 
 mark the clemency of the crown, though 
 some of them had been confined for 
 three years ; while thieves, pickpockets, 
 rascals, and vagabonds of every kind had 
 been considered fit objects of that clem- 
 ency ; no, it would seem as if the royal 
 prerogative was exercised merely to fix 
 the law upon political offenders more 
 strongly, and to make their case the 
 harder. Is not that sufficient, goingonfrom 
 year to year, instead of using the graduating 
 sliding scale of the Attorney-General, 
 they go from a more liberal construction 
 of what the right of the people is, to a 
 more confined construction of what the 
 law is. Is that the way by which you 
 would enforce your acts of parliament ? 
 If you wish to make the people good sub- 
 jects, and respect the law, let them go to 
 prison for acts for which the finger of 
 scorn would point at them after their li- 
 berafion. If you convict us here, the 
 country at large would see no evidence of 
 crime, or proof to support the charges 
 made against us — it will convey no idea 
 of moral offence, and the public mind, in- 
 stead of approving the verdict, would be 
 busily employed in calculating the hours 
 that must pass, till the time should come 
 when we may again he received with open 
 arms by those from whom we are snatch- 
 ed. I am not the man to recommend 
 any — even the slightest — infraction of tfie 
 laws, but I say the only way to secure the 
 veneration of the people for the laws is to 
 ensure justice to all. Write your laws 
 upon the minds and hearts of the people ; 
 enforce them, not by coercion, but by 
 love, affection, and mercy. See the dif- 
 ferent manner in which the law can be 
 sti-ained. Where the law requires it, the 
 law can make madmen of assassins; it 
 can make Solons of fools. But, I thank 
 my God that there is that tribunal. And 
 let me say now, having practised for a 
 long time at my own profession, that ne- 
 ver in the course of my practice did I 
 see an investigation more pre-eminently 
 calculated to inspire all who have witness- 
 ed it, not only with respect, but with ve- 
 neration for the laws. There have been 
 trials which carrjed on their face a 
 determination for pers^utiom Now^ 
 let us briefly; analyse . tiiie , evidence m - 
 
 this case, and see bow the severa 
 charges have been substantiated, and 
 by what description of evidence they have 
 been supported. Gentlemen of the jury, 
 the manner in which this complicated 
 case has been brought before you, does 
 not puzzle me so much as it would other- 
 wise have done, had it not been 
 for the arguments of my Lord. ‘But 
 now I come to the material part of this 
 question. One witness had it in his 
 power to tell the authorities, that Fear- 
 gus O’Connor and his friends were hold- 
 ing a secret meeting. Gentlemen, there 
 was no difficulty in ferretting out our 
 place of meeting ; and if there was any- 
 thing illegal in our meeting, it was the 
 policeman’s duty to communicate the 
 facts within his knowledge to the autho- 
 rities. Then what do we find ? That 
 every witness speaks to one fact, with a 
 degree of certainty not bearing upon any 
 other, viz. — as to the time when the dis- 
 turbances ceased to exist, when the men 
 began to dribble back again,” (I think 
 was the expression) to their respective 
 avocations. I am now going from me- 
 mory, over the evidence of Little, special 
 high constable of Hyde, who evinced so 
 much anxiety to entrap John Leach, one 
 of the defendants, and make him the 
 common disturber — the Red Cat” of 
 
 Hyde. Little said, that after Leach left 
 Hyde, it was perfectly tranquil. That 
 evidence was for the purpose of shewing 
 that Leach was the Red Cat” there. 
 Then came Hibbert, clerk to the magis- 
 trates at Hyde, and he said the disturb- 
 ances lasted five or six weeks after the 
 7th of August — bringing them down to 
 September. This is most important. 
 Now, gentlemen, a part of my case was, 
 that an experiment was to be tried to 
 turn out those hands, — to see whether 
 they could be directed to a repeal of the 
 Corn-laws. Mr. Rhodes, the son-in-law 
 of Shepley, swears that, on the lOih of 
 August, 100 to 150 men came and 
 turned out his hands> 200 in number ; ; 
 mind, there was no resistance; thej . 
 turned out ; the gates, were opened for 
 them. Then, the scheme having failed, 
 Mr. Rhode’s and Mr. Shepley ’s hands . 
 again returned to work on the 26th, and _ 
 not being anxious to turn-out themselyes^f _ 
 on the latter end of the same month, they 
 beat off 600. men aC puqn, and^ 1, 006 in ; 
 
301 
 
 tlie evening, ^¥hen it was tlieir mas- 
 ter’s interest to keep them at work, they 
 could beat off 1,000; when it w^as his 
 interest to let them go, 100 turned out 
 200. It is a most extraordinary fact, 
 and I leave it for your consideration. It 
 will be impossible to consider this case 
 as a whole, unless you carry the whole 
 of the evidence with you. The crown 
 has gone as far as men could go, so to 
 complicate the case, that if I w'as not hit 
 here I was to be hit there. In some 
 way or other I was to be entangled in 
 the meshes of the law ; having received the 
 aw'ful character, not of pacificator-general, 
 but of conspirator-general, in this coun- 
 try, for many years. I ask you, were you 
 not prepared to hear such a burden, such 
 a load, such a catalogue of crime and 
 criminality pressed and sworn against me 
 as never before was presented in a court of 
 justice. From the character given of me 
 by the press, were you not prepared, on 
 account of your prejudices, to hear a great 
 deal, and to believe anything — even the 
 worst charge that could be preferred 
 against me ; and were you not astonished 
 to find there was so little ? Gentlemen 
 of the jury, no doubt you will have the 
 law laid down to you as the law ought to 
 be laid down ; but, taking the opinion of 
 the Attorney-General, that the law aa it 
 stands was established when the justices 
 were not so free to express an impartial 
 opinion, and considering that my Lord 
 will be obliged to give you the law as he 
 has it — that is as it was given in the 
 olden time — durante bene placito*’ 
 which signifies— you shall be continued 
 on the bench so long as you do what I 
 bid you” — when there were no coun- 
 sel for the prisoner, and When prece- 
 dents were drawn from the dark ages; 
 but now the judge is counsel for the de- 
 fendants, if they are not otherwise de- 
 fended — if they have the means, they 
 have all the advantage of counsel to 
 defend them — and if ever there was a 
 time when a precedent is to be drawn 
 from the living genius of the day — so as 
 to represent the existing mind of the 
 country, — if we have lived long enough 
 under the precedents of the dark ages, 
 and if, as the Attorney-General savs, 
 there is but a few years’ transition from 
 reform agitation to chartist agitation, then, 
 in God’s nanie, gentlemen, why should 
 
 there not be an alteration In the tnachi- 
 nery by which crimes have been punished 
 —why should there not be a practical 
 alteration in the laws of agitation,, tumult, 
 and riots. Gentlemen, from the moment 
 the seven bishops were acquitted down to 
 the present time, the country has looked 
 upon juries as the mouthpiece of the na- 
 tional trumpet, which shall declare to the 
 country every indication that freedom 
 is attempted to be impeded. I can 
 well understand the words of the im- 
 mortal Channing, that man is a wild 
 beast, in want of a master, and only safe 
 in chains.” You are called upon to-day 
 to give a verdict, never before anticipated 
 or looked to with the same anxiety. You 
 have brought before you by the strbngest 
 government that ever existed ' in this 
 country, at least for many years, the most 
 paltry offence with which ever men w'ere 
 charged. You have now a government, 
 which, powerful in its majority, ought riot 
 to dread assaults of this nature, a govern- 
 ment which refused to hear the applica- 
 tion of 3,500,000 men, for the People s 
 Charter, — which is to be relied upon as 
 our offence, for mind, in his reply, the 
 Attorney-General will endeavour to Con- 
 nect us with the tumult, which we Were 
 wholly unconnected with. Whence are 
 w’e to derive the examples by wdirch our 
 conduct is to be guarded ? Surely from 
 the house of commons. What dci W-e 
 find ? Year after year petkions for the 
 Charter have been presented to the house 
 of commons; they are discussed ; not 
 refused to be discussed, as they would be 
 if they were illegal and unconstitutional. 
 They are laid upon the table ; thoiigW 
 the last was so big that it could not lie 
 in the house, and, therefore, it could not 
 lie on the table at all ; and the divisions 
 have been 65 or 66 in favour of this 
 treasonable question of the Charter. In 
 1839,the Whigs allowed us to sitin a cori- 
 ven tion, which the tories now tell us is 
 treason. I am now beginning to learn 
 that the sons are not better than their 
 fathers, that the Whigs allowed us to pur- 
 sue the agitation of a question wljich the 
 tories tell us is treason. In that con- 
 ference we sat two months, which were 
 spent in debating the question of a 
 sacred holiday, which was brought for- ' 
 ward by Mr. Attwood in the bouse 6f , 
 commons ; Speech djion speech 
 
302 
 
 made ; il was divided upon every day, — 
 recommending a cessation from labour, 
 in order to carry the question. Will 
 the Attorney- General say, The Whigs 
 were weak, and dared not prosecute 
 you ; we are strong, and therefore will 
 prosecute you.” Is that the relaxation 
 in the law pointed out by the Attorney- 
 General, when so nobly defending his 
 client at Monmouth, when he was ena- 
 bled by his knowledge of the law, — at all 
 events by the ingenuity which he brought 
 to bear upon the case, — to save the life of 
 his client by defending him from the 
 charge of high treason ? It has been 
 proved, that eight members of parliament 
 drew up the document called the People’s 
 Charter. Then where are you to look for 
 conspirators ? In the House of Com- 
 mons ? Of course, if it be illegal to 
 agitate for the Charter, those who drew 
 it up, and presented it to the House of 
 Commons, must be in peril. But we 
 have here, in addition to this great legal 
 authority (the House of Commons) the 
 names of those eight members of parlia- 
 ment affixed to this Charter. They 
 declared it not only legal, but constitu- 
 tional, and that the people should not 
 abandon it but stand by it. In prose- 
 cuting the consideration of the evidence, 
 you will find that we make out our case 
 from the evidence from the Crown. Mr. 
 Wilcox, whose evidence is most import- 
 ant, says, he was uneasy in his mind, 
 because he thought the Chartists were to 
 be entrapped ; he has heard many of my 
 speeches, and says they all tended to 
 preserve the peace of the country. He 
 felt so uneasy in his mind, in conse- 
 quence of the trick about to be played on 
 us, that he went as far as Birmingham 
 on his way to Sir James Graham ; and 
 then he returned, and wrote a letter to 
 Sir James. I was stopped, very pro- 
 perly, by his Lordship, Avho decided 
 that the contents of that letter could 
 not be given in evidence. Then look 
 at the evidence of the cracked man. 
 Look at the evidence of the witness 
 Buckley who came here under the 
 expectation of obtaining £50. 'Just 
 think of a strong government producing 
 such a witness as that with the hope of 
 £50 flickering before his eyes, and the 
 recollection ot wha# he had already re- 
 ceived for his services. What did he ad- 
 
 mit ? He admitted that there was no 
 violation of person or property in his 
 neighbourhood, and he attributed that to 
 the pacific character of the speeches de- 
 livered at the various meetings It was 
 the speakers who stopped the disturbances. 
 Then we go to Brierly ; he says he never 
 saw any thing so tranquil, and that the 
 hands always turned out of their own ac- 
 cord, and evidenced no disposition what- 
 ever to riot. But there is something 
 more important still — something exceed- 
 ingly important — Buckley said he had 
 instructions from the magistrates to report 
 to them every thing he heard tending to 
 a breach of the peace. Had he reported 
 one word of the kind } not a word. You, 
 gentlemen, have watched the character of 
 this evidence — You have beared the 
 manner in which this evidence was got up, 
 and how it was sought to be procured. 
 You have heard of the state of Burnley, 
 you have had the constable of Burnley, 
 M‘Cabe, before you. What does he say 
 he says that just before this outbreak I 
 was in North Lancashire. Why did I go 
 to North Lancashire ? why was I there ? 
 let us hear what he says : he was within 
 ten yards of the pavilion where I was ad- 
 dressing a meeting. That pavilion was 
 erected by the middle classes when it 
 served their purpose to invite me. 
 McCabe was present for the purpose of 
 collecting evidence and giving it in a 
 digested form to the magistrates. — When 
 he was not able to attend himself he em- 
 ployed competent reporters who furnished 
 him with an account of all that was said. 
 He was within ten yards of me, — the 
 grand conspirator — and he never heard me 
 uttering a word of sedition. I was taunted 
 a little before this with being a coward by 
 the Times for not going down to North 
 Lancashire. I received letters from middle 
 class men and others informing me of 
 the state of the district, and that several 
 mills had been burned. I also received 
 letters from working mer; stating that 
 spies were among them. I went down 
 for a week and what was the result ? 
 There was mischief to property after 
 I left. I might appeal to the manu- 
 facturers whetlier they did not let their 
 hands turn-out to hear my address. I 
 might appeal to one and all — to the 
 manufacturers of Blackburn, Burnley, 
 Clitheroe, Colne, and Lancaster, if it 
 
303 
 
 was not niy persevering effort during 
 the whole of the w^eek, to tranquillise the 
 angry spirit that then prevailed in that 
 district. Why did I go ? Because 
 Mr. Acland told me that there would 
 be a revolution, and that the mills would 
 be stopped in three weeks ; — I told 
 the people the convulsion was come — 
 (“struggle” was not the word: that 
 word conveys to my mind a peaceful 
 contest) — and I told them for God s sake 
 to fold their arms, and do nothing ; 
 for as sure as they did, those who urged 
 them on would he in the jury box, 
 while they would be in the dock. I did 
 tranquillise them ; and upon the hustings, 
 at Keighley, I was publicly charged 
 with being a tory spy, paid by the 
 government to keep the country quiet ; 
 with receiving money from the Carlton- 
 Club, because I had been traversing 
 Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Nottingham- 
 shire, cautioning the people to be quiet, 
 having first had the intimation that the 
 mills were to be stopped. Well, the 
 turn-out having taken place, was it im- 
 proper for us to say, “ Now the strike has 
 arisen, let us endeavour to turn it to the 
 accomplishment of a particular object ?” 
 I am not here contending that no distur- 
 bances have taken place. It is but natu- 
 ral to suppose that when the hands were 
 turned out they would become rash, un- 
 ruly, and agitated — that disposition on 
 their part we endeavoured to allay, but 
 as we did not turn the hands out was it 
 not right for us to say, “ Now, let us turn 
 the strike, so far as the trades of Man- 
 chester are concerned, to the accomplish- 
 ment of the People’s Charter.” If that 
 is illegal, that we did. But we deny that 
 the Chartists had any hand in turning 
 out the workpeople. If I am asked whe- 
 ther we recommended those who were out 
 on strike to join in the agitation for the 
 Charter, to that I plead “ Guilty.” We 
 have done that. We had a perfect right 
 to do so. But see what it requires in the 
 mind of an honourable man to convict 
 an honourable gentleman of the crime of 
 conspiracy. 1 leave London on the 15th 
 to attend a meeting at Mr Scholefield’s 
 chapel. That meeting was Hunt’s anni- 
 versary. I am proved to be at every one 
 of those meetings for several years past 
 I leave London at the latest possible pe- 
 riod to allow of my attending the meet- 
 
 ing in Manchester ; and I leave Man- 
 chester immediately after the conference 
 is over. I am never found in Manches- 
 ter afterwards during the disturbances. 
 No act of mine that could, by any possi- 
 bility, constitute a conspiracy, has been 
 proved against me. I never left London, 
 which is 200 miles away from all those 
 scenes until long alter the outbreak took 
 place. If I had anticipated this conspi- 
 racy, or not having anticipated it il I had 
 linked myself to it, would I have borne 
 the character given me by the Attorney- 
 General ? — Would I, up to the period ta 
 which his character extends, have been 
 destroying that very force with which I 
 hoped to accomplish my own design 
 and that of others ? No, gentlemen,. 
 I can prove to you that from the begin- 
 ning to the end of the turn-out, I depre- 
 cated not only violence, but conspiracy, 
 riot, and every thing calculated to lead 
 to them. But, gentlemen, I shall not be 
 satisfied with resting solely on the case 
 made out for me by the crown, and the 
 character wrung reluctantly from the 
 witnesses, but I shall produce to you the 
 authorities of Manchester, the witnesses 
 whom the crown ought to have produced ; 
 and I shall also call evidence to show 
 that, from the time I returned to London, 
 all my letters, private and public, were 
 directed to a place, where they were all 
 opened ; and, on the 24ih, I published 
 a notification in a daily paper, that any 
 improper letter addressed to me should 
 be returned open through the post, 
 marked, “ Matter improper contained in 
 this letter.” But I will produce to you 
 mill-owners, men of property, influence, 
 and character, who have known me seven 
 or eight years, who shall speak to my 
 character, and the effect my speeches 
 have had on public meetings in the seve- 
 ral localities where I have been. If this 
 does not satisfy you I don’t know' what 
 w'ill. As to the poor conspirator Cross- 
 ley, so good a character has been given 
 of him, that I think there will be nothing 
 like an attempt to send him to the jury. 
 And then these other men wdio defend 
 themselves, — why are they put altogether 
 in this indictment ? The evidence af- 
 fecting each is so different in character, 
 that you, gentlemen, must naturally ask 
 why are they all thrown together in a 
 bundle. Gentlemen, we are not all 
 
enlarged with the same transactions, but 
 in this indictment we are thrown down 
 before you in one common heap ; but 
 take care and pick Feargus O’Connor 
 out at all events, have the red cat, gen- 
 tlemen, under any circumstances. If the 
 conspiracy be not strong enough to catch 
 him, have a bit of tumult; if tumult be not 
 strong enough, as they have abandoned the 
 riot, why, have a bit of illegal assembling; 
 but take care, the net is drawn for you; 
 take care and don’t let the big fish escape. 
 Gentlemen, I look upon this trial as an 
 act of grace ; as a God-send. Nothing 
 so much proves the weakness of a govern- 
 ment — strong though they may be in ma- 
 jorities in the Houses of Parliament — as 
 the desire to put down public discussion. 
 A majority of the House of Commons is 
 one thing ; a majority of the public mind 
 is another thing ; and powerful though 
 their majority may be, it cannot stand 
 for a month against well-digested public 
 opinion. Gentlemen, what ought to be 
 the constiution of the country ? It ought 
 to be the best digest of the living genius 
 of the day, and such is the Charter. 
 Gentlemen, there is not one point in the 
 Charter that is not recognized by the 
 government. You have the ballot, and 
 no property qualification. You have 
 heard that the Scotch members require 
 no property qualification ; you might be 
 told that the university members require 
 none ; but how is universal suffrage prac- 
 tically admitted by this strong govern- 
 ment ? When the Attorney-General was 
 cracking jokes on the pot-boys of Hun- 
 tingdon — and certainly they were the only 
 good jokes I heard during that election 
 contest — he was glad enough to hear the 
 ''rat tat too” of the chartists coming to 
 his assistance, when w'e placed upon our 
 banners, " Dowm with the Whigs.” Then 
 all liberty and license w'as given to those 
 Avho helped them into place and power ; 
 but having once got possession, like wily 
 tenants, they now dispute the title of the 
 lessee; because they think themselves 
 safe and secure. The Whigs when they 
 got into pow’er evinced the same disregard 
 of public opinion, and were, consequently, 
 sent to the back-side of the treasury, but 
 the same disregard which the Whigs 
 showed to public opinion, wnll Lave 
 the same effect in driving this strong go- 
 vernment from the position it now holds. 
 
 Gentlemen, you must baVe seefi that if 
 was my intention in the commencement 
 of these proceedings, to carry the w’^ar into 
 the enemies’ camp, on the doctrine of pre- 
 sumpiion, by shewing what party bad 
 used language most calculated to lead to 
 the offences charged in this indictment. 
 But I have abandoned that intention. 
 And why Not because I did not think 
 that much stronger language had not 
 been used by the party to which I al- 
 luded, than ever was employed by the 
 Chartist body, but because I would not 
 be a party in making out a case for the 
 prosecution of others. Conspirator as I 
 am, I trust I have honour enough not 
 to seek to make out a case against others. 
 You may be astonished, from the drift of 
 my cross-examination, that I do not do 
 it. I have assigned to you a reason — a 
 fair and honourable reason why I have 
 abstained from that course. If it had 
 not been for the manner in which this 
 case has been conducted— if it had not 
 been for the patience with which you 
 appear to have attended to every- 
 thing, even the most irrelevant and 
 minute, I should occupy your atten- 
 tion at much greater length. But, 
 gentlemen of the jury, having stated 
 to you the conclusion to which you must 
 come before you can find me guilty — 
 having stated to you that I can produce 
 evidence, not only to my character but to 
 speak to all those transactions in which 
 I have been engaged — ^I shall produce 
 one witness who has known me from in- 
 fancy, and the Attorney-General may 
 examine him as long as he pleases. Gen- 
 tlemen, before I conclude I shall make 
 an appeal to you— not in such eloquent 
 language as that of the Attorney-General, 
 because I am not so highly gifted as the 
 learned gentleman, but in the same spirit 
 — and I shall read to you the words 
 which he employed in addressing the 
 jury at Monmouth, when he showed the 
 absolute necessity there was of acquitting 
 the Chartists then on trial, by the moral 
 effect which such acquittal would produce : 
 on the public mind. Circumstances have 
 not been materially altered from 1839 to 
 1843, unless indeed it be that the public 
 intellect is a little more quickened. But - 
 give me leave to ask you a plain and 
 simple question. May we not recognize 
 in the acts of the Executive a cause for 
 
305 
 
 some of the transactions out of which this 
 enquiry has arisen ? Gentlemen, you 
 may recollect that, in July or August, 
 after parliament had been prorogued, an 
 attempt was made to suppress public 
 opinion and public meetings. Why was 
 I going to put in the evidence of the 
 moving cause to the late outbreak, which 
 I have now abstained from ? Was it that, 
 though antagonist to that party, I did not 
 try them ? It is because we live in a free 
 country* I thank God— and I say it 
 with pride and pleasure — that we live in 
 such a country. Administer the law as 
 the law ought to be administered, and 
 there is no such country under heaven — 
 but strain and thwart the law and there 
 is not in any nation such machinery lor 
 persecution. The most suicidal policy 
 that any country ever adopted was, to 
 attempt to put down public meetings. 
 Look to other countries where public opi- 
 nion has been smothered, and consider 
 the result. The Attorney-General and 
 the Government ought to be obliged to 
 us; for, as Junius has well said, This 
 agitation is like the hue and cry : it an- 
 nounces the thief’s approach.” Why 
 have we been able to keep down the irri- 
 tated mind of the people, irritated, sour, 
 and sore, and writhing under the infliction 
 of the most insulting wrongs ? How have 
 we been able to keep down the turbulence 
 of these men ? It is entirely by the hope 
 of getting this Charter ; because they live 
 in the hope of getting it by this peaceful 
 struggle. But I have no apprehension of 
 any other principle superseding or out-top- 
 ping the all-important question of the 
 Charter in the House of Commons. But 
 the people would not fight for it. Certain 
 parties had endeavoured to direct public 
 attention away front the Charter to another 
 question, but without success. They have 
 failed. Why? Because they were not 
 able to create a revolution. Those who 
 seek the obtainment of the Charter would 
 not accept it unless it were obtained 
 by peaceable means. They seek it by 
 peaceful agitation ; and so long as the 
 public mind is allowed to be ex- 
 pressed on the public platform, so long 
 will there be a national safety-valve ; 
 but once suppress that, and then, as was 
 the case in France, you may go to bed in 
 peace, and arise with the barricades around 
 you. In France the discontent of a sin- 
 
 gle college, school, association or work- 
 shop, can lead to a revolt ; why cannot 
 such be the case in England ? Be- 
 cause Englishmen won’t fight, unless 
 they know what they are fighting 
 for. Because men of principle won’t 
 have recourse to physical force. But 
 the Attorney-General went nearly too 
 far. He was nearly proving high trea- 
 son against us. He adduced evidence to 
 show that we were going to take the 
 Horse Guards and take the Arsenal I 
 With what ? With four rusty double- 
 barrelled guns and a few single ones ! ! 
 Just think of an attempt to destroy the 
 iron Duke, and the strong government, 
 with four rusty double-barrelled guns * 
 All w'e wanted was commanders to make 
 us invincible, and to prevent the possi- 
 bility of our opponents gaining a tri- 
 umph over us ! Gentlemen, if I had 
 not consulted my feelings, and that duty 
 I owe to the Court, for the dignified 
 manner in which this case has been, 
 conducted, I should have ended as I 
 began, and treated it as a melo-dramatic 
 production— a fairy tale — as an act of 
 necessity to alarm the minds of the 
 landed proprietors. If nothing is done 
 for the people, something must he done, 
 to show a reason why nothing has been 
 done. What a story the minister will 
 now have to tell the landed-proprietors— 
 ‘^^Now you see the danger you were in. 
 Now you see the reason for my tariff* ; 
 now you see the advantages of the 
 sliding-scale, as well as the jeopardy ia 
 which you were placed. Nothing les^.^ 
 was intended than the violation of all 
 propert}^ and a general distribution oi 
 the land. Did not I tell you these 
 Chartists were the men. Now, land- 
 lords, unite as yeomanry, as magistrates, 
 as landed-proprietors— put the Chartists 
 down first, and when they are down 
 then we will try to put down the league 
 afterwards. The Chartists are too poor — 
 they are not entitled to the franchise, 
 and therefore they will he unable to 
 make any defence. Having first refused 
 an enquiry into their state— having first 
 trampled on the right of Britons, we will 
 tear them up by piecemeal— having first 
 routed the grand army we will cut the- 
 stragglers up in detail.” The Attorney- 
 General, in his opening speech, observed 
 all that prudence, moderation, and calpi- 
 
ness, which is his wont, hut such of 
 you as are fishermen will recollect having 
 seen the gilded fly seducing the uncon- 
 scious fish, who, when he began to nib- 
 ble, little knew that there was a hook at 
 the end of it. Gentlemen, there was a 
 hook at the end of the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral’s line. That hook still remains to be 
 played. You know how the trout and 
 salmon are played in the river. You 
 know what it is to be captivated by the 
 gilded fly, and you must be cautious in 
 giving your verdict, lest, like the unwary 
 fish, you may be reduced when you 
 least expect it. I have told you that 
 you should have the whole case from me. 
 You shall have the whole case from me. 
 I went to Mr. Scholefield’s on the 16th 
 of August. T did so because I was 
 aware that I should learn from him what 
 the proceedings were to be. I solemnly 
 declare that, from the beginning to the 
 end, he had as much to do with that 
 conference meeting as you had, and no 
 more. There is a communication be- 
 tween Mr. Scholefield’s house and the 
 grave yard, through the chapel where we 
 were sitting. Mr. Scholefieid in going 
 to the grave yard, was obliged to pass 
 through the chapel. This will account 
 for his being occasionally seen in the 
 chapel during the sitting of the confer- 
 ence. It was sworn that he was present 
 on many occasions. Now, I will swear, 
 that on one occasion I have seen him 
 taking a raven from the hack yard 
 through the chapel. It was at my re- 
 quest that Mr. Scholefieid gave us the 
 use of that chapel. It was I that asked 
 him to permit the delegates to meet there. 
 Why ? Because when Dr. McDouall en- 
 gaged a room to hold eighteen persons, 
 only that number of delegates was ex- 
 pected, but double that number came ; 
 and as there were many persons crowd- 
 ing about the door, and much excite- 
 ment ensued, I said We will get some 
 place to meet in where we won’t he 
 watched, and where there will be no 
 danger of bringing the people into colli- 
 sion with the authorities.” I, accord- 
 ingly, applied to Mr. Scholefieid for the 
 use of his chapel. He told me th^t his 
 son kept a school in it, and hoped no 
 damage would be done to it. From 
 my regard to you” said he and your 
 undertaking that no damage will be 
 
 done to the chapel, I will give it to you ; 
 hut you will guarantee that you will 
 only have it daily, and up to the time 
 originally intended for holding these 
 meetings.” You have it then from Miss 
 Noblett, that McDouall only remained at 
 her mother’s an hour and a half. That 
 is the history of the transaction, which 
 the Attorney-General will endeavour to 
 explain away* as soon as he comes 
 to reply — and reply he most assuredly 
 will, as he has a right to do. But let 
 us see what value the Attorney-General 
 put on the acquittal of the Chartists tried 
 at Newport, and apply it here. At New- 
 port the prisoners were charged with high 
 treason, and let us see what importance 
 the Attorney-General attached to an ac- 
 quittal in that case, and whether the same 
 reasons do not apply with much greater 
 force in favour of an acquittal here. The 
 learned gentleman spoke thus : — 
 
 “ Gentlemen, under these circumstances, I 
 again say that I know of no public measure that 
 would tend so much to the honour of the country, 
 to the peace of the community, to the quieting of 
 that alarm which this lamentable transaction has 
 created, than a verdict of not guilty, if that ver- 
 dict can be pronounced with truth. It is no 
 question whether you can safely pronounce that 
 verdict; the single question is, can you pro- 
 nounce it with truth ? If you can, it would be 
 the largest measure of safety to the country. If 
 you can assure her Majesty’s subjects in all parts 
 of her domionions here, that these thousands 
 upon thousands did not meditate rebellion ; that 
 their object was to enforce some claims on be- 
 half of a suffering brother Chartist : that the ac- 
 cidental circumstance of their finding persons 
 whom they were determined to rescue at the 
 spot where they had meant to make only a de- 
 monstration of strength, led to violence, and that 
 the instant they found that lead to bloody resis- 
 tance, they fled with terror and dismay from a 
 field that they never had intended to enter — such ^ 
 an ■assurance will be attended by fhe best results. 
 
 I say, gentlemen, that nothing could occur so 
 much to re-assure this county, and the kingdom 
 at large, as the verdict Not Guilty, if you can 
 truly pronounce it ; and I believe there would 
 be more safety in that verdict, if true, than if 
 10,000 troops were parading the different parts 
 of this county to enforce obedience to the law at 
 the‘|)oint of the sword.” 
 
 Now, in commenting on that the Attor- 
 ney-General may meet this by observing 
 — “ Well, I say so still, provided you can 
 find such a verdict with truth.” But, 
 
307 
 
 gentlemen, weigh the moral effect which 
 such a conviction as that now sought 
 would produce, against that which would 
 result from an acquittal. Do not take it 
 as the Attorney-General would take it, — 
 singly and alone ; but in combination 
 with other circumstances, especially with 
 the moral effect which an acquittal would 
 produce on the country at large. Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, this is, perhaps, one 
 of the most important trials that ever 
 took place in a court of justice. Gentle- 
 men, a new precedent has been estab- 
 lished in this case. Here are fifty-nine per- 
 sons mixed up together in a legal hodge- 
 podge, well designated a monster indict- 
 ment by Mr. Baines, for it requires every 
 defendant to he almost a lawyer before 
 he can understand it. Gentlemen, as a 
 barrister, myself, I must say that all that 
 ability could do — all that talent could do — 
 all that vigilance could do — has been done 
 on the part of the prosecutors here. The 
 law of libel, no doubt, will be critically ex- 
 plained to you, and what part I had in this 
 alleged conspiracy will be again brought 
 under your notice ; but, gentlemen, if the 
 act of one does bind others, it will only 
 be so far as they agree in the fur* 
 therance of the common design, and to 
 the same design. There may be a seve- 
 rance in the jury box, but, gentlemen, 
 remember that the eleven are not to carry 
 the whole case while one dissents, but 
 that every man must carry the whole 
 case. It is not at all necessary if a man 
 conscientiously differ from another, that, 
 for the sake of convenience,evidence should 
 be let in to prove the existence of a con- 
 spiracy. Recollect that it is not for the 
 sake of convenience you are to try this 
 cause, but for the sake of right — for the 
 sake of law — for the purpose not only 
 of tranquillizing the country, (a circum- 
 stance upon which the Attorney- General 
 laid so much stress) but for the purpose 
 of seeing whether there has been enough 
 proved by the evidence for the crown to 
 justify you, by the doctrine of presump- 
 tion, in coming to the monstrous conclu- 
 sion, that these defendants were the fo- 
 menters of the strike which commenced 
 in the early part of August, or that, not 
 having originated the strike they had 
 taken hold of the machinery, then in 
 operation, for the purpose of carrying on, 
 by tumult and riot, that which was begun 
 
 by others. Gentlemen, I was not aware 
 at the commencement of these proceed- 
 ings, that one of your number was a 
 committing magistrate and Corn-law re- 
 pealer. I am now happy to find that no 
 objection was taken to that gentleman’s 
 remaining on the jury, by any of the 
 defendants. Because, if my case is good, 
 I can rely on the honour of that jury- 
 man. But, if my case is bad, I should 
 not expect an acquittal from any jury. 
 My case, however, is so good that I can 
 allow the very men who are opposed to 
 me in politics to remain on the jury: 
 that circumstance is, in itself, a prima 
 facie evidence of my innocence. I 
 might have made several technical ob- 
 jections to a portion of the evidence 
 elicited, and to several of the documents 
 proved during this trial, but I have not 
 done so. I have done, however, what the 
 Attorney-General ought to have done. 
 I have endeavoured to supply that gap 
 which he has left in the case for tlie 
 prosecution. He certainly left it a 
 one-sided — a one handed affair, and I 
 have endeavoured to supply the other 
 hand in order that you may have the 
 whole case before you. So far as I am 
 personally concerned, if a verdict of ac- 
 quittal be necessary, it can only be for 
 the clearing of my .honour from those 
 foul aspersions which have been cast upon 
 it. It is to that I look, gentlemen, for 
 otherwise, I think, legally speaking, I 
 may look with confidence for an acquittal 
 at your hands. I now leave my case 
 confidently with you. You will not only 
 carry in to the jury box what you have 
 heard, but also what you have seen ; and, 
 in these days of phrenology and physio- 
 logy, if you have watched the faces of 
 the defendants and find them guilty of 
 conspiracy, you must also by implication 
 find them guilty of hypocrisy. Gentle- 
 men, I trust you will find them to be 
 what I have found them. I have associated 
 with them for some time and esteemed 
 it an honour to do so. I have searched 
 into their characters foryears,and in these 
 times of searching scrutiny it is some- 
 thing for a gentleman belonging to the 
 order of the Aristocracy, to have con- 
 fidence in the working classes. I have 
 been able to do it by great energy, untir- 
 ing watchfulness, and preserving my 
 character so pure that not a single missile 
 
308 
 
 has been aimed at it, except in my 
 character as a demagogue and Chartist 
 leader. Gentlemen, I am a demagogue, 
 in the real sense of the word, but I am 
 not a political trafficker. I am a Chartist, 
 but I declare to 3'ou, solemnly, that 1 
 would not accept the Charter to morrow 
 at the expense of shedding one drop of 
 human blood. I have a right as well as the 
 Tories to push forward my political prin- 
 ciples. You may well understand that if 
 those principles which once formed the great 
 basis of the constitution, were superseded 
 by others without treason, there can be 
 no treason in endeavouring to substitute 
 new principles for the constitution now in 
 existence. You have heard of the glo- 
 rious revolution to which you owe your 
 present constitution, and I hope that I 
 shall be instrumental in producing an im- 
 portant change in this constitution, and 
 that in such a way that those who come 
 after me will not be homfied by calling 
 it a bloody revolution. We seek a mo- 
 ral revolution, based on justice ; we seek 
 to effect this revolution, not by the clang 
 of arms — not by the discharge of mus- 
 ketry — not by the roar of artillery, but, 
 by the peaceful struggle of right against 
 might — of justict^against injustice — and of 
 knowledge against bigotry and intole- 
 rance. In conclusion I have only to say, 
 that Mr. Justice Coleridge rejected the 
 evidence of a reporter because he gave 
 only garbled extracts from his notes, and 
 not the whole of the speeches. You will 
 remember these things. Remember the 
 right of free expression is a thing not on- 
 ly to be permitted, but to be preserved, 
 by a jury of Englishmen. Gentlemen, 
 I look with intense anxiety, on account 
 of my country at large, for the verdict 
 you will give. You are the organ, gen- 
 tlemen, and if it be resounded from that 
 jury-box, that prosecutions for holding 
 political principles will no longer be en- 
 tertained in courts of justice, there will 
 be no more conspiracies ; the moral in- 
 fluence of intelligence will put to flight 
 the crotchets of the most crptchetty. 
 Yon will find more safety in that course 
 than in any other you can pursue, gen- 
 tlemen, inasmuch as Sir James Graham 
 said that w'e require an investigation, in- 
 asmuch as Lord Brougham said that we 
 require an investigation into the origin of 
 the late disturbances, and that that in- 
 
 vestigation would take place during the 
 examination of those in the indictment. I 
 now leave the whole case in your hands ; 
 trusting that you will pronounce by your 
 verdict that the day is not yet come when 
 free discussion is to be put down ; but 
 that by an honorable acquittal, which the 
 evidence adduced will amply justify 3'duL 
 in pronouncing, you will add another 
 link to the triumph which the cause of 
 truth and justice has achieved in this 
 country,] and which I conscientiously be- 
 lieve is hastening on to its final accom- 
 plishment. Gentlemen, I leave the whole 
 case in your hands, being conscious that 
 no complaint can be made as to the 
 manner in which it was brought forward 
 — that no complaint can be made as ta 
 the manner in which it was entertained, 
 and, I believe, gentlemen, we can com- 
 plete the link of triumph and satisfaction 
 by adding that no complaint can be made 
 as to the manner in which it will be de- 
 cided. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR resumed his seat 
 at twenty minutes past eleven o’clock, 
 having spoken two hours and twenty 
 minutes. 
 
 Wm. SCHOLEFIELD, examined by Mr. 
 COBBETT; — Are you son of the defendant, 
 James Scholefield? Yes. Do you reside with 
 your father? Yes. On the 16th of August did 
 Mr. Feargus O’Connor come to your father's 
 house ? Yes. Did he sleep at your house that 
 night? Yes. On the 16th of August? Yes, 
 sir. Can you tell me when he went to bed ? I 
 don’t know, sir. Can you say at what time he 
 was called, or at what time did he get up the 
 next morning ? About nine o’clock. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He is talking about ano- 
 ther morning.' 
 
 Mr. COBBETT : — Did Mr. O’Connor go to 
 bed on his arrival in Manchester, on the 16th ? 
 Witness Yes. At what time ? About six 
 o’clock. Do you recollect at what time he was 
 called?— At half-past two. During the day 
 time ?— Yes. What are you ?— A schoolmaster.. 
 Is your school attached to the chapel? — Yes» 
 My sister teaches in the girls' school. Can you 
 say at what time did Mr. O’Connor arrive in 
 the morning ? — At half-past five o’clock. Where 
 was your father when Mr. O’Connor arrived 
 He was out. Can you recollect whether Mr. 
 O’Connor arrived unexpectedly or otherwise .^— 
 We did not expect him. Do you know what 
 
309 
 
 your father was then about? Yes; he went to 
 get some placards printed. ; Was a bed prepared 
 for Mr. O’Connor ? No, he had to wait till a 
 bed was prepared. Did your father get up early 
 in the morning ? Yes. Will you look at that 
 placard now ? [Handing it to witness.] Was that 
 the placard your father went to get printed? — 
 Yes. . 
 
 The following placard was then entered as 
 read: — 
 
 “ PROCESSION AND MEETING PROHI- 
 
 BltED BY THE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 The committee for the erection of Hunt’s 
 Monument respectfully inform the public, that 
 in consequence of the very unexpected ex- 
 citement of the town of Manchester and its 
 vicinity, occasioned by a turn-out for an 
 advance of wages, they have decided that the 
 procession and meeting in Mr. Scholefield’s 
 premises, as announced in former bills for the 
 16th of August, 1842, will not take place, lest it 
 should give an opportunity to increase that ex- 
 citement, the odium and consequences of which 
 have been attempted to be fixed on the Chartist 
 body. 
 
 “ The tea party and ball, as by former bills, 
 will take place in the evening, at Carpenters’ 
 Hall. 
 
 “ N. B. A number of very neat China models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day,- at from 1^. Ad. to 
 Is. 64. each ; the profits of which are for the 
 fuiids of the monument. 
 
 “ J. SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.” 
 Did you see many of them ? Yes, I saw many 
 of them that day in the town. Have you seen 
 that before ? Yes. I believe it is a placard 
 postponing the meeting ? A es. What time of 
 the day was it on the 16th, when you saw that 
 placard first ? I saw it about six o’clock in the 
 morning. Now, who is the printer of that placard? 
 Mr. Kiernan. Did you ever see any of those pla- 
 cards? Yes, I put a few on boards and went to see 
 them posted about the streets. Did any one else 
 bring any ? Yes. Who else ? Kiernan’s jour- 
 neyman. Are you aware of the quantity brought ? 
 About 200 or 300. What time did your father 
 go out of the house ? About four o’clock in 
 the morning. On the 17th of August did you 
 see your father ? Yes. In what way was he 
 engaged during that day ? He was chiefly in 
 the surgery during that day. Do you] know 
 whether there vras any, and what, business 
 going on in the back burying-ground that w.ould 
 call his attention that way ? There was a man 
 there painting some gates, and the sexton was 
 at work there. Is there a burying-giound 
 
 there, and is it situated so that the chapel is 
 between it and the house ? Yes. Now^, to go 
 to those premises from the house, which would 
 be the ordinary and regular Way ? To go 
 through the chapel. Is there any other way ? 
 Yes, but the regular way for our family is 
 through the chapel. Look at that placard. 
 [Handing a placard to witness.] Is that one of 
 the same placards ? Yes, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR r—Are 
 you aware, that about five or six o’clock that 
 evening, I requested your father to go down to 
 the Carpenter’s Hall to make an apology that I 
 could not go down that evening, in consequence 
 of the excited state of the town ? Do you recol- 
 lect my speaking to a man named Cockshott 
 and sending for a cab? Yes. Do you re- 
 collect your sister and the whole family being 
 present, and a long discussion taking place as 
 to whether it would be prudent for me to go 
 to Carpenter’s Hall, or not, and that the 
 result of that consultation was, that your father 
 should go and apologise for my non-appear- 
 ance ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL: — I think you said your father went to 
 Carpenters’ Hall with some message ? Yes. ] 
 
 t d he go? Yes. How long did he |tay ? 
 
 lout half an hour. What evening was that?. 
 The 16th of August. Who w^as at home that 
 evening ? I was at home that evening. I was ' 
 in the surgery. Who was in the chapel that ' 
 night ? I don’t know. I did not go in. Do 
 you mean to say you have no means of telling 
 me how many there were there ? I don’t know, _ 
 sir. Whether four, or five, or twenty ? I don’t 
 know. How do you know there were any 
 persons there on the night of the 16th? 
 Because. I heard a few persons pass the sur- 
 gery window. What time did they go in ? 
 About six or seven o’clock. What time did they 
 staiy ? I don’t know. Did you see them Come 
 out again ? No, I went to bed about ten o’clock . 
 Did they remain there till you went to bed ? 
 Yes. Then, when you went to bed, you left- 
 th^se persons in the chapel ? Yes. Wa^s it; 
 lighted up ? Yes. Now, I beg to ask Mr, 
 Scholefield — you are a young man — Now, upon 
 your oath, did you not know any one who was 
 in ;,that chapel that night ? None, except Mr. 
 O’Connor. How came he to be there ? He was 
 in pur house, and he went into the chapel. . Who 
 furjnisbed the candles ? I don’t know, unless it 
 wa^ my brother. Is he here?. No, sir. What 
 tipqe did Mr, O’Connor go into the Chapel ^ 
 
310 
 
 When my father went to Carpenters’ Hall. What 
 time was that ? — It might he a little after seven 
 o’clock. And he remained there till you went to 
 bed at ten ? Yes. Well, you saw persons pass 
 the surgery window ? I say I heard them. I 
 did not say I saw them. How many passed ? 
 Five or six ? I dare say. Any more ? Not to 
 my knowledge. Do you mean to say that, upon 
 your oath, you believe there were less than ten 
 persons there ? I cannot say how many. I heard 
 a few pass, but how many I cannot tell. What 
 time did they pass ? About seven or eight o’clock. 
 You cannot tell how many? No, sir. There 
 might be a dozen ? There might, for anything I 
 know of. Your father, you say, returned from 
 Carpenters’ Hall in half an hour? Yes. And 
 where did he go then ? He went to the surgery. 
 Did he remain there with you ? Yes, sir. He 
 never went ^nto the chapel that evening ? No. 
 What time did your father go to bed, or did you 
 leave him sitting up ? I left him in the surgery. 
 Were you at Carpenters’ Hall? No, sir. You 
 did not go there at all ? No. Did you see any- 
 thing of the Executive Placard anywhere ? Not 
 till I saw it in the streets a few days afterwards. 
 Did you see it afterwards — You say this was on 
 Wednesday the 17th ? No, sir, I did not see it 
 afterwards. Not anywhere ? No. Can you un- 
 dertake to swear that you never afterwards saw 
 any copies of it whatever ? No, not till the 
 Thursd^. Did you happen to go by Leach’s ^ 
 No, sir. That was out of the way you were likely 
 to go ? Yes, sir. Did any man come to your 
 father’s during the meeting in the chapel, on the 
 17th, with any information of Turner’s being 
 arrested ? No. Then I presume I may ask you, 
 did you know that during the meeting of Wed- 
 nesday, that Turner, the printer of that placard, 
 had been arrested ? No, sir ; I did not. I never 
 heard of him. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Not on the 17th. 
 
 ' WITNESS No, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Do you re- 
 collect your father going into the chapel to make 
 any communication to the people assembled 
 there ? He went in ^bout four o’clock. Did 
 any body come and give your father information ? 
 Not that I know of, sir. I was in the school 
 the whole day. And probably you would not 
 know what persons came to your father’s ? No, 
 sir. Are you aware who would know what per- 
 sons came, and what information would be con- 
 veyed to your father? No, sir. Would, your 
 brother ? He would be with me in the school. 
 Where was your father ? He might be in the 
 surgery. Then suppose any person came to 
 communicate that information to your father’ 
 
 who would open the door? Any body that 
 wanted to speak to him might go into the sur- 
 gery and speak to him. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You say it was at five o’clock 
 Mr. O’Connor wanted your father to go to Car- 
 penters’ Hall ? There was a discussion about 
 whether he should go at that time. How long 
 after that was it when your father went ? About 
 three-quarters of an hour. 
 
 Mr. COBBETT I don’t know whether your 
 Lordship has it, that it was about six, or half-past 
 six, his father went to Carpenters’ Hall. 
 
 The JUDGE:— About seven. 
 
 JOHN NORTHCOTE, examined by Mr.GOB- 
 BETT : — What is your name? John Northcote. 
 Are you a servant to Mr. Kiernan, the printer? 
 Yes. Where does he live? At No. 5, George 
 Leigh-street, Manchester. Do you recollect him 
 printing bills in August last, for Mr. Scholefield 
 the defendant ? Yes. 
 
 A bill, of which the following is a copy, was 
 put into the hands of witness : — 
 
 “ PROCESSION AND MEETING PROHI- 
 BITED BY THE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 “ The committee for the erection of Hunt’s 
 monument respectfully informs the public, that, 
 in consequence of the very unexpected excite- 
 ment of the town of Manchester and its vicinity, 
 llcasioned by the ‘ Turn-out for an advance of 
 wages,’ they have decided that the procession, 
 as announced in former bills, for the 16th of 
 August, 1842, ‘ will not take place,’ lest it should 
 give an opportunity to increase that excitement, 
 the odium and consequences of which have been 
 attempted to be fixed on the Chartist body. 
 
 “ The tea-party and ball, as by former bills, 
 wiU take place in the evening at Carpenters’ 
 Hall. 
 
 “ N.B. A number of very neat China models 
 of the monument have arrived, and will be ex- 
 posed for sale on that day, at from one shilling 
 and four-pence to one shilling and sixpence 
 each, the profits of which are for the funds of 
 the monument. 
 
 “JAMES SCHOLEFIELD, Chairman.” 
 Do you recollect any of those bills being sent 
 to Mr. Scholefield? Yes. Who took them? 
 The younger Mr. Scholefield took a few of them 
 before seven o’clock on the morning of the 
 17th. Who took the rest ? I rather think it was 
 the poster. I took some up myself. At what time? 
 From ten o’clock to half-past. Did you see the 
 elder Mr. Scholefield ? Yes, Did you see him 
 early in the morning or not ? I saw him at half- 
 
311 
 
 'past five o’clock, as nearly as I can remember 
 Where did you see him ? At the office door.. 
 What was he doing there? He came with an 
 order for my master to print 500 bills prohibiting 
 the meeting and procession that were to take 
 place that day. Did you hear Mr. Scholefield 
 expressing a wish to have them down early ? 
 He appeared anxious to have them out soon. 
 Do you know whether the quantity ordered was 
 sufficient in the ordinary way, to post the town ? 
 Yes, doubly sufficient. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — Look at that and tell me whether your 
 master printed that : — [The following placard is 
 handed to witness : — 
 
 RUN FOR GOLD. 
 
 “ Run for gold . — Labour is suspended ; public 
 credit is shaken ; paper is worthless ; run for 
 gold. Every sovereign is now worth thirty shil- 
 lings. Paper cannot be cashed. Run, middle 
 class men, trades, odd-fellows, sick clubs, money 
 clubs, to the savings banks and all banks for 
 gold ! gold ! ! gold ! ! !”J Yes. How many did he 
 print? I believe 300 was the amount of the 
 order. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That placard 
 is in evidence, my Lord. [To witness] When 
 was that printed ? — Was it printed before or after 
 Mr. Scholefield’s ? It was printed before Mr.- 
 Scholefield’s. It was printed on the Monday. 
 That would be Monday the 15th or the 8th ? I 
 cannot tell which, but I am sure it was printed 
 on the Monday. Was it printed before the peo- 
 ple marched to Manchester ? No, sir. Then I 
 dare say you can fix the date very clearly ? I be- 
 lieve it would be printed the day before Mr. 
 Scholefield got the others printed. Who ordered 
 it ? I cannot say. Who came for them. I saw 
 either three or four posters with them, but I can- 
 not swear to them. The bill posters came for 
 those[bills ? Yes, sir. Very good. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. COBBETT : — I believe 
 your master prints all kinds of bills and pla- 
 cards ? Yes. And sometimes a number of va- 
 rious kinds of placards are printed during the 
 same week? 0 yes, sir, there might be half a dozen 
 of different sorts of placards printed in one week. 
 
 JOHN BROOK examined by Mr. COBBETT : 
 —What is your name ? John Brook. Are you 
 a relation of Mr. Scholefield ? Yes, a brother-in- 
 law. I married his sister. What is your busi- 
 ness generally ? A cabinet maker. Were you, 
 in last August, at work for Mr. Scholefield on his 
 premises ? Yes, Were you there cn ~the 16th j 
 
 And 17th of August Yes. What sort of busi- 
 ness W'ere you about ? Joiner’s work and paint- 
 ing. Were you in his house on the 17th ? Yes, 
 in the house, and about the premises. Did you 
 observe how Mr. Scholefield was engaged that 
 day, or the greater part of it ? Yes, I went into 
 his surgery for instructions concerning the work. 
 Had you any gates to paint for him ? Yes, sir. 
 Whereabouts are they situated ? In the low'er 
 yard. Whereabouts are those gates situated — in 
 the front or back part ? In the back part. Is there 
 an upper yard and a lower one ? Yes. Was it 
 in the back yard, or burying ground, that you 
 were? They are all three burying grounds. There 
 are three yards, and there are gates between the 
 upper and lower ones ; and I was painting those 
 gates all the day. Was the chapel situated be- 
 tween those gates and the house ? Yes. While 
 so engaged painting the gates, did you see any- 
 thing of Mr. Scholefield ? Yes, I saw him seve- 
 ral times. He came down to me while I w'as 
 painting those gates. Can you tell in what di- 
 rection he came to you ? — was it through the 
 chapel, or how' ? He did come, sir : — Do you 
 know that he came through the chapel ? Yes, 
 through the chapel, from the surgery. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. O’CONNOR: — Well, 
 Brook, were you at work at Mr. Scholefield’s on 
 the 16th. Yes. At W'hat hour ? On the 16(fli I was 
 there soon after five o’clock. Do you recollect 
 me arriving there ? Yes, I recollect Mr. O’Con- 
 nor coming. — You are a gentleman, I see. Do 
 you recollect me waiting till Mr. Scholefield 
 arrived from the printer’s ? Yes, I opened the door 
 for you to come in. I believe you did not expect 
 me ? No. Do you recollect my going to bed ? 
 Yes. About what hour ? Soon after six, I think, 
 sir, as near as I can recollect. Do you recollect 
 at what hour I was called ? I heard you telling 
 Mr. Scholefield that you did not wish to be cal- 
 led till three o’clock in the afternoon. Are you 
 aware that Mr. Scholefield has a raven ? Yes. 
 Do you know that it is a common practice for 
 that raven to be brought in through the chapel to 
 be fed ? No, sir, it is a jackdaw, not a raven. 
 Well, it is the biggest jackdaw I ever saw. 
 But do you know Ralph the raven? Yes. 
 Well, then, I suppose you call him a jack- 
 daw ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— Not the 
 raven. 
 
 WITNESS : — Mr. Scholefield has a jackdaw 
 and a raven. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Well, I mistook the 
 raven for the jackdaw — which is the conspirator ? 
 (Laughter.) Do you know a man named 
 
312 
 
 Griffin ? 1 do, sir. Do you recollect any time 
 when Mr. Scholefield, out of charity, gave him 
 some work to do ? Yes. When you were at 
 work with Griffin had you any conversation 
 about me ? Yes, repeatedly. Now, did I ever 
 speak a word to you in my life till you came up 
 to me at the station on Wednesday ? No. Had 
 you any conversation with me about this ? What 
 about the trial ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :-Yes. 
 
 WITNESS : — No, I never had any conversa- 
 tion with you since you spoke to me on the 16th 
 of August.' Well, what did Griffin say to you 
 about losing his situation ? He said he lost it, 
 and did not know what for. He said he would 
 walk into you, and be revenged on you. I said— 
 “ You cannot upon Mr. O’Connor, man.” — He 
 said, “ But I can, and you will be surprised when 
 you hear it.” When was this ? It was in August. 
 In the beginning of August ? Yes ; we were then 
 painting Scholefield’s chapel. Was this before I 
 arrived in Manchester } Yes. How long before ? 
 Weeks before. I cannot remember how long. 
 But you heard him say he would walk into me, 
 and be revenged of me ? Yes. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Now, Mr. 
 Brook, go home and feed the raven and the jack- 
 daw, and take care you feed the right one. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — The conspirator! — 
 (Laughter.; 
 
 WITN|!SS : — Are we to make a distinction 
 between them, sir ? 
 
 JOHN COCKSHOTT, examined by Mr. COB- 
 BETT : — What are you ? I am a butcher in Man- 
 Chester. D© you know Mr. Scholefield the de- 
 fendant ? Yes. Were you at his house, on the 
 1 7th of August last ? I was. At what time of 
 the day was it ? From ten till eleven o’clock in 
 the morning. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR What day? 
 
 Mr. COBBETT : — The 17th of August last 
 between ten and eleven in the. morning. [To 
 witness] What time did you go to Mr. Schole- 
 field’s ? Between 10 and 1 1 o’clock. For some 
 medicine for one of your family ? Yes. Did you 
 see Mr. Scholefield ? Yes. WTiere ? In his sur- 
 gery. Can you tell me what he was about ? He 
 had a few patients in, that he was giving bottles 
 of medicine to. Did you perceive him doing 
 anything else'? Yes, there were some people beg- 
 ging tickets of him for soup. Did you see him 
 giving any tickets to any of them ? I did, sir.' 
 Now do you happen to know where those tickets 
 that he was distributing came from ? Do you 
 know any charitable persons in Manchester who 
 give charity in that way ? — 
 
 The ATtORNEY-GENlERAL We may as- 
 sume that, my lord. 
 
 HENRY HOLLAND, examined by Mr. O’ 
 CONNOR: — What are you, Mr. Holland? I am 
 a block cutter to calico printers at Burnley, and 
 I also keep a temperance coffee house. Are you 
 a temperance man yourself? I am sir; I am ia 
 the 5th year of teetotalism. Previous to August- 
 last were tlie working men in a state of great ex- 
 citement in consequence of the factories work- 
 ing short time ? Yes. In consequence of that, 
 was there great excitement among all classes ? 
 Yes. Can you say of your own knowledge, that, 
 in consequence of that excitement, there was 
 strong apprehension of danger ? Yes. Do you 
 remember many public meetings of an exciting 
 nature about that time ? There was, sir. Now, 
 sir, do you remember making any communica- 
 tion to me in consequence of that excitement — 
 about the latter end of July, or the beginning of • 
 August — at all events about the 26th of July, 
 when the Attorney-General said there was a 
 meeting at Mottram moor? Yes. Do you re- 
 member having Communicated with me 
 as to the state of the district? I dd*- Did 
 you request me to go down, and endeavour 
 to allay the angry feelings that existed ? I did. 
 One of the defendants now in Court (Beesley,) 
 and myself, met together, in consequence of 
 the excited state of the neighbourhood, and 
 agreed to write to you, requesting you to come 
 down as soon as you possibly could to allay the 
 excitement then existing in the neighbourhood. 
 On your oath, did I go down as soon afterwards 
 as possible ? Yes. Did you attend a meeting 
 I addressed on that occasion? I did, sir, at 
 Burnley, and at Colne. Were these meetinga 
 large ? Y'es. And numerously attended by all 
 classes of the town? Yes. Now, sir, upon 
 your oath, what was the general tendency of 
 my addresses j both at Burnley and Colne ? '^ 
 They were calculated to allay the excitement. 
 Was there some damage done to the mills 
 before I went down ? There was, sir. There 
 was a mill burned before you went down. I 
 suppose it was the work of an incendiary. Pla- 
 cards were published, and distributed, offering 
 a reward for the discovery of the perpetrator of 
 the crime. Did ray speech tend to expose the 
 aljomination and wickedness of such practices ? 
 
 It did. Did I not'refer to that fact, and express 
 detestation of it ? You did, most emphatically. 
 Did not I tell the people that the way to 
 
313 
 
 impede the progress of the Chaflgf Was to com- 
 mit violence of that hind ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Lord, 
 
 I object to that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Well, I will ask it hi 
 another way. I am afraid I am going to alarm 
 you now. Was there a meeting of the shop- 
 Tceepers and middle classes ? Yes, a public 
 meeting, called by public advertisement. At 
 that meeting were all the points of the Charter 
 adopted ? They were, sir. Unanimously agreed 
 to by the meeting of shopkeepers ? Yes, una- 
 nimously agreed to. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — [To the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral.] What do you think of that ? [To the 
 witness.] Were all the points of the Charter 
 adopted ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:-! object 
 to that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — ^Were the military and 
 police sent out to repress violence ? Yes. I ask 
 whether or no my addresses at Colne went to 
 alla^ the angry feelings of all classes ? They did, 
 sir, most effectually. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — When did the meeting at Burnley take 
 place ? I don’t exactly remember the date, but I 
 remember the circumstance very well. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Was it with reference to the 
 strike? Witness : —The meeting at Burnley was 
 not with reference to the strike. 
 
 The ATffORNEY-GENERAL:-! want to 
 "know .the time. Do you remember any event 
 that happened in the month of August ? — Do you 
 remember any procession going to Manchester ? 
 No, except on ordinary business. Did you hear 
 x)f the strike and a procession going there ? 0,1 
 heard of that. I heard tell of those things. 
 How long before that was the meeting ? — I don’t 
 mind the exact time — was it before or after the 
 strike ? O, it was before. Where was the meet- 
 ing at Burnley held ? There were two meetings. 
 How naany people were there ? One of them was 
 out of doors. There might be 15000 or 20000 
 persons at it. There was also a meeting in a 
 tent erected for the purpose. Was it on Mon- 
 day ? It was. Was it in the month of August or 
 July ? I rather think it would be in the latter 
 end of June. How far is Burnley from Man- 
 chester ? Twenty-four miles. In what direction ? 
 — Is it in the direction towards Yorkshire or 
 Liverpool ? Towards Liverpool. Is not Colne a 
 little beyond Burnley ? Yes, about six miles. 
 And is not Burnley north of Manchester ? Y'es. 
 Did people come to Burnley from all parts round 
 during the strike ? No. To this meeting? O, 
 there came people from the neighbourhood, but 
 
 not from any great distance. Did the Colne 
 people come there ? Yes, but very few. Did they 
 come from Bacup ? Yes, I believe they came 
 from Bacup. When was the Colne meeting 
 held ? The day following the meeting at Burnley. 
 Holy came you to go there ? I went to hear Mr. 
 O’Connor speak : I took an interest in the pro- 
 ceedings. What connection have you with Colne ? 
 No more than my anxiety at the time to allay 
 the anxiety. It was that which induced me to be 
 present. How many people were there to allay 
 the anxiety ? A great many. Where was the 
 meeting held ? In the Peace Hall, which was the 
 largest room in the town. Did any one go with 
 you to that meeting?— Do you knowBeesley? 
 Yes. Was he at the Colne meeting ? Yes. Any- 
 where else ? Ackrington. How far is that from 
 Burnley ? Five and a half miles. "What is 
 Beesley ? He is a chair maker. Do you know 
 whether he was elected a delegate ? — Where 
 to ? To Manchester. To some conference ? 
 O, I only know it by hearsay. Do you know 
 it from him ? No. But he lives at Ackrington, 
 and he came to this meeting at Burnley ? Yes, t 
 quiet things, and he did all he possibly could. 
 
 The JUDGE:— To do what? Witness:— 
 To allay the excitement then existing. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Was notice 
 given of the holding of that meeting ? Yes 
 Did you assist in giving notice of it ? I did. 
 And then you went on to Colne the next day ? 
 Yes, along with a few friends. How many were 
 there with you ? Five. We hired a car, and 
 went in it. Are you a delegate of any kind ? I 
 am no delegate. Then you had no public busi- 
 ness to go there ? Had you ? Witness : — What 
 to Colne? Yes? No, no further than the interest 
 I took in it. Are these the only meetings you at- 
 tended? Yes. Did you attend any meetings in Au- 
 gust? Where? At Marsden. It lies beween Burn- 
 ley and Colne. When was that meeting held — 
 during the strike, I suppose, and the object of it 
 was to quiet things ? The object of it was to 
 quiet things, and they did all they possibly 
 could to quiet things. Where you at a meeting 
 at Pendle-hill at any time? Yes. Now, are 
 these three meetings the only meetings you ever 
 attended? During my life? No, no, du- 
 ring this time? Yes. You were not at any 
 meetings at Blackburn, or any of those other 
 places where meetings were held ? No. 
 
 Sir THOMAS POTTER examined by Mr 
 O’CONNOR : - Sir Thomas, you are a magistrate, 
 residing in Manchester? I reside at Buile-hill, 
 
314 
 
 ber the excitement that took place in Manchester 
 in August last ? Yes. You were mayor last year, 
 Sir Thomas? No; I was mayor during the two 
 years 1839-40 and 1840-41. Sir Thomas, what 
 was the general character of that excitement; 
 which I would rather that you would describe 
 to his Lordship, than put you to the trouble of 
 answering questions ?— What was the deport- 
 ment of the people, the cause of it, in your opi- 
 nion ; the general character ? I conceive the ge- 
 neral character of it, in the first instance, was’ 
 a strike for higher wages. The people, when they 
 came from Ashton and assembled in Manchester, 
 commenced by turning out the mills ; the hands 
 themselves seemed quite willing ; in most cases 
 there was no force used ; at least I don’t re- 
 collect hearing of any. About what time. Sir 
 Thomas, did the angry excitement begin to ter- 
 minate ? Upon my word, I don’t know. Oh, 
 about ? I think they did not return to work 
 generally for a month. Not generally to work 
 for a month, because it was a strike for wages. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No ; he did 
 not say that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Are you aware, Sir Tho- 
 mas, that a procession w^as to take place in 
 Manchester on the 16th of August last? Yes. 
 Are you aware of the reasons why that proces- 
 sion w’as abandoned ? Yes, I believe I am. 
 Then will you state them ? I believe the magis- 
 strates informed some of the parties, I rather 
 think Mr. Scholefield, that the procession would 
 not be allowed ; and he at once stated, that he 
 would do every thing in his power to put a stop 
 to it, as I understood. I was at the Town-hall, 
 hut I was not one of the magistrates to whom he 
 applied. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then you don’t know any- 
 thing about it. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now, during that time, 
 during the strike, what was the deportment of 
 the people generally? I consider it was very 
 peaceable. Now, Sir Thomas, I believe you 
 know the disposition and character of your 
 townsmen and neighbours well ? Yes, I 
 think I do. Do you remember processions 
 taking place on the 16th of August previ- 
 ously ? Yes, 1 have heard of them. Npw, do 
 you, in your own recollection, remember a more 
 quiet 16 th of August than the last ? Certainly not. 
 I believe you met with an accident about that 
 time, or a little before, from your gig ? I think 
 some time before ; in June, Can you recollect, 
 
 shortly after that, Pilling and another waiting on 
 you. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You met with an accident in 
 June? Witness Yes, coming from Buile Hill 
 to Manchester. I met with that accident I think 
 about six weeks before the strike. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — After that do you recol- 
 lect two men calling on you ? Witness : — I recol- 
 lect two operatives \vaiting on me ; but I dp not 
 recollect their names. But about the period of 
 the strike, do you recollect those two men cal- 
 ling upon you? Yes. Do you recollect the ob- 
 ject of their visit ? Yes. What was it ? They 
 stated to me, that several manufacturers were 
 paying very low wages, much lowxr than others, 
 and they were exceedingly anxious for an expla- 
 nation. Well, now ; did they ask for your ser- 
 vices in any way ? Yes, they did. In what way 
 did they wish you to interfere ? They wished me 
 to try to procure a meeting. Between themselves 
 and their masters ? Yes, between them and their 
 masters. I think, Sir Thomas, you stated, that 
 you were actively engaged at the Town Hfll, in 
 the discharge of your duties as a magistrate ? 
 Yes, I did. 
 
 The JUDGE : — During the period of the turn- 
 out ? Yes, my Lord ; for six or seven weeks, the 
 magistrates were there entirely. 
 
 Mr O’CONNOR : — Do you recollect a police- 
 man named Ilindley making any report to the 
 magistrates on the 16th or 17th of August? 
 [The Judge read his notes, which sifowed that 
 Robert Bell was the policeman referred to.] 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — That was the man. Wit- 
 ness : — Yes. I recollect a man coming to the po- 
 lice ofiice, and giving information to the effect 
 his lordship has stated. — Did you think it neces- 
 saiy to take any precautions? No, I don’t know 
 that I did. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Made a report to what effect ? 
 That ^Ir. O’Connor had arrived that morning. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, Sir Thomks, what 
 impression did the conduct of the people leave 
 upon the authorities ; the people I mean on 
 strike ? Why, the impression was, I think, that 
 the people were peaceably inclined ; but they had 
 proceeded to acts of violence in turning out mills, 
 and prevented some individuals from working 
 who were disposed to work. — From your autho- 
 rity and long knowledge of Manchester, can 
 you speak as to the condition of the working 
 classes at that period ? Yes, I think I can give 
 some account of it. I think that they were in 
 a very deplorable condition, in consequence o 
 
315 
 
 the high price of provisions, and the low rate of 
 wages. Well, taking their deplorable condition, 
 in consequence of the high price of provisions, 
 and the low rate of wages, into consideration, 
 whether do you think their conduct was praise- 
 worthy or otherwise ? Was it, or was it not, the 
 admiration of the authorities ? 
 
 The JUDGE ; — I really don’t like to interpose 
 in this matter, but really I think it is not right 
 to ask the question. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Very well, I shall not 
 press the matter further, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — You are one of the magistrates ? Y"es, a 
 borough magistrate as well as a county magis 
 trate. I think we have already got it that the 
 magistrates issued a proclamation ? Yes. A sort 
 of joint proclamation ? Yes, we issued a procla- 
 mation in conjunction. M'^hat number of special 
 constables were sworn in in Manchester ? I don’t 
 just recollect. You can give me some notion of 
 the number — how many scores or hundreds ? 
 At what period do you mean ? At any time af- 
 ter the 7th or 8th of August, down to the 16th 
 or 1 7th. I don’t know that I can speak with 
 any degree of certainty, but I should think about 
 500. Do you know how many troops were in 
 Manchester ? We had, during the first week, 
 about 500 ; but a deputation of the magistrates 
 waited upon the Secretary for the Home De- 
 partment, and we had a considerable reinforce- 
 ment. How many ? I cannot say. V^hen did 
 you apply for more ? The deputation went off 
 on the Saturday. What Saturday ? 
 
 The JUDGE:— The 13th,’ Witness No, 
 my Lord — I think it was Saturday — wait — 
 Tuesday was the 9th. Yes, I think it was Sa- 
 turday the 13th. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL How many 
 more did you get? I really cannot tell, ex- 
 actly ; we had a detachment of the guards, 
 and some cavalry ; perhaps about 1500, 
 but I cannot speak with accuracy. I want 
 no particular accuracy. Was it beyond 1500 
 altogether ? I think so. Did you your- 
 self personally attend as a magistrate at the 
 Town Hall ? Oh, yes. Are you able to tell 
 me whether the magistrates attended day and 
 night. Yes ; I can tell you, that they attended day 
 and night ? For how long ? Oh, I think it was 
 three or four weeks. Two or three magistrates 
 were lodged at the adjacent hotel — indeed, next 
 door — in readiness to be called up at any hour. 
 How many wrecks? I think it would be full 
 
 four weeks. Where was the commander-in- 
 chief of the district at the time ? He was at 
 the York Hotel, close by the Town Hall. Wliere 
 the magistrates were in attendance ? Yes. Did 
 the special constables attend at the Town Hall ? 
 Yes. Day and night ? I don’t know whether 
 they were all night, though I think they were. 
 Was there not a relay of them relieving each 
 other, so that there should be a party in constant 
 attendance day and night ? I believe there was. 
 For how long ? For at least a month. Did you 
 see anything of what occurred in Manchester on 
 Tuesday the 9th, and Wednesday the 10th of 
 August ? On Tuesday the 9th, I was at my 
 warehouse the whole of the day, but I heard of 
 these things. — I don’t want to know. Sir Thomas, 
 what you heard, I want to know whether you 
 saw any thing of the state of Manchester, the 
 public streets, the shops, and warehouses, during 
 those two days ? I saw nothing particular on 
 the 9th. On Wednesday there seemed to be 
 a great deal of excitement. Were not all the 
 shops shut ? I don’t think many of the shops 
 were shut on the Wednesday. Then were they 
 on the Tuesday or the Thursday ? No, certainly 
 not, on the Tuesday. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I thought you said you were 
 in the warehouse all the Tuesday ? So I was, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then you don’t know ? Wit- 
 ness : — I believe the shops were not shut up, but 
 I don’t know of my own knowledge. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! want to 
 know whether you were present at any of the 
 violence, or at the stoppage of any of the mills ? 
 No, I was not ; I was the oldest magistrate, 
 and they kept me principally at the Town Hall, 
 with the exception that I once went at the head of 
 the troops to the railroad. What was that for ? 
 We heard that they were attempting to destroy the 
 railroad. A troop of cavalry was called out, and 
 I went with them ; but another magistrate soon 
 came and relieved me. I suppose you went for the 
 purpose of authorising the firing of the troops, if 
 necessary ? Yes. What time did that happen ? 
 I don’t know ; but I think it must have been a 
 week after. Do you remember the day of the 
 week ? I don’t. It could not be Tuesday the 9th 
 or Wednesday ? Oh, no ; it was not that week, 
 but the following. And did you go with the 
 troops ? Yes. How many ? There was a troop 
 of horse, about forty I suppose. And have you 
 no recollection. Sir Thomas ? Don’t understand 
 me, that, in putting the question, I have any 
 other feeling than the greatest respect ; you can- 
 not imagine that I have any other feeling? 
 
316 
 
 Oh, certainly not. But you cannot tell what day 
 you went with the forty troopers to protect the i 
 railway ? I really cannot ; it was some time the 
 following week. Who had the command of the 
 troops in Manchester ? Do you mean when the 
 reinforcements came? Yes. Sir Thomas Ar- 
 buthnot and Sir William Warre, Now, I want 
 to know, whether you were present at any meet- 
 ing of the magistrates when any persons came to 
 demand or to request assistance ? Yes ; I believe 
 I was. Were you present at any time when the 
 magistrates advised them to stop their works for 
 the present, and not to make any resistance, or 
 anything of that sort ? Yes ; I think there was a 
 general advice of that sort given. There was a 
 general advice given not to resist ? Yes. Why 
 was that advice given, sir ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I have no objection, my 
 Lord, to the fullest developement of the case ; 
 but is this evidence ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Then I 
 
 will ask it. I will put it plump to him. Was 
 not the state of the to^ such that you did not 
 dare to advise the parties to resist ?— Were you 
 not afraid of bloodshed and tumult ? Witness : — 
 Individually, I was never afraid. I don’t impute 
 to you personal fear, sir ; but I ask you, whether 
 the town was not in that state that the magis- 
 trates advised them to yield to the mob, in order 
 to prevent tumult and confusion ? Why, the fact 
 is, they had no difficulty ; for the parties seemed 
 quite ready to be turned out, or to turn-out. 
 There was no force necessary, that is very well 
 known. Come, Sir Thomas, that is no answer to 
 my question. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR; — I dare say it is not the 
 one you wanted. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — You were 
 telling me you were present when the people came 
 for assistance, and they were advised not to resist. 
 
 I ask you, why was that advice given ? I can- 
 not say why. I recollect a young man came, 
 asking advice whether he should fise upon the 
 mob. He said he had cannon, and could destroy 
 so many ; and I know' we advised him to do no 
 such thing. ^ Did not you or the magistrates re- 
 commend the persons not to resist the attempts 
 of the mob ? I don’t remember any particular 
 recommendation ; but I know it was our opinion, 
 that it was better not to resist. And was it not 
 to prevent bloodshed ? 1 think not. I don’t think 
 that the magistrates were at all imder the influence 
 of fear. Then will you tell me, why you recom- 
 mended them not to resist ? I believe, in some 
 cases, as at Mr. Birley’s mill, they did resist ef- 
 fectually. Was that any reason why you should 
 recommend them not to resist ? I don’t know 
 whether we did recommend them not to resist. 
 VMiy, sir, I ask you whether, at every mill that 
 
 effectually resisted, was not the advice by the 
 magistrates to give up resistance? Not in my 
 hearing ; certainly not. Do you remember 
 Messrs. Stirling and Beckton making an appli- 
 cation ? I was not present when they made any, 
 though I believe they did make one. 
 
 M. O’CONNOR That will do. Sir Thomas. 
 ALDERMAN GEORGE BOYLE CHAP- 
 PELL, examined by Mr. O’CONNOR I be- 
 lieve, Mr. Chappell, you are one of the oldest 
 manufacturers in Manchester ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are an Alderman of Man- 
 chester? Witness: — Yes. [To Mr. O’Connor.] 
 I have been for more than fifty years an inhabi- 
 tant of Manchester, though not the place of my 
 nativity. Do you remember, about the time of 
 the turn-outs, your mill being stopped ? Yes. What 
 were the circumstances attending it when your 
 hands tumed-out ? Witness . — My Lord, is ver- 
 bal communication from me, as a principal, evi- 
 dence ; because I was not at the mill when the 
 hands turned-out ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — But you know your mill was 
 stopped, because you went there and found it 
 stopped ; that is all you know of your own know- 
 ledge ? Witness : — Yes. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Now, Mr. Alderman 
 Chappell, having understood that your works were 
 stopped,was there anydamage done to your works ? 
 Not a vestige. Was there any glass broke ? Not 
 a vestige. I understood, from the information 
 given to me, that they did not want to do any 
 injury to person or property, but demanded that 
 the hands should leave ; and I think that the 
 hands were quite as willing to leave as the men 
 who made the application desired that they should. 
 Now, after having been connected as an alderman, 
 and an authority, and a good master, with these 
 people for 50 years, w’hat was your impression of 
 the whole character of these disturbances ? There 
 are two Aldermen belonging to the township of 
 Chariton-upon-Medlock. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Wewill ask about them after- 
 wards, answer the question. Witness ? — I want 
 to make an explanation, to put myself in the 
 right place. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — His Lordship will put 
 you in the right place. Reply to the question. 
 
 I conceive myself, from what I saw in the pro- 
 ceedings in which I was engaged personally, that 
 the strike was for wages. Well, and what was the 
 conduct of the people under the circumstances— 
 their general conduct and behaviour ? I must 
 confess, after being in every mob for the last 
 fifty years in Manchester, I thought a better be- 
 haved and well disposed mobility I never saw 
 before— [Some manifestation of applause in the 
 Court.} 
 
 The JUDGE :— If there is any more noise I 
 
317 
 
 must have that place cleared. I give that no- 
 tice 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR (to the witness) : — On their 
 behalf I thank you, I am sure. Now, Mr. Al- 
 derman Chappell, from your knowledge of trade 
 for fifty years, and of the condition of the work- 
 ing classes, I ask what was their condition at the 
 period of which you are now speaking ? What 
 was their condition generally ? There had been a 
 general reduction from 1826 up to the present 
 week. I took an account from 1826 of the price 
 of food and the price of cotton, year by year, 
 and it brought me to the conclusion, that, at the 
 present moment, goods are just at one half the 
 price they were then, and cotton is only about 
 15 per cent less than it was at that period. 
 
 The JUDGE : — A general reduction of wages 
 from 1826 ? Witness My Lord, I said goods, 
 not wages. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He says, the reduction in 
 the raw material was only 15 per cent, as com- 
 pared with the prices in 1826, while the reduc- 
 tion in the manufactured article was one half. 
 Witness : — Yes. The price in 1826 was two 
 shillings and two-pence ; yesterday, the same ar- 
 ticles were one shilling and three half-pence. 
 Then, Mr. Alderman Chappell, in consequence 
 of the depression in trade, the falling-off in pro- 
 fits of masters, was it impossible for the masters 
 to give the wages to the working men ? Cer- 
 tainly. . Then, was there a corresponding reduc- 
 tion in wages ? Wages must unquestionably have 
 been reduced; but still I think the depression 
 arose more from the unemployed living upon the 
 employed, than from any deficiency in wages. 
 Then, am I to understand, that, in consequence 
 
 of the small profits Witness ; — There have 
 
 been no profits at all, for three years. Then, a 
 vast number of operatives were turned out upon 
 the wide world ? Oh, unquestionably ; hundreds 
 of thousands. Mr. Alderman Chappell, can you 
 speak, of your own knowledge, from the neces- 
 sity imposed upon you of inquiring into the state 
 of your own working men, generally speaking, 
 was the destitution great amongst the operative 
 classes? Unquestionably, they had not a suffici- 
 ency, such as every Englishman would like to 
 see his neighbour fn^oy. Did you go as one of a 
 deputation to Sir Robert Peel, to inform him of 
 the state of your part of the country ? I must say, 
 that I am no member of the League, and never 
 was. I never subscribed sixpence to any politi- 
 cal institution in my life. I was requested by 
 the manufacturers to be one of a deputation to 
 represent the situation of the manufacturers and 
 workpeople at that moment. I thought it a duty 
 I owed to the town, having been so long in it, 
 and I went with them. Did you represent to 
 Sir Robert Peel, that there was danger in the 
 
 country, in consequence of the situation of the 
 working classes ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! should 
 be very sorry to interrupt, but really X must ob- 
 ject to that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — I ask the Attorney-Ge- 
 neral whether he will shut out this evidence ? 
 
 The JUDGE :— Then, I think, Mr. O’Con- 
 nor, that I shall be obliged to shut it out. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Really, my 
 Lord, it is impossible not to know that there 
 was great distress. It is abundantly proved in 
 the evidence already. 
 
 Mr, O’CONNOR : — Very well, then, I shall 
 not ask the question. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I have no 
 question to ask you, sir. 
 
 JAMES KERSHAW, Esq. examined by Mr* 
 O’CONNOR. 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are mayor of Manchester 
 now ? Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Mr. Kershaw, you were 
 a magistrate in August last, I believe? I was* 
 Have you resided long in Manchester ? All my 
 life. You have great interest in the preservation 
 of the peace ? I have. Can you speak, from 
 your own knowledge, of the transactions which 
 usually take place on the 16th of August, in 
 Manchester ? There has been usually a proces- 
 sion in Manchester on the 16th. Do you re- 
 collect the 16th of August in previous years ? 
 Vot very distinctly. Do you recollect the last 
 16th of August? I do. Do you recollect about 
 the time the magistrates issued a proclamation ? 
 
 I do. About what time was it, Mr. Mayor ? 
 
 I think on the Sunday before the 1 6th of Au- 
 gust. Do you recollect the Queen’s proclama- 
 tion succeeding it on the following day ? I do ; 
 
 I believe it was on the following day. In con- 
 sequence of the state of Manchester, and the , 
 knowledge of the magistrates that a procession 
 was to take place upon the 16th, did the ma- ^ 
 gistrates make any application to the active ■ 
 parties relating to that procession ? I believn 
 they did. In what spirit was that application 
 met by the parlies they made it to ? I believe it " 
 was immediately said, that the procession should* 
 not take place. I believe, Mr. Mayor, you are 
 a manufacturer, employing a number of hands ? 
 
 I am a calico printer. Were your works stopped? 
 They were. About what time ? I think on 
 Thursday, the 11th of August. Tuesday was 
 the 9th, on which the procession took place. — 
 Was there any damage done to your works? 
 None. Did the hands in your employment re- 
 quire any very great force to induce them to 
 
318 
 
 cease labour ? I believe my partner, who was at 
 the works, when he found the parties coming 
 up to insist upon them to desist from labour, 
 advised the hands to go out. Did your hands 
 go out willingly ? I believe they did. And no 
 damage whatever done ? No. From your know- 
 ledge of the previous 16th of August and the 
 last 16th of August, what was the general state 
 of the town, making allowances for the number 
 of idle people in consequence of the turn-out? — 
 What was the general state of Manchester on 
 the 16th of August last? It passed off much 
 more peaceably than was anticipated, and com- 
 paratively peaceable as having reference to other 
 days. Do you mean on the 13th, 14th, and 
 15th. Yes. Then, Air. Kershaw, as a magis- 
 trate, I believe that you and the magistrates 
 generally, did consider that the 9th, lOth, 11th, 
 12th, and so on, were the most disturbed days ? 
 I think they were. The greatest excitement ? 
 Yes, in point of turning out the mills. Now can 
 you speak from your own knowledge of business 
 as to the state of the working classes at that 
 period ? They were exceedingly distressed, no 
 doubt. And, considering their distress, was their 
 conduet good cr bad ? I think, speaking of them 
 generally and as a whole, as to the body of the 
 community, I think their conduct was good. 
 There were exceptions. Of course. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! have tRj- 
 thing to ask you, sir. Oh, yes ; where were 
 your works ? At Ardwick, near Alanchester. 
 How many miles off? Oh, about a mile from 
 the Exchange. How many persons came when 
 they requested your works should be stopped ? I 
 was not there. But you stated that your partner 
 advised your hands to go away ? I believe he told 
 me there was no large number ; eighty or one 
 hundred, but of that I am not sure. 
 
 SirRALPH PENDLEBURY:— Was next call- 
 ed, and not appearing, Mr. O’Connor said, that he 
 understood Sir Ralph was ill, and had sent a 
 medical certificate that he was not well enough 
 to attend. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I shall call no more 
 witnesses, my Lord, to prove the state of Man- 
 chester. 
 
 ISAAC CLARKE PRAY examined by Mr. 
 O’CONNOR: — Mr. Pray, were you, in August 
 last, the registered proprietor of the Evening 
 Star newspaper ? Yes. Do you recollect about 
 the latter end of August, the suppression of pub- 
 lic meetings in London, and throughout the Coun- 
 try ? Yes. About that period, who was the 
 editor of the Evening <S'^arnewspaper — about the 
 
 23rd of August ? Mr. O’Connor. Did I receive, 
 or would I accept, of any remuneration for my 
 services as editor ? Not a penny. Do you recol- 
 lect a notice being advertized in the newspaper 
 to the effect that my letters should be addressed 
 to the Evening Star office in the Strand. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— What are 
 
 you going to show ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — That all my letters, pri- 
 vate and public, were opened at the Evening 
 Star office. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-Isthat evi- 
 dence ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — My Lord, I am charged 
 with a conspiracy from the 1st of August to the 
 1st of September, and will evidence be shut out 
 to show that all my letters were addressed indis- 
 criminately to the Evening Star office ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think that evidence to show 
 that there was no disposition on his part to con- 
 ceal anything. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Now Mr. Pray, on your 
 oath, was it not your custom, as proprietor, to 
 open all letters addressed to the editor ? It was 
 not the custom for me, but for the sub-editor ; 
 but I have opened hundreds of letters marked 
 private. Nov/, sir, what was my general instruc- 
 tions with regard to the matter that should ap- 
 pear in the Evening Star relative to the state of 
 the country ? That we should keep everything as 
 quiet as possible, and that we should by no means 
 admit any matter in favour of th« strike, or of 
 the excitement. The strike and the excitement 
 were synonymous. Did you understand from the 
 general tenour of my conversation with you, that 
 I was anxious, or otherwise, to preserve, as far as 
 lay in my power, the peace of the country ? I 
 always thought it was Mr. O’Connor’s desire to 
 make the country as peaceable as possible, and I 
 always thought him sincere in it. Who was the 
 correspondent of the Evening Star then ? 
 Griffin. Did you give him orders to receive 
 payment in Manchester ? I did. Upon whom ? 
 Upon James Leach, who was one of our agents 
 at Manchester. He received a weekly salary 
 from him by my orders. Now, in consequence 
 of my orders to you, did you exclude some of his 
 matter from your paper? Yes, I considered some 
 of his matter so inflammatory, that I cut out much 
 of it, and sometimes I excluded it altogether. In 
 fact I considered that he wished to entrap me, 
 as proprietor of the paper. Do you recollect 
 having opened a letter written to me from Grif- 
 fin, requesting money from me to send him to 
 America to prevent his giving information against 
 me ? Yes. 
 
 The .ATTORNEY-GENERAL I object to 
 that. 
 
319 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — He cannot stop him now, 
 my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — He objected, although you 
 did not hear him. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE. 
 RAL ; — Is i\xQ Evening Star a daily paper ? Yes, 
 a London daily paper. What day did it begin ? 
 I think it was about the 16th of July. Mr. 
 O’Connor did not live at your office? No. 
 Where did he live ? I don’t know where he 
 lived. I presume he had a private residence in 
 London ? I presume he had. You cannot tell 
 whether all his letters came to the Evening 
 Star ? I cannot tell. He lived in London ; 
 he always came to the office and stayed there 
 during business hours. I don’t want to know 
 where he lived, or to intrude upon his privacy, 
 but do you know whether he lived in London, 
 or in the neighbourhood ? 1 presume he did. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, I wish you to 
 ask the witness whether the Evening Star was 
 not a paper that depended principally upon the 
 operative classes, in the manufacturing districts, 
 for support ? Witness : — Yes, the paper de- 
 pended chiefly on the operative classes and was 
 circulated extensively in Lancashire and the 
 neighbouring district. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, there are several 
 other authorities from Manchester, whom I re- 
 lease from their attendance here ; having gone 
 sufficiently into that evidence. 
 
 JAMES HALLIDAY, examined by Mr. 
 O’CONNOR: — I believe you are a manufac- 
 turer residing in Oldham ? A spinner, sir. A 
 cotton spinner ? Yes. How long have you 
 known me ? Since the contested election in 
 1835. Now, Halliday, have you, on various 
 occasions, and at different times, attended meet- 
 ings where I addressed the assembly ? Yes. 
 I believe, like others, you attended from cu- 
 riosity ? Not exactly so. Not exactly ; now' 
 Halliday, upon your oath, what has been the 
 general tendency of my addresses to the work- 
 ing classes ? Of course my answer will depend 
 upon the occasions. Upon every occasion did I 
 not enforce the necessity of preserving the 
 peace ? I never heard anything in any of your 
 addresses calculated to lead to a breach of the 
 peace. Have you, on various occasions, heard 
 me complain that roy motives and views were 
 grossly misrepresented, and that, in consequence 
 of misrepresentation, great prejudices were 
 created against me ? Yes, I have. Do you 
 recollect, at the time when the question of 
 
 j physical force was first mooted in the Chartist 
 ranks, my having any conversation with you, 
 and to what effect ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Mr. O’Con- 
 nor has a perfect right to get from any witness 
 the general impression of his character, but not 
 to refer to particular occasions. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — From your knowledge of 
 me for eight years do you think 1 would do any 
 think calculated to lead to a breach of the peace,, 
 through any pecuniary motive ? Am I an avarici- 
 ous man, a covetous man, or a generous man ? 
 Witness : — My Lord, in the addresses of Mr. 
 O’Connor, I always observed what I imagined to 
 be generosity, sincerity, great zeal, and very con- 
 siderable physical energy ; without, of course, 
 any reference to a breach of the peace ; and 
 certainly, I must say, I always heard him 
 deprecate every thing tending to a breach of the 
 peace. On several occasions I have heard him 
 giving addresses connected with electioneering 
 contests. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL you speak 
 yourself sometimes, don’t you ? Yes, sometimes. 
 
 TITUS S. BROOKE Jun., examined by Mr. 
 O’CONNOR : — Where do you live, Mr. Brooke ? 
 I live at Dewsbury. How long have you known 
 me as a public man ? For ten years ; personally 
 for six or seven, I have known you, during very 
 excited times. Has your neighbourhood 
 been, frequently, in a state of great excitement ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is your neighbourhood ? 
 Dewsbury. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR Have you heard several 
 addresses from me? Yes. What was the im- 
 pression which they were calculated to leave on 
 the minds of the people ? I have often heard you 
 exhort them to peace, and it is the impression of 
 the neighbourhood that you always exhorted 
 them to peace. Have they been led to believe 
 that my speeches, had the effect of promoting 
 peace ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL I object to 
 that. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Have you ever heard one 
 sentence escape my lips calculated to lead to a 
 breach of the peace? No. Do you think I use 
 the terms “ Peace, law, and order — 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! object to 
 this evidence ; it is open to Mr. O’Connor to 
 give testimony as to his character. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— Very well, Mr. Brooke , 
 what is my general character ? Among the work- 
 ing classes you are greatly admired. 
 
^20 
 
 ‘The JUDGE As a peaceable man ? Wit- 
 ness:— -Yes, my Lord. The middle classes doh^t 
 admire him. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — No; that shows their 
 taste. 
 
 The JUDGE : — What is your opinion of his 
 general character ? Witness : — That he is a 
 peaceable man. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Have you ever heard me 
 complain ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : - I object to 
 these complaints ; they are not evidence. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : — What are you ? A druggist ? 
 
 JOHN FARR, examined by Mr. O’CONNOR ; 
 
 — MTiere do you live ? In Port Robert, county 
 of Cork. You are my steward there? Yes. 
 How long have you lived in my family ? Thirty 
 years. You lived with ray father. Yes. With 
 my brother ? Yes. Did my brother leave you 
 anything for your good conduct? Yes, 10^. a 
 year. You have been my steward since ? Yes. 
 
 I believe I have been in the habit of standing 
 in the fields with my workinen, sometimes from 
 100 to 130, for nine or ten hours a day, for 
 years ? Yes. Now', from your knowledge of me, 
 
 <Jo you' think I am a violent, or peaceable man ? 
 
 I always knew you to be for peace. Do you re- 
 member the time of the outbreak in Cork ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember the resistance offered to the 
 magistrates and military there ? Yes. Do you 
 recollect my interference, and the people giving 
 op their arms to me, and my piling them in my 
 servants’ ball ? I do, sir. What was my conduct 
 to my labourers, and the poor in general ? You 
 built houses for your labourers and gave them 
 free, and ground with them. Did I knock down 
 mud cabins, and build stone houses for them ? 
 Yes. I charged no rent ? No. Did you pay the 
 wages every Saturday night ? Yes ; and you 
 raised the wages when the times got hard. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — My Lord, I am shewing 
 what my character is ; it is of importance to me 
 that there should be no mistake on that point. 
 The Attorney-General said I might be deriving 
 ^ome benefit from the Northern Star. Now^ I 
 am showing my character through life, which is 
 of great importance to me, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— I deny that 
 at once. I imputed no such personal motives to 
 Mr. O’Connor. ' 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— W^ell, that will do. [To 
 witness.] Did you ever know me to stop a single 
 day’s wages from a sick man, whether he was 
 working or not ? No, you paid him regularly the 
 same as the man that was working. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR My Lord, I Wis examiifa 
 ing this witness to meet what I thought an asser- 
 tion made by the Attorney-General, respecting 
 my motives. I was astonished at it because I 
 knew it to be so much at variance with my whole 
 character. That was the reason I examined the 
 w'itness in the way I did. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I never understood the At- 
 torney-General to impute any such motives to 
 you. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — I am happy to hear it, 
 my Lord. 
 
 SAMUEL CHAMBERS examined by JAMES 
 LEACH: — Do you live in Manchester? Yes. 
 Do you recollect being at my house on the 17th 
 of August ? I do. What time of the day was it ? 
 I was there about nine o’clock in the morning. 
 Do you recollect seeing me at home at that time ? 
 I do. I saw you go out. What time did you 
 see me leave home ? It might be half-past ten 
 o’clock. From that to eleven were you at my 
 house ? Yes. Were you frequently at my house 
 during the 17th of August? Y’’es. At different 
 times ? Yes. I don’t think I was an hour from 
 there during the whole of the day, from half-past 
 nine o’clock in the morning. Did I employ you 
 to make some repairs in my shop, and to make a 
 large board fora placard ? Yes. Do you recollect 
 seeing a placard on that board on the 17th ? Yes. 
 Would you know the placard if you were to see 
 it ? Yes. Is that the placard ? [Handing the wit- 
 ness the Executive Placard.] Yes. At what time 
 was it when you first saw it on the board ? About 
 eleven o’clock. Was that after I left home ? 
 Y^es. 
 
 The JUDGE:— After he left home? Wit- 
 ness: — Yes, my Lord; about an hour or two 
 after he left. He went out at half-past ten or 
 eleven, and I saw it after I came in. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It was not put on the board 
 till after he went out ? No, my Lord. 
 
 PAUL FAIRCLOUGH examined by JAMES 
 LEACH : — You live in Manchester ? Yes. 
 
 The JUDGE :— What are you ? A fruiterer 
 and polatoe dealer. 
 
 JAMES LEACH : — Do you live in Manches- 
 ter ? Yes sir. Do you frequently come to my 
 house? Ido. Were you there on the 17th of 
 August last ? I was. At what time ? Between 
 eleven and twelve o’clock in the forenoon. Do 
 you recollect seeing a person come and paste a 
 large placard on a board, at my door ? I do. 
 Would you know that placard now if you were to 
 see it ? I think I should. Just look at that pla- 
 card ? [Exhibiting the executive placard] Y'es, 
 that is it. I shoidd know it more by the appear- 
 ance than by anything else. That is the manner 
 
321 
 
 i‘ was headed. What time was that put up ? 
 About eleven o’clock. 
 
 The JUDGE Then Leaoh was not there at 
 that time? No, sir. 
 
 JAMES LEACH Was he a bill-poster who 
 put it up ? Yes. Was I at home at that time ? 
 
 The JUDGE : He says you were not. 
 
 LEACH Did you see me at home any por- 
 tion of that day ? No part of that day. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE- 
 RAL : Did the man who posted the placard go 
 inside the house ? No sir, he merely put the 
 placard on the board and went away. He did 
 not go into the shop at all ? No, sir. 
 
 JOHN ARDELL, examined by Mr. O’CON- 
 NOR : — I believe you are my clerk, and have 
 been so from the first day the Northern Star 
 was established ? Yes. Do you recollect, a short 
 time previously to the 16th of August last year, 
 any wood-cut being sent to the Northern Star 7 
 Yes, I recollect a wood-cut being sent by Griffin, 
 as secretary to the Hunt’s monument committee. 
 Do you recollect him saying that if you would 
 admit it, the committee would pay for it ? I can- 
 not recollect that. Do you remember another 
 wood-cut which appeared in the Star^ being paid 
 for in the beginning of June? I remember a 
 wood-cut was paid for somewhere about that 
 time, but I cannot recollect the exact date. I 
 have the date in my book. Where is your book ? 
 I have it here ; [witness produces the book and 
 reads] “ July 22nd, paid for a sketch of the 
 Manchester massacre, five shillings.” It was 
 furnished a fortnight before, and he, (Griffin,) 
 paid for it on the 22nd of July. Are you aware 
 that wood-cuts to represent the flogging of sol- 
 diers, &C. are frequently given in newspapers ? 
 Yes. Are you aware' that that wood-cut was 
 taken from one that was used before? Yes, I 
 have the original here, from which it was en- 
 graved. Have you ever had any communication 
 with me relative to the impossibility of meeting 
 my drafts upon you for the support of poor peo- 
 ple ? Yes, several times. Y’^ou received a gene- 
 ral account from Heywood, Cleave and other 
 large agents ?— And don’t you know that I have 
 paid, for Chartist purposes, upwards of Jwenty 
 pounds a week ? Yes, I have received such ac- 
 counts ; 1 know we have large sums to pay Mr. 
 Heywood, running on for weeks. Do you 
 not know that, on some occasions, I have 
 incurred that expense in relieving the families 
 of poor people who were incarcerated? Yes. 
 And sometimes the prisoners themselves ? 
 Yes. Now, have you not written to me some- 
 times saying that, in consequence of such liber- 
 ality, you were obliged to dishonour my drafts ? 
 Yes ; I have been obliged to dishonour your 
 
 drafts frequently, and latterly to stop them altd-» 
 gether, as we could not pay for stamps else* 
 During the time you were in York Castle, you 
 did not receive, but paid, money to 'Co&Northern 
 Star. Have not distressed operatives wishing 
 to start in business called on me, and did I 
 hot frequently give them a sovereign or two at a 
 time ? Yes. Did you ever know, during the 
 last five years, a man coming to me for money, 
 that my hand was not in my pocket to give it to 
 him ? I never knew a man to call for some, with- 
 out your giving it, or ordering me to give him 
 some. Have you attended many meetings where 
 I have been ? Very seldom. You did not take 
 any part in politics, I suppose ? Very little. 
 What is my generaU character ? I should think it 
 very far from anything inconsistent with peace. 
 Did you ever hear me denounced and complained 
 of by many parties, for stopping what might 
 have led to a disturbance or breach of the peace ? 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I again ob- 
 ject, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I think we may hear this. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR: — Have I the character of 
 stopping disturbances ? Witness : — Yes. Do we 
 pay large wages ? Yes, we pay as large wages as 
 any other printer of newspapers. Did I ever 
 stop the wages of a sick man ? No. Have you 
 not known some to be sick for years, and re- 
 ceiving their wages the same as those at work ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — My Lord, to complete 
 the evidence, there is a part of the Northern 
 Star of the 20th of August, which I relied upon, 
 and it was not read. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL Here is 
 the paper, my Lord, [Handing the Star up to 
 the Judge] in which the paragraph is. He 
 may read the paragraph, or it may be entered as 
 read. 
 
 Mr. ATHERTON : — Let it be entered as 
 read. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — Then I 
 must call your Lordship’s attention to some 
 other paragraphs in the same paper. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — Well, you may consider 
 them as read. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :— Very well, 
 it will save the time of the Court. 
 
 The following quotation from an article which 
 appeared in the Northern Star of the 20th of 
 August, was then put in by Mr. Atherton : — 
 
 ‘‘Our opinion on the means now used for its 
 attainmenCby the trades’ of Manchester was re- 
 gistered three years ago. That opinion has un- 
 dergone no change. A cessation from labour, to 
 be effectual to the carrying of any political object, 
 must be national and simultaneous : it cannot 
 then fail to be successful, because it indicates the 
 
322 
 
 nation’s will, against which, in its full strength, 
 whether positively, or thus negatively mani- 
 fested, no power can stand ; but a mere sec- 
 tional display of this most decisive of all the 
 forms of moral force, like a mere sectional dis- 
 play of physical resistance, is sure to be over- 
 powered by the strength of faction, consisting in 
 its immense wealth and its organized physical re- 
 sources. 
 
 If then the strike is to be a Chartist strike, 
 it must become universal : not merely Manches- 
 ter, but every town in England, Wales, and 
 Scotland, must at once— as one man and with one 
 Yoice — declare the purpose of the people to be 
 free ; and such a declaration will be, to those 
 whom it concerns, the fiat of omnipotence. But 
 if Manchester, or even Lancashire, sustain the 
 struggle singly, it will be unsuccessful, and, in all 
 probability, retard the movement it was meant 
 to hasten. Let the country see to this ; the men 
 of Lancashire have done nobly ; let their breth- 
 ren throughout the empire arouse; let them 
 speak out at once, like men, and say, ‘Yes’ or 
 ^No,’ to the great question of ‘shall we now 
 strike for the Charter ?’ No higgling— no hesita- 
 tion — no waiting : — 
 
 ‘ If, when done, ’twere well done, 
 
 Then, ’twere well it were done quickly.’ 
 
 “ Never, however, for one moment let it be 
 forgotten by any Chartist, that to be successful 
 they must be peaceful. They have a right to 
 strike, but they have no right to riot. They have 
 a right to work or not to work, but they have no 
 right to break windows, destroy property, or 
 burn factories. 
 
 Above all things, they have no right to insult, 
 annoy, or fight with the police force or the sol- 
 diery. Every hellish invention will be practised 
 to induce them to do this ; let the bridle be kept 
 tightly on their tempers and even on their 
 tongues : let them even patiently bear annoyance, 
 insult, and indignity ; resenting them only by the 
 calmness of a manly contfempt, the offspring of 
 a lofty purpose not be turned aside.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL put in the fol- 
 lowing paragraphs which appeared in the Nor- 
 thern Star of the same date 
 
 CHORLEY. 
 
 August 17. 
 
 “ About 8000 people entered Chorley, yesterday, 
 about eleven o’clock in the forenoon, principally 
 CoUiers by trade, and succeeded in stopping all 
 the works in less than two hours. A great num- 
 ber have gone to Preston this morning. All the 
 Wojjjg gje at a stand to-day ; none have dared to 
 
 start their mills, with the exception of Medcalf, 
 the manager for the estate of Dobson. A public 
 meeting took place last night, and a resolution 
 was passed to have the Charter the law of the 
 land before they worked again. 
 
 BINGLEY. 
 
 Several thousands left Bradford early on Tues- 
 day morning, and proceeded towards Shipley, 
 where they stopped all the mills without difficulty, 
 there being no protective force. From thence 
 they marched on to Bingley, where they com- 
 menced their work of putting a stop to all busi- 
 ness. While the Skipton mail was passing 
 through, all persons got on that could find room, 
 and rode on to Keighley. 
 
 WEDNESDAY. 
 
 Everything is quite at a stand still, and no- 
 thing is to be seen but the families of the turn- 
 outs who are parading the streets. 
 
 STAFFORD. 
 
 WEDNESDAY NIGHT. 
 
 How matters will terminate it is impossible for 
 one to tell. This part of the country is in an 
 awful state of excitement. On Monday last, all 
 the shops in this town were shut up, and great 
 excitement prevailed in consequence of a report 
 that the collieis “ were coming.” Three hun- 
 dred additional specials were immediately sworn 
 in. The 12th foot were removed from this town 
 this morning for the Isle of France, and were 
 replaced by two troops of the 34th. If matters 
 do not assume a different aspect soon, the whole 
 of the Stafford trade will be at a stand-still, as 
 it depends entirely on the Pottery and the 
 northern districts, indeed many of the manufac- 
 turers are akeady talking of stopping their 
 shops.” 
 
 “ SKIPTON. 
 
 “ Several thousands visited this quiet town on 
 Tuesday, from Colne and other parts, and stopped 
 the mills. The town remained quiet on Wed- 
 nesday. On Tuesday, the special constables cap- 
 tured, with the assistance of a few of the military, 
 six of the turn-outs, who were committed to 
 York. Mr. Garforth, one of the magistrates, 
 was, we understand, much injured.” 
 
 “ KEIGHLEY. 
 
 “ Great excitement prevailed here on Monday. 
 Several thousand turn- outs poured into the town 
 between ten and eleven o’clock, and proceeded 
 to stop all the mills. Every precaution was 
 taken by the magistrates, who issued a procla- 
 mation requesting aU peaceable inhabitants to 
 keep within doors, and swore in upwards of 400 
 constables, but for whose services there were 
 not much occasion, not being backed by any 
 
323 
 
 military, who were all engaged in the neighbour- 
 ing large towns." 
 
 “ POTTERIES. 
 
 SHELTON AND HANLEY. 
 
 TUESDAY, TWELVE o’CLOCK. 
 
 “ I have just heard that the military stationed 
 at Burslem have begun firing on the people, and 
 that two men have been killed, one from Stoke- 
 upon-Trent, and the other from either Maccles- 
 field or Congleton ; but reports are so rife at 
 the present hour, that the extent of the loss of 
 life cannot be told. I also hear that numbers are 
 wounded, but how great a number I cannot say, 
 thus proving that the ruling few are determined, 
 at all hazards, to perpetuate their rule over the 
 sons of labour. Where these things will end I 
 cannot say, but this I do say, that neither life 
 nor property is now safe in these districts. I 
 would just make one remark before I close this, 
 that, as a body, the Chartists have had no hand 
 in the destruction of property that has been 
 going on here, nor has the advice of the Char- 
 tist speakers been attended to, for, had that 
 been the case, I can affirm that no such thing 
 as loss, either of property or life, could ever 
 have occurred. 
 
 “august 17th. 
 
 “ I resume my narrative from where I left off 
 in my report of yesterday, I perceive that I 
 omitted to state that the residence of the Rev. 
 R. E. Aitkins was set on fire sometime about 
 two o’clock A. M., and what makes this worse, 
 the Rev. gentleman \^s a complete invalid, and 
 report says that the state of excitement into 
 which he was thrown, has terminated fatally, 
 but this I cannot say that I positively know, 
 nor can I rely on hearsay tales. I have also to 
 report that the elegant mansion of W. Parker, 
 Esq., has shared the same fate, and nothing is 
 to be seen but a heap of ruins at either of those 
 places, 
 
 “ A public meeting was suddenly called by 
 the influentials of Hanley and Shelton, to devise 
 the best means of relieving the distresses of 
 the inhabitants of this once flourishing district. 
 This meeting was addressed by Mr. Moses 
 Simpson, W. Ridgway, Esq., Mr. John Richards, 
 and Mr. Wm. Ellis, from Burslem. Much good 
 speaking was the result, but just as the meeting 
 was about to come to some definite conclusion, 
 the arrival of a body of military put a stop to any 
 urther proceedings ; but not before the Chartists 
 had passed a vote for the whole Charter. Mr. 
 Ridgway earnestly requested the meeting to stand 
 firm, as it was a legal public meeting, conducting 
 
 itself in a peaceable manner, and that the mili- 
 tary had no right to interfere. A magistrate 
 was with the military, (I hear a Rev.) and he, in 
 true character, ordered the meeting to be dis- 
 persed, which was done. The Rev. Gentleman 
 then read the Riot Act, and gave strict orders 
 that all persons found in the streets should be ar- 
 rested, 
 
 I have also omitted to state, that there are 
 pawnshops in the townships of Hanley and Shel- 
 ton, and a number of persons of both sexes, but 
 mostly females, surrounded the pawn-brokers, 
 demanding the goods, which they had pledged, 
 and though several persons addressed them . 
 urging that it would be unjust in them to take 
 back by force what they had pledged unless they 
 paid the money they had on those goods, yet the 
 women would have no nay : their clothes they 
 would have,,^nd being emboldened by consider- 
 able numbers, forced their way into the pawn- 
 shops and served themselves, getting not their 
 own property but anything that came to their 
 hands, and taking many things belonging to other 
 persons. This morning I witnessed a spring cart 
 full of females, guarded by both horse and foot, 
 taken to Newcastle ; and some men on foot, be- 
 tween the sections of infantry, were likewise 
 taken to the same place, for examination before 
 the magistrates, and no doubt but most of them 
 will be committed for trial at the next sessions. 
 
 “ In my last I stated that two men were killed 
 at Burslem, it is now certain that one was shot 
 dead, the other, though very seriously wounded, 
 may still recover ; his name is Jerrold, a brick" 
 layer, at Stoke-upon-Trent. 
 
 DEWSBURY. 
 
 WEDNESDAY NIGHT, 
 
 “While I am now writing, the turn-outs are 
 just returned to town; there cannot be less than 
 twenty thousand— all sober, steady, straight- 
 forward men, — who apparently seem more de- 
 termined than ever for the general stand. They 
 have been round to Ossett, Horbury, Healey, 
 Middletown, and Thornhill, where they have 
 stopped all hands without theleast interruption. 
 
 “ The authorities have been sitting all day 
 swearing in sTny body they eould for special con- 
 stables? 
 
 “ The millowners of Batley have compelled 
 their men to be sworn in as specials, so as they 
 can commence work in the morning : but, as far 
 as I can learn, the assembled turn-outs in IhC 
 town are determined to resist it. 
 
 “ The town is completely in the hands of the 
 turn-outs— all peaceable. B,ut I am afraid if 
 any interruption be offered it will not be for long]. 
 
324 
 
 a s they appear detemined to have their object 
 )efore they return to work again." 
 
 “ TO THE SHAKSPERIAN BRIGADE 
 OF LEICESTER CHARTISTS. 
 
 Manchester, Marsden’s Temperance Hotel, 
 “ Wednesday Morning, Aug. 17th, 1842. 
 
 “ My Brave Comrades, — I left you on 
 Tuesday afternoon, the 9th instant, and between 
 that date and the present, one of the most im- 
 portant periods in the history of the working- 
 men of this country has commenced. Of the 
 widely-extended strike for labour’s wages, which 
 has been pretty generally converted into a 
 stand for the Charter, you will be already 
 aware, by the daily and weekly papers. Whe- 
 ther that widely-spread resolve has entered 
 into your minds and hearts, at the time I am 
 writing this, I feel some anxiety to learn. But 
 I must hasten to rehearse some of the passages 
 of my diversified experience since the day I left 
 you. 
 
 I had a good meeting at Birmingham, in the 
 Hall of Science, (a very commodious building be- 
 longing to the Socialists) on the Tuesday evening. 
 I found George White to be what I had long 
 heard him reported to be— a sound-hearted, 
 thorough-going democrat. I enrolled twenty- 
 four at the close of the meeting. I had long 
 and very interesting conversations the next day 
 with White, and learned much from him respect- 
 ing the progress of the movement in and around 
 Birmingham, and the causes why in Birmingham 
 itself, things for some time looked less satisfac- 
 tory than could be wished. At night (Wednes- 
 day) we had a good meeting out of doors, near 
 the Railway Station, notwithstanding a heavy 
 rain. 
 
 “ On Thursday began a series of excitements, 
 such as I had hitherto been a stranger to. I was 
 set down at twelve at noon, by the omnibus, at 
 Wednesbury, (called Wedgebury by the natives) 
 in the midst of 30,000 colliers on strike for wages. 
 They formed one of the noblest sights I ever 
 witnessed. Linney, O’Neil, Pearson, and others 
 addressed them ; conclusive resolutions, binding 
 the whole assembly to desist altogether from 
 labour until their just demands were complied 
 with, were put and carried unanimously and en- 
 thusiastically. I then briefly addressed this im- 
 mense gathering of labour’s sons ; a vast assem- 
 blage of human eyes, all raised in expectant 
 intelligence— brave bosoms thrown operi to the 
 sun and air, and stalwart arms and stout hands 
 held up with instantaneous heartiness, the very 
 moment that 1 put it to them whether they would 
 all adopt the People’s Charter. I shall not lose 
 
 the impression made upon me by the view of that 
 meeting as long as I live. I proceeded in Lin- 
 ney’s company to Bilston. For two mortal hourg 
 I addressed the favourite brigade— the “ body 
 guard” of our brave chief, Feargus, in the even- 
 ing. There were about 4,000 present on a piece 
 of ground formed like an amphitheatre, where 
 they sat in fixed earnestness, receiving my plain 
 remarks, apparently as enthusiastic at the close, 
 as at the beginning. The view of the massive 
 hands of those brave colliers, raised in approval 
 of the Charter, convinced me in a twinkling of 
 O’Connor’s shrewdness in selecting the ” black 
 brigade of Bilston Chartists” as his “ body 
 guards.” God help the poor fellow that pro- 
 vokes a blow from the shoulder-of-mutton fist of 
 a Bilston collier ! We enrolled fifty members at 
 the close of the Bilston meeting. Linney as- 
 sured me that the whole region was rife with 
 Chartism : this honest, independent, and brave 
 man has been indefatigable in his labours among 
 this bold and simple-hearted people : there is 
 not a man in the whole movement who, in my 
 judgment, deserves more highly the praise and 
 confidence of his brother Chartists than Joseph 
 Linney. 
 
 On Friday morning, the 12th, I walked on to 
 Wolverhampton, and addressed another meeting 
 of the hardy toilers of the black diamonds” — 
 the whole district, for many miles, having en- 
 tirely ceased labour, and nothing being more 
 easy than to get an out-door meeting of thou- 
 sands upon thousands at this time of excitement : 
 the Wolverhampton colliers, like the assemblages 
 I had previously addressed, held up their mighty 
 hands with one accord, and instantly, when I 
 asked them if they would espouse the cause of 
 the Charter. 
 
 In the afternoon, I got on by railway to Staf- 
 ford. I found matters in a somewhat critical 
 condition in this Tory-ridden borough. Mason, 
 and his companions in tribulation, are confined 
 in the gaol here : one hundred and fifty colliers 
 had been also lodged in it within the week — 
 troops of soldiers had been marched into the 
 town — additional rooms were being built to the 
 gaol — cannon, it was said, was to be planted upon 
 the extreme towers — and everything looked so 
 threatening, that when the friends here took a 
 bill to the printer, announcing my lecture, he 
 did not dare to print it. Great fears were enter- 
 tained that I would be apprehended if I dared to 
 stand up in the market-place that night. How- 
 ever, when seven o’clock had struck, there I was 
 — mounted on a famous long bench, procured by 
 the friends. The superintendent of police then 
 took his station close by my right elbow, the 
 tory gentry and ladies threw up their windows to 
 listen and hear the rebel Chartist commit him- 
 
325 
 
 self, and to see him pounced upon and borne 
 away in the dirty claws of the raw lobsters. But 
 no ! I shew:ed how excellent it was to have a 
 “ -Sweet little silver-voiced lady,” 
 and , pay our million and a quarter yearly to sup- 
 port herself and her establishment. I demon- 
 strated that loyal Chartists knew the land would 
 be ruined if the civil list were not kept up ?. and 
 that working men would all weep their eyes sore 
 if Adelaide were to be bereft of her .-6100,000 
 a-year. I denounced any ragged shoemaker 
 (Stafford, like Northampton, you know, my 
 brave Shakspeareans, is a famous shoemaking 
 town,) as a stupid fellow if he dared to talk about 
 his aged grandmother being in a bastile and ve- 
 getating on skilly, while the Dowager had three 
 palaces to live in. The satire completely blunted 
 the talons of the blue-bottle ; his hard face re- 
 laxed, his teeth separated, and at length he 
 grinned outright, while the host of shopmates 
 burst into laughter. 
 
 Well — what was to be done ? I could not be 
 taken up for treason, for my words were ultra- 
 loyal, with a witness ! Three villainous red-coats, 
 standing in the crowd, soon solved the difficulty : 
 they looked on and listened till they were laughed 
 out of countenancof and then turned their atten- 
 tion to a couple of Italians who had just brought 
 their music into the Square. Determined on 
 making a disturbance, one of the red-coats at first 
 coaxed, and then dragged, one of the foreigners 
 among the crowd, and strove earnestly to incite 
 the musician to “ grind.” Perceiving the scoun- 
 drel’s intention, I called on the policeman to 
 witness it; but saw, from his looks, that he 
 would not budge one inch to put down the annoy- 
 ance, while he would gladly seize me as the pri- 
 mary cause of disturbance. I therefore said, “ I 
 am willing to go to prison for speaking truth ; 
 let the chief policeman take me, if he will, for 
 speaking truth ; but I will not be imprisoned for 
 a dirty row ! All you who are of opinion that we 
 adjourn to the Common, where we can hold a 
 meeting without disturbance, hold up your 
 hands.” The adjournment was carried, and I 
 dismounted in a moment, and off we went, the 
 people following us. I commenced singing 
 “Spread the Charter;” the bold Crispins 
 caught the strain, and our procession to the 
 Common was soon swelled by thousands. We 
 had a good meeting ; and when it was well-nigh 
 dark, started again for the town, singing “ Spread 
 the Charter.” The police were passed, and 
 looked aghast at this novelty. The gaol was 
 reached, the soldiers turned out guard, and 
 thought the crowd had come to make an attack ; 
 but fairly laughed when they heard the singing. 
 Three cheers were given for poor Mason, close 
 
 under his cell, in spite of the bayonets, and the 
 multitude dispersed. 
 
 That night will be a memorable one with the 
 Stafford Crispins ; and I trust they will not 
 neglect to annoy their enemies with ammunition 
 so easily mustered and so pleasantly expended as 
 a little throat-music. 
 
 “ We’ll rally around him,” I should have said, 
 became a favourite at the places I have already 
 passed, as well as at Stafford. 
 
 Let me just say, ere leaving Stafford, that, 
 Peplow, Hunnible, and other fine young fellows, 
 are growing up there, who will soon be able to 
 act an important part in the movement. 
 
 The farther I went, my beloved comrades, the 
 more thickly I found excitement kindling. I 
 reached the Potteries on Sunday afternoon, and 
 found a spirit I really was not prepared for. 
 Labour had ceased there also among the col- 
 liers ; and now, the resolution not to labour, I 
 found, was taking a decided turn : all were in- 
 tent on working no more till the great struggle 
 for the rights of labour had been tried. We 
 had meetings at Fenton and Lane-end, on the 
 Sunday afternoon, Aug. 14th, and at night I 
 preached from “ Thou shalt do no murder,” on 
 the large area called the “ Crown-bank,” at 
 Hanley. The time was very exciting, and I gave 
 notice that I would address the colliers on strike 
 on the same spot, the next morning, at eight 
 o’clock. A large assembly appeared at that time ; 
 the resolution, that all working men cease labour 
 till the Charter become the law of the land, was 
 put and seconded by working men, and carried 
 triumphantly, and after a few hearty and sensible 
 woi’ds from old daddy Richards (whose heart, 
 God bless him ! is as sound as an acorn in the 
 people’s cause) the meeting dispersed, with the 
 intent, on the part of the colliers, to ask all the 
 workers at the earthenware factories, &c., to 
 leave their labour. I remained in Hanley during 
 the day ; saw the shops closed, and all the town 
 become as lifeless as on a Sunday forenoon ; 
 heard of the multitude doing queer things in the 
 town, and also at Stoke, Fenton, and Lane-end ; 
 but saw none of them. The soldiers, nearly 
 dropping with fatigue, I saw pass through the 
 town in the afternoon, pursuing something which, 
 it seemed, they could not catch; but nothing 
 alarming ever came before my own eyes. 
 
 I met the people again at six o’clock. The 
 Square was crowded ; I should say there were 
 20,000 people there; several of the gentry, &c., 
 in conversational knots, being on the verge of 
 the crowd. I protested against the insobriety I 
 saw in the persons of a few, — proclaimed the ille- 
 gality of destroying property, &c. ; but exhorted 
 Y 
 
326 
 
 the people to hold by their rightful resolves, and 
 to hold by them, too, till they had their rights. 
 
 I felt sure I might be prevented getting out of 
 the Potteries, if I did not make an effort to get 
 away privately, and as I was bound to attend the 
 Manchester conference, in quality of delegate 
 from the excited district I was leaving, as well as 
 being your representative, my darling boys, — 
 \yhy I set out on foot, with two hearty youths as 
 companions, at half-past twelve on Monday 
 night. 
 
 The droll adventures of that night I will re- 
 cord in another letter, for I must now be off to 
 the conference. 
 
 I am. 
 
 My brave brigade. 
 
 Your faithful “ General,” 
 
 Thomas Cooper. 
 
 Marsden’s Temperance Hotel, 
 Wednesday Night, Aug. 17. 
 
 P.S. I have scarcely time left to tell you how 
 1 got out of the Potteries. 
 
 Suffice it to say, — I was seized, taken before 
 
 fine old Justice, examined before him as he sat 
 »p in bed, told him who I was and all about it ; 
 but they dared not keep me ! This was at Burs- 
 lem, at two o’clock on Tuesday morning. I in- 
 tended, wdth the two good lads who carried my 
 bag and cloak, to reach Macclesfield by seven, 
 in order to take the coach for Manchester ; but 
 as we had been detained by the Burslem autho- 
 rities so long, we struck down for the Crewe 
 Station, on the Birmingham and Manchester line 
 of railway : and, after losing our way twice, we 
 reached Crewe in time to have a hearty good 
 breakfast before the train started. 
 
 To my great delight, I got into the carriage 
 containing my beloved Bairstow, Campbell, and 
 Clarke, a young delegate from Ross, in Here- 
 fordshire. 
 
 From the Star you will learn what was done 
 at the Conference ; I will not, therefore, take up 
 valuable space by saying a word about it. 
 
 Finally, my brave corai’ades, I am now about 
 to set out, privately, from Manchester, after hav- 
 ing just read the horrid piece of hypocrisy and 
 cruelty which the Morning Chronicle has chosen 
 to insert against me, in its leading article of to- 
 day. What villains are these scribblers for the 
 Anti-corn-law League ! In order to clear them- 
 selves from the charge of originating the strike, 
 they strive to incite the Tory government to take 
 my blood, or personal liberty, by pointing me 
 out as an agent for the Tories ! 
 
 Heaven grant w'e may be able to turn this 
 strike to our advantage, and thereby have our re- 
 venge on the hypocritical League. 
 
 When and where I shall see you, my beloved 
 lads, I cannot tell until the time comes. 
 
 Yours, to the death, 
 
 Thomas Cooper. 
 
 FROM OUR THIRD EDITION OF LAST WEEK. 
 
 FURTHER PROGRESS. 
 
 “ Northern Star Office, 
 
 “ Saturday Morning, Tico o'ClocJc. 
 
 “ When the wicked bend their bow, they not 
 unfrequently shoot beyond the mark they aimed 
 at. We to-day despatched our own reporter 
 into the disturbed districts, to learn the real 
 state of matters up to the latest moment ; and 
 from his statement, which we subjoin, the League 
 men appear to have done so in this instance. 
 Their object, doubtless, in the forcing on and 
 sustaining of this preconcerted strike, was to 
 confine it to the adjuncts of machinery in mills 
 and factoi-ies. We imagine that their purpose 
 extended not further than the lightening of their 
 present heavy stock of manufactured goods by a 
 temporary cessation of productive power in that 
 particular department ; while they might make it 
 also serve the purpose of verifying Iheir state- 
 ments of the people’s discontent and their pre- 
 dictions of “risings and riotings” for food; and 
 so of procuring for them another “ Extension of 
 Commerce” for the keeping up of the golden 
 showers to which they have become so habituated 
 that they take badly to a change of weather : 
 while, as we have already said, their further ob- 
 ject was to make it also a weapon against Char-, 
 tisra. Theyjhave over- reached themselves I The 
 wicked are taken in their own snare ! and the 
 sham-Chartist League strike seems, from our re- 
 porter’s statement, to have become a Chartist strike 
 in good earnest, so far as Manchester, at least, 
 is concerned. The trades generally have now fol- 
 lowed out the mill hands. They appreciate the 
 kind feeling of their League friends in forcing 
 out their brethren ; they think what is good for 
 some must be good for all ; and so have turned 
 out for company. While they reason, truly and 
 like statesmen, that their efforts might as well 
 point to a primary as to a secondary benefit ; that 
 there is little use in obtaining an advantage of 
 which they may again be deprived to-morrow ; 
 and that therefore the thing in which they are 
 most interested is not so much the prevention of 
 the present reduction, nor even the obtaining a 
 present advance in wages, as the securing of that 
 political power of self-protection which may ena- 
 ble them to bring their labour to the market free 
 from the iniquitous and oppressive disadvantages 
 which now beat down its value. This is a glori- 
 ous conclusion. It is a point worth struggling 
 I for ; worth suffering for ; worth passing through 
 
327 
 
 some risk and hazard for ; because, once gained, 
 it cannot fail to compensate. 
 
 “ Our opinion on the means now used for its 
 attainment by the trades of Manchester was re- 
 gistered three years ago. That opinion has un- 
 dergone no change. A cessation from labour, to 
 be effectual to the carrying of any political object, 
 must be national and simultaneous: it cannot 
 then fail to be successful, because it indicates the 
 nation’s will, against which, in its full strength, 
 whether positively, or thus negatively, mani- 
 fested, no pow’er can stand ; but a mere sectional 
 display of this most decisive of all the forms 
 of moral force, like a mere sectional display of 
 physical resistance, is sure to be overpowered by 
 the strength of faction, consisting in its immense 
 wealth and its organized physical resources. 
 
 “ If then the strike is to be a Chartist strike, 
 it must become universal : not merely Manches- 
 ter, but every town in England, Wales, and 
 Scotland, must at once — as one man and with one 
 voice — declare the purpose of the people to be 
 free ; and such a declaration will be to those 
 whom it concerns the fiat of omnipotence. But 
 if Manchester, or even Lancashire, sustain the 
 struggle singly, it will be unsuccesful, and, in all 
 probability, retard the movement it was meant 
 to hasten. Let the country see to this ; the men 
 of Lancashire have done nobly ; let their breth- 
 ren throughout the empire arouse ; let them 
 speak out at once, like men, and say, ‘ Yes’ or 
 * No,’ to the great question of ‘ shall we now 
 strike for the Charter ?’ No higgling — no hesita- 
 tation — no waiting ; — 
 
 ‘ If, when done, ’twere well done, 
 
 Then, ’twere well it were done quickly.’ 
 
 “Never, however, for one moment let it be 
 forgotten by any Chartist, that to be successful 
 they must be peaceful. They have a right to 
 strike, but they have no right to riot. They have 
 a right to work or not to work, but they have no 
 right to break windows, destroy property, or burn 
 factories. 
 
 “ Above all things, they have no right to insult, 
 annoy, or fight with the police force or the sol- 
 diery. Every hellish invention wdll be practised 
 to induce them to do this : let the bridle be kept 
 tightly on their tempers and even on their 
 tongues : let tliera even patiently bear annoyance, 
 insult and indignity ; resenting them only by the 
 calmness of a manly contempt, the offspring of 
 a lofty purpose not to be turned aside. 
 
 It rejoices us to see from our reporter’s state- 
 ment that it is so now. That the people laugh 
 at all efforts to bring them into collision with 
 the soldiery. Right thankful are we that our 
 often and again reiterated lessons of forbearance 
 
 have been thus appreciated, even by a starving 
 people, goaded as they are. Let but this spirit 
 be still manifested ; the “ risings and the riots ” 
 left to to the infernal hatchers of the plot ; the 
 calm determination of the people held up to its 
 point; the enemy disarmed by peacefulness j 
 and the strike becomes universal — England, 
 Wales, and Scotland presenting at the same mo- 
 ment one workless workshop — while the dogs 
 of war have no pretence to tear; and the fiends 
 of faction will soon “ scratch their heads,” and 
 knowing such an “ asking” to be equivalent to 
 “ taking,” will give the Charter in a trice, and 
 thankful to be thus let off. 
 
 “ But mind ! to te thus effective it must be' 
 universal. The rolling of the ocean’s waters bears 
 away the dam upon which, though running in 
 the same direction, the rivulet makes no impres- 
 sion, and the stream expends its force in vain. 
 
 “ Let nothing, therefore, be done hastily. By 
 hastily we mean thoughtlessly, and without due 
 consideration. 
 
 ‘ The attempt, and not the deed 
 Destroys us.’ 
 
 “ If the people are prepared to carry out a na- 
 tional strike let them do so : but let them not 
 attempt it without first knowing that they can 
 carry it out. The vauntings and boastings of a 
 few thousands of too-zealous men ; the passing 
 of resolutions declaratory of their intention ne- 
 ver to return to work until the Charter becomes 
 law ; and then the failure of all this for want of 
 due support ; and the finish of the whole by the 
 ‘ going in' of these parties, without the Charter, 
 and without any other practical advantage, pro- 
 bably to the great disadvantage of many of 
 them, w'ould have a great tendency to dispirit 
 the people ; to damp their ardour in the move- 
 ment ; and to throw seriously back the Charter 
 agitation. This, no true patriot could desire : 
 and yet from all the circumstances that we are 
 able to see of the whole case, we fear that this 
 will he just the effect of a perseverance^ in the 
 present movement. We see no chance of its 
 becoming national. There has been no concert, 
 save amongst the rascals of the League. There 
 is no organization for it. There are no means 
 upon w'hich for the different sections of the 
 people to fall back for sustenance, while the 
 flame spreads through the land. And it seems 
 almost unnatural to express that the corrupt 
 tree of Corn-law League plottery should produce 
 any fruit so wholesome as the bending of the 
 whole energies of the whole people at one time 
 
328 
 
 towards one point ; and again we repeat, that 
 unless that he so, the whole will he, as far as 
 Chartism is concerned, a miserable failure, and 
 do us ranch harm. There is no power in any 
 section of the country to remain out for any 
 length of time, without coming in contact with 
 the iaw. The people must have food. If a 
 general cessation of labour in any given district 
 be kept up for a considerable length of time, a 
 great portion of the people of that district must 
 obtain food by means which will bring them 
 into collision with the authorities ; and this 
 must end in the infliction upon many of them 
 of at least a much greater amount of destitution 
 £yid suiTering than they before endured ; to say 
 nothing of all the proscriptions, the imprison- 
 ments, the transportings, and, perhaps, the 
 hangings ; nothing of all the shootings and 
 saberings, to which it may be a prelude. An 
 universal strike would be free from these risks ; 
 for its very appearance and existence would at 
 once paralyse the arm of power, and sicken the 
 lieart of faction : while a sectional one ; of 
 almost whatever magnitude, could only, and 
 certainly would only, be productive of the evils 
 we have just described. 
 
 “ Dearly, therefore, as we should love to see 
 the millions with one shout throw down their 
 tools, and throw up their hands, and fold up 
 their arms, while faction stood, as she would 
 then stand, amazed, dismayed and powerless, 
 we yet fear that this will not now be the case ; 
 and, therefore, tve regret that the Charter move- 
 ment should have been at all mixed up wuth the 
 strike. \Ye fear that it will eventually be found 
 to have only served the purpose of the enemy. 
 Lothe would we be to damp the ardour, to the 
 slightest extent, of any of our friends ; but we 
 should be still more lotlie to permit them un- 
 wittingly to harm the cause wdthout warning. 
 We pretend not to infallibility of judgment ; 
 w'e presume not to dictate a course of action. 
 The people will determine on their owm course ; 
 but they have a right to cur opinion, and while 
 W'e have pow'er of wielding tongue or pen, they 
 shall always have it honestly, without fear or 
 favour. Yre have, then, on this matter, given 
 Bur opinion. Let the people give it its own 
 value. They will w^eigh well the whole circum- 
 stances, and determine for themselves upon the 
 question of strike or no strike : but if the 
 strike is to be for the Charter, let it be national, 
 and let it be simultaneous ; not progressing 
 slowly, but at once bringing out eveiy place ; 
 
 or let it not be attempted. Let the Leaguers 
 who have attempted the reduction, be battled 
 singly by the people of their districts ; and 
 made to feel that a single Leaguer is as power- 
 less against a large section of the people, as a 
 section of the people is against all the force of 
 faction. Thus will the strike return to its 
 original character, and be productive, if not of 
 benefit, at least of less mischief than we appre- 
 hend from it should it remain sectional, and yet 
 tend politically. The question is one of the 
 highest importance and greatest delicacy that 
 the people can entertain. Let it not be enter- 
 tained thoughtlessly ! Let them bring to it < 
 deep consideration and expansive views ; taking 
 in the whole range of circumstances, effects, 
 and consequences ; and God speed them in their 
 efforts for Right !” 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — That is the case 
 for the defence, and a very good defence it 
 is, my Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 May it please your Lordship, gentlemen 
 of the jury, I sincerely congratulate you 
 on the prospect that your labours will 
 terminate this evening; and I shall cer- 
 tainly endeavour, notwithstanding the 
 mass of matter before me, to condense 
 into as short a space as my duty to the 
 public will permit, the observations I shall 
 make on the evidence to which your at- 
 tention has been drawn during the course 
 of this protracted trial. Gentlemen, I 
 (rould wish, not merely that we were as- 
 sembled in the court of this great county 
 of Lancashire, hut that the eyes of the 
 ivhole nation weie upon us ; and the ears 
 of the whole people ready to hear every 
 thing that passes upon this occasion. I 
 entirely agree with wdiat has been stated, 
 that this is one of the most important 
 trials that ever occurred ; and if I felt 
 considerable responsibility when I had 
 the honour to address you several days 
 ago, I must say, that I do not feel that 
 responsibility diminished by the evidence 
 that has been given on the part of the 
 prosecution, and by the statements that 
 have been made by the several defend- 
 ants. Gentlemen, it is impossible not 
 to feel tlie deepest sympathy with the 
 distress that, no one can possibly doubt, 
 so extensively existed in the neighbour- 
 hood of Manchester, and throughout a 
 considerable tract of countiy suiTounding 
 that large manufacturing place. I have 
 
329 
 
 RO doubt that, if you could quit the large , 
 public meetings that assembled, as it was J 
 said, to quiet the country,” and could i 
 go to the dwellings of those who did not ! 
 join in those exciting crowds, you would j 
 hear many a tale of heart-rending dis- I 
 tress, such as the defendant Pilling told i 
 you yesterday — distress which it was im- 
 possible to hear without the most enlarged 
 compassion and the deepest sympathy — 
 distress which produced in many persons 
 around me emotions in which I shared, 
 and, I am not ashamed to say, that I 
 shared in them to an extent, which, in 
 common with many’^ around me, almost 
 unmanned me, and prevented me from 
 maintaining that demeanour that one 
 ought to preserve in a court of justice. 
 Gentlemen, if anything could be learned 
 as to the extent and character of that 
 distress, and the patience with which, in 
 many instances, it has been borne, wlien 
 it has not been carried into public meet- 
 ings, nor made the theme of public de- 
 clamation, you must go to those places 
 where it has been mourned over in 
 private— where the parties have sunk un- 
 der it in silence, from a sense of duty' 
 and that it afforded them no justifi- 
 cation in having recourse to violence. 
 It might be well if all that ivas stated on 
 this occasion were known through the 
 whole length and breadth of the land, 
 so that if anything could be done to arrest 
 the progress of that distress, and to bring 
 comfort and consolation to those who are 
 suffering, it might be done. ]>ut, gen- 
 tlemen, having, and witli perfect since- 
 rity', olicred that tribute of sympathy' 
 which it was inqiossible to withhold — 
 having given to those, who sudered that 
 distress with a fortitude which we admire, 
 the tribute of my highest admiration, I 
 must pass from that topic to the state of 
 the country' at the ])eriod when this out- 
 break occuiTcd : and I must call your 
 attention, for a moment or two, to the 
 alarming danger that threatened the peace 
 and well-being— nay, I may almost jsay, 
 tlie existence of society in this country'. 
 Gentlemen, we have the confession ho.u 
 Pilling hiiijself— he denied it not, when 
 he addressed you, that lie had gone from 
 place to place, and addressed not less 
 than 300,000 jicrsons, at ditierent places, j 
 You have had it in evidence that there | 
 W'ere outbreaks— J pause not now to enu- i 
 
 merate the places were, and the numbers 
 by whom, nor the degree of threat and 
 intimidation short of actual violence by 
 which the acquiescence of the mill-owners 
 and the labouring classes was produced — 
 but, you have it m evidence that from 
 fifty to one hundred mills w'ere stopped, 
 and that labour ceased every where. I 
 might take a placard — that I shall pre- 
 sently call yoLii^attcntion to — the placard 
 headed, “ (fold ! (fold ! (fold ! !” in which 
 it is stated that labour is suspended, and 
 the credit of the country^ is gone : and I 
 ask y'ou, gentlemen, what was the condi- 
 tion of this part of the empire at the time 
 when troops were paraded about to stop 
 the tumult, when special constables were 
 sworn in by hundreds ere the pro- 
 tecting providence of heaven, the energy 
 of the executive government, and the lo- 
 cal magistrates, succeeded in restoring 
 peace and order ? Happiness and plenty' 
 of work and wages, it was not in their 
 power to restore. Gentlemen, were we at 
 that moment Otherwise than on the brink 
 of a civil war ? Let me ask any of you — I 
 ask not by any exaggeration of the fads, 
 or by the use of one expression that is 
 calculated to excite your feelings, but, I 
 ask you to look hack and say', whether a 
 man might not be a bold man and yet 
 sicken at the dantjer in which the conn- 
 try was placed during the whole of the 
 month of August? But one week more 
 of apathy- -hut one week more of that 
 spirit which induced the magistrates go 
 say It is better not to resist” — and you 
 would have had the country divided into 
 t'.vo large classes, contending against each 
 other for power and for the existence of 
 society. And has the defendant Pilling, 
 or aiiy' man who has mourned over his 
 son dying prematurely' by tiie visitation 
 of God, tiirough disease, and who had 
 mourned over his own and his family’s 
 discomfort, considered what would have 
 been the wide-spread horrors and miseries 
 through the country if the masses had 
 acted as he was satisfied it was the inten- 
 tion of the executive address to inducjB 
 them to act, and which I charge on all 
 who published it, or ga.ve it encourage- 
 ment and support, and, above all, tliose 
 who published the document which al- 
 luded to the pro})riety of enforcing that 
 address, pointing it out to the public as a 
 manly, hold, and spirited address, which 
 
330 
 
 called on them not to speculate on politi- 
 cal questions, but practically to adopt 
 those schemes which would carry out the 
 views of those who penned that addi’ess. 
 Gentlemen, it has been said that this is 
 a political prosecution ; it has been said 
 that this })rosecution is levelled at the 
 Charter and the Chartists. Gentlemen, 
 I utterly deny any such statements. I 
 know it was expected to be so, that I am 
 quite aware of. From the time that my 
 learned friend, ]Mr. Dundas, two days 
 ago, had undertaken to defend the points 
 of the Charter, and since then, down to the 
 timew'hen the last man addressed them, 
 personal hostility to the Chartists has 
 been imputed to me, and it has been said 
 that this prosecution w^as levelled at the 
 Charter : — but, gentlemen, I beg to say, 
 that there is not one tittle of truth in, 
 or foundation for, any of those remarks. 
 The speeches, therefore, in which the 
 imputations were conveyed, must have 
 been previously prepared, and yet those 
 W'ho delivered them did not think it worth 
 w'hile to suppress the observations, though 
 they found that I said nothing to justify 
 those remarks. Why, gentlemen, so far 
 from calling on you to condemn the 
 Charter, or to enter into the slightest 
 question respecting it, I expressly dis- 
 claimed, as you, my Lord, and gentlemen 
 of the jury, may remember, going into 
 any political discussion at all. I stated 
 that I had not to consider whether any 
 proposed change would be for the belter 
 or the w'orse, but that it was my duty to 
 call your attention to the fact, that some 
 change was proposed, and to ask you to 
 consider the manner in which that change 
 was proposed to be brought about. Cer- 
 tainly It is as well at all times that the 
 advocate should make truth his object. 
 Mr. O’Connor seems to have thought he 
 had an advantage in bringing before you 
 some passages of an address wdiich I 
 delivered to a jury when Frost and his 
 associates were under trial for high trea- 
 son. Gentlemen, I know not whether 
 you do me or Mr. O’Connor the honour 
 much to attend to a speech supposed to 
 have been delivered on a former occasion. 
 One might, as an advocate, take some 
 refuge in altered circumstances, and the 
 fact of being placed in a different posi- 
 tion, but I have never, as a member of 
 the profession to w'hich I have the honour 
 
 to belong, resorted, or had occasion to 
 resort, to any such excuse for w’hat I have 
 said. What I have stated on the occa- 
 sion re.^eried to, I am ready, syllable by 
 syllable, to repeat to-day, aye, gentlemen, 
 even to my reference to the verdict, when 
 I said how desirable it would be even if 
 a verdict of acquittal could be pronounced 
 as a verdict of truth. Gentlemen, there 
 is another subject upon which observa- 
 tions have been made connected w'ith the 
 enquiiy before you, and that is the in- 
 dictment. My learned friend Baines ex- 
 claimed, Did ever man hear of this sort 
 of indictment ?” “ Flere,” says my learned 
 friend, and the observation has been re- 
 peated, I think, by the several defendants 
 who have spoken, — ‘‘ here,” said he, is 
 a monstrous indictment.” Gentlemen, I 
 beg to say, that it must have been known 
 that in the state trials in the reign of 
 William and Mary, after the revolution, 
 there were, I think, 100 persons included 
 in one indictment. Why ? Because they 
 were supposed to be all guilty of the 
 same crime wdiich w^as charged upon 
 them. At the sessions, at Salford, be- 
 fore the Chester trials came on, fifty- 
 seven persons were included in one indict- 
 ment; and when those acting entirely on 
 the part of the prosecution, out of regard 
 to convenience, and with reference to 
 the facts done — w here a mob broke into 
 the workhouse at Stockport — divided the 
 persons accused into portions of six, 
 seven, or eight in number, as the evi- 
 dence applied to them more particularly; 
 the learned judges condemned that course 
 of proceeding, and said, that the break- 
 ing into the Stockport w’orkhouse, and 
 the carrying away of bread and money, 
 was one transaction, that they w^ere all 
 parties to it, and should be included in 
 one indictment. 1 could excuse the ob- 
 servations of the other defendants, but 
 those of Mr. Baines, who is acquainted 
 W'ith the doctrine of indictments, as I 
 had a right to expect he should be —I 
 think, from him at least such observa- 
 tions w'ere not to be expected. Another 
 remark was made about conspiracy : my 
 learned friend Baines begun it, and Mr. 
 O’Connor continued it. Now, I think 
 it right before I enter into an investiga- 
 tion of the evidence, to state to you, 
 what I apprehend to be— subject of 
 course, to my Lord’s correction — th« 
 
33 ] 
 
 legal doctrine of conspiracy. In the 
 first place a conspiracy imputes, necessa- 
 rily, nothing secret, it may be secret or 
 it may not. It might be as well per- 
 haps, if, in framing the indictment origi- 
 nally, the word conspiracy was omitted, 
 though I do not know whether it does 
 not as well exjircss, as any other word 
 in the English language, that which is 
 charged on the defendants. . A conspi- 
 racy is a combination of a number of 
 persons, either to do some unlawful act, 
 or to do some lawful act bj- unlawful 
 means. And whenever you find any 
 number of persons, liy agreement and 
 concert, either doing an unlawful act, or 
 doing a lawful by unlawful means, these 
 parties are guilty of what the law calls 
 conspiracy. It is not necessary to con- 
 stitute the conspiracy, that this should be 
 done secretly. It might be done in the 
 open face of day, and the sun shining. 
 If a man v.'as unpopular in his neigh- 
 bourhood, and a number of persons went 
 to the front of his house, using abusive 
 language and breaking his windows, 
 such parties were guilty of conspiracy, 
 although their acts might be done in 
 public, if they were acting towards one 
 common object, though they might not 
 be personally known to each oilier, and 
 though they never exclianged words with 
 each other on the subject. 'I'here is no 
 magic in the* word conspiracy. Ileyoiid 
 tlie violation of the law and the 0 ])pro- 
 brium that every where attaches to a 
 violation of the law, I am not aware that 
 the crime of conspiracy is greater, or so 
 great, as many others that might he men- 
 tioned. i3ut it is averred that every man 
 charged with conspiracy must go the 
 whole length of every other one impli- 
 cated in it. Gentlemen, that is not so. 
 There never was a legal proposition laid 
 down which had more incorrectness in it 
 than that. INlr. O’Connor, who is a 
 member of the bar — the Irish bar — and 
 wdio, I understand, has practised for 
 several years as a barrister in the sister 
 kingdom — must have known that it was 
 perfectly possible for one man to lake a 
 share in a transaction subordinate or 
 inferior to others; but still, if they were 
 all acting towards one common end and 
 object, they were guilty of the crime ol 
 conspiracy. The very act of concurring in 
 carrying out a design, knowing that others 
 
 are bound together in pursuance of the 
 same object, is sufficient to constitute a 
 conspiracy'. You want no general 
 meeting ; you merely want evidence 
 of a common design — you merely want 
 evidence that parlies are acting together 
 for some illegal objects : tliat is all. 
 Now, having called your attention to the 
 nature of the indictment, and to what I 
 consider (subject to my Lord’s correction,) 
 to be tlie doctrine of conspiracy, I propose 
 to examine the history of the events from 
 about the 1st of August, till a little later, 
 in order that you may see what is really 
 the question that is to be brought before 
 you. Gentlemen, it is very true I did 
 not take up your time, in opening the 
 case, by mentioning the names of many' 
 of the defendants : 1 think I mentioned 
 Scbolefield, I am sure I mentioned some 
 others. But it did not appear to me, 
 that that was the time to mention the 
 name of every individual, and the part he 
 had in it. Now is the time for me to 
 call your attention to the evidence laid 
 before yon, and fairly, and I trust inge- 
 nur)usly and candidly, to ask your opin- 
 ion on those points to wliich I called 
 your attention when 1 opened the case. 
 Gentlemen, the whole story is told almost 
 in tw'o words : it is, tumult or intimida- 
 tion out of Manchester, it is encourage- 
 ment within Manchester. That is the 
 case for the prosecution. Now', let us 
 see how that case is established. What 
 I charged by the evidence is this, that, 
 before the 9th of August, there had 
 been meetings in the neighbourhood 
 of Manchester, and these meetings at 
 first probably had no other object 
 than to produce a strike with refer- 
 ence to wages. Bill advantage w’as taken, 
 of tiie excited condition of the people, 
 immediately the question of tlie Charter 
 was brought forward, and the people 
 w'ere invited to come to a resolution, the 
 elFect of which was, not merely tiiat they 
 should turn-out as workmen, but that 
 they should go fi-om mill to mill, and 
 from factory to factory, and stop other 
 people from w'orking. Gentlemen, is 
 there any evidence of tliat ? I believe 
 It is perfectly clear with respect to 
 some of the defendants wdiom I must 
 mention by and by — I do not want now 
 to w'eaken tlie general statement which I 
 1 am making, by' calling your attention 
 
332 
 
 more particularly to them at present, hut 
 it is perfectly clear that some of the de- 
 fendants, on the 5th of August, were in 
 the ranks of the turn-outs, but having no 
 more to do with them, as regarded their 
 occupation than you or I, but perhaps less. 
 Let me call your attention to this fact. 
 Messrs. Baileys men were on Friday, 
 the 5th of August, dismissed by their 
 masters; and were told that, if the}^ would 
 not consent to the reduction, they had 
 better go and take a holyday. I know it 
 was said, that that was delivered in a 
 tone extremely offensive to the people. 
 I hope that that was misunderstood. If 
 it was uttered in a careless manner, as if 
 sneering at the distress under which they 
 laboured, I think it could not be too 
 much deprecated. I should hope that 
 was not the case. I have no right to be- 
 lieve it was intended to insult the distress 
 which they professed they could not re- 
 lieve. Gentlemen, there was a proces- 
 sion that very day. There was a meet- 
 ing in the evening, and speeches were 
 made, and who, tliink you, gentlemen, 
 are found among the lanks who Avere at 
 that meeting ? The defendant Fenton. 
 The defendant Durham. The defendant 
 Stevenson, and the defendant Mahon. I 
 think from the evidence of one of the 
 witnesses, a person named Bropliy was 
 there in the cA ening. What had he to do 
 with Bailey’s mills or his men. Were 
 they persons who turned out ? No. 
 What connection had he, or the other 
 defendants Avhom I have mentioned, with 
 Bailey’s mills ? None. I do think that 
 with reference to that meeting they weie 
 hovering about to deliver Lectures and 
 put themselves on any discontented body 
 of men on whom they could fasten them- 
 selves. I'liat is the statement I made in 
 the outset. I did not mention the names 
 connected with this transaction, because 
 I had not proved it. It is in evidence 
 before you that, on the evening of the 5th 
 of August, these five persons were join- 
 ing the turn-outs — Bailey’s men — mak- 
 ing speeches and carrying resolutions. 
 Three of these defendants Avere shoe- 
 makers, one a lecturer, and the occupa- 
 tion of the other I do not know, but not 
 one of them Avas a cotton spinner, or had 
 any connection with Bailey’s men. Dur- 
 ham Avas a shoemaker, Fenton was a 
 shoemaker, and Mahon was a shoemaker. 
 
 Gentlemen, I don’t want, AA’here the case 
 Avas not distinctly made out, to add any- 
 thing that could operate by Avay of pre- 
 judice. On Saturday there Avas no meet- 
 ing. I believe, on Sunday, there Avas a 
 meeting. Noaa', does any man suppose 
 that I object to any persons assembling 
 for the peaceable purpose of offering up 
 their devotions, and hearing the pious 
 exhortations of any person Avhom they' 
 may look up to as a pastor. Nothing 
 like it. I don’t object to that. Nor, 
 gentlemen, do I suggest that that Avas a 
 cloak for their other proceedings. I do 
 not suggest that. I say it in perfect 
 good faith. I am not insinuating that 
 Avhich I do not mean to avow. I liaA^e 
 no doubt that when they sang the hymn, 
 the large majority^ of them Averc joining 
 in Avhat they considered to he a religious 
 exercise. And Avhen they listened to re- 
 ligious exhortations they thought, no 
 doubt, that they Avere profitably spending 
 the Lord’s day*, or as much of it as Avas 
 devoted to that purpose. But that Avas 
 not all that Avas done ; Avhen the singing 
 Avas over, then came the resolutions and 
 political lectures ; and to that, gentle- 
 men, I decidedly object. An appoint- 
 ment Avas then made for the following 
 morning ; and, accordingly', the next 
 day, we trace them going round stopping 
 all the mills, turning out the hands, and 
 compelling them to join their ranks, and 
 on Tuesday morning they- marched into 
 Manchester. Noav, gentlemen, here T 
 may' perhaps observe upon these assem- 
 blies. I may^ be asked, Avhat is a laAvful 
 assembly ? Why', gentlemen, in the first 
 place eveiy assembly of the constituted 
 authorities of the land, and, under their 
 sanction, for any great public purpose, is, 
 undoubtedly, a laAvful assembly. Persons 
 may meet in those parish assemblies; they 
 may meet in the Hundred Court,!orCounty 
 Court, for other purposes than to elect- 
 county members; they may meet Avherever 
 there is any public business to transact. 
 Men have an undoubted right to meet for 
 public discussion, as to matters that affect 
 them, Avherever such meeting is not ex- 
 pressly forbidden ; as, I believe, in some 
 ! instances it aa ould be, v.dth reference to a 
 1 public discussion in the vestry of a 
 : church. But, in general, people have a 
 I right to express their opinions on public 
 ' occasions, in reference to public afiuirs. 
 
333 
 
 But it is not to be supposed that I assent 
 to the doctrine that every man has a right 
 to meet wherever he pleases. Gentle- 
 men, I deny that men have a right to 
 go in large numbers to a distance from 
 their homes, and create alai m and terror 
 to those whom they visited, when they 
 have no lawful purpose of meeting. 
 Above all, gentlemen, they have not a 
 right to meet to the number of 15000 or 
 20000, under the pretence of quieting 
 the neighbourhood.” You will judge 
 from what you have heard, in the course 
 of this case, out of that box, whether a 
 meeting of that description can be a 
 healing and pacific assembly. Well, hut 
 it may be said that these delegates had a 
 right to meet. I shall presently come to 
 the meeting of delegates, and perhaps it 
 may be premature now for me to say, 
 what, subject to. the correction of his 
 Lordship, might be said in reference to 
 the meeting of the delegates ; but, giving 
 the largest license to public meetings of 
 every kind, let me ask whether those 
 meetings in Ashton, and Stalybridge, 
 prior to the 5th of August, were lawful 
 assemblies ? Were they all peaceful ? 
 Was there no riot, gentlemen ? I do 
 dismiss the charge of riot; I do abandon 
 the count lor an unlawful assembly, and 
 I will state to you why. I know it was 
 said by Mr. O’Connor, Why did you 
 not indict the rioters for riot ; those who 
 committed a breach of the peace for a 
 breach of the peace ; those who had pub- 
 lished a seditious placard, for a seditious 
 libel?” What my object vv^as in con- 
 junction with my learned friends wliose 
 advice and assistance I have on this oc- 
 casion, was to bring before you what I 
 considered to be the entire crime, which 
 is not committing a riot in one place. It 
 would be taking an extremely imper- 
 fect and partial view of what occurred 
 in August last to say, that there was a 
 riot on JMonday at Ashton, and that a 
 mill was stopjied elsewhere, and that on 
 Tuesday the hands were turned out at 
 Manchester. This would be to take a 
 very imperfect view both of the crime 
 and danger that accompanied it. And 
 with respect to prosecuting for a mere 
 seditious libel, let me say, gentlemen, 
 that the placard alluded to was a must 
 improper imblieaiion, and calculated, 
 being sent iui th at a period of the greatest i 
 
 excitement, and having a tendency to 
 produce a practicallj'^ evil effect on those 
 who were already out on strike, and doing 
 miscliief and damage in various directions. 
 I say that that placard ought not to be 
 treated as a merely seditious libel, but as 
 a part of the mischief going on, and 
 which that libel was calculated — to borrow 
 its very language — to extend and en- 
 force.” And wlien I am told that I have 
 collected a large number of defendants, 
 I ask what else can [ do ? I have, I be- 
 lieve, no less than thirty persons in the 
 indictment who were present at the con- 
 ference assembled on the 1 7th of August 
 last. Acting with that justice, fairness, 
 and impartiality which becomes a public 
 officer of the crown, how could I present 
 to your attention some, and leave out 
 others, unless I was satisfied of their in- 
 nocence ? And 1 put it to his Lordship, 
 after the reprimand which we received 
 at the special commission, when the vio- 
 lation and plunder of the Stockport work- 
 house were the subject of comment with 
 the learned .Judges, who thought that we 
 should have included all the parties in 
 one indictment, I had the less reason not 
 to include those who were the members 
 of the conference in this indictment be- 
 fore 3’oii. Talk of the monstrousiiess of 
 the indictment! An indictment must be 
 adapted to the crimes it is intended to 
 suppress; and if there he a monstrous 
 conspiracy — if there be an association for 
 a common object, acting as these de- 
 fendants have acted, why, then the prose- 
 cution and the indictment must be adapted 
 to the cliavacter of the cfience, and the 
 natine of the occasion. Gentlemen, we 
 are told that the gaols are full. What 
 are they full of ? Gentlemen, unhap- 
 pily crime is at all times too abund- 
 ant; but you cannot doubt, from the 
 evidence given before 3'ou during the last 
 two days, that there arc persons in the 
 gaol Sit Kirkdale, and at the Castle at 
 Chester, confined for ofil-iiees of this 
 description. And, gentlemen, where 
 would be the manliness of sending those 
 poor persons tj })lne in prison, who, at 
 the bidding of those lecturers and agita- 
 tors, bad gone out to do those deeds for 
 which they were now prosecuted. Where 
 would be the maiiliuess of jiroseciuing 
 them, and leaving them to pine in dun- 
 1 gcons, and pass by the enlightened mem- 
 
334 
 
 bers of the conference, allowing them to 
 go perfectly free ? ^ es, gentlemen, and 
 
 they would use that as an argument, if 
 they were so left ; — Oh, you cannot 
 complain oi anything now; as you do 
 not prosecute us tor this, we may do as 
 we like; there is an end of all prosecu- 
 tion;” and, indeed, one of them had said, 
 when the Executive Placard ” came out, 
 — ‘‘If the members of the ‘Executive’ 
 are not in custody in twenty-four hours, 
 it is because the Government dare not do 
 it. It would have been unmanlv and 
 unjust to seize upon the unhappy persons 
 goaded by speeches to do the acts for 
 which they were now suffering, and to 
 allow those who goaded them to remain 
 unprosecuted, and triumphing in the 
 impunity they enjoyed. Gentlemen, let 
 me cail your attention to a Jew dates ; 
 first, to the 0th of August, when the 
 march on Mancliester took place. I have 
 no intention — I had not before and I have 
 none now — to impute anything to Mr. 
 Maude, or to tlie magistrates, beyond 
 confiding in the faith of those who used 
 the expressions, “peace, law, and order,” 
 and pledged themselves to preserve peace 
 and order; and who, the moment they 
 had got into Manchester, broke them- 
 selves up into bands of persoi^s, going 
 about stopping all labour, and command- 
 ing a complete cessation from toil of 
 every kind. But this is now certain — 
 that the military were withdrawn, by the 
 consent, it not by the direction, of one of 
 the magistrates. Says Mr. O’Connor, 
 and some other persons, “That proves 
 that the magistrates saw no danger in it.” 
 Does it, gentlemen ? You saw Sir Tho- 
 mas Potter in the box to-day, and he 
 made this admission — an extraordinary 
 admission, I think, for a magistrate to 
 make: — “ Application was made (says 
 he)^ that we should assist persons in re- 
 sisting the mob; that we should give 
 them protection. We did not give them 
 that protection, and we advi.sed them not 
 to resist.” “ \\ hat ! *’ said I, “ were you 
 afraid of bloodshed ? ” Then the man 
 seems to have been roused above the ma- 
 gistrate. “Oh, no; I afraid ! J, never 
 was afraid of anything; not at all ; I had 
 no tear.” “ Well, then, will you. Sir 
 Thomas, (1 beg to ask you with perfect 
 respect), tell me why you took that 
 course ? ” “ Oh,” said Sir Thomas, “ the 
 
 men were willing to turn out.” That 
 was not quite a direct answer to the 
 question. “ Well, but that is no reason 
 why you should not assist those who 
 were not willing to turn out, where the 
 masters came and said, ‘ Pray assist us.’ ” 
 
 I could get no answer from Sir Thomas 
 Potter; and [ cannot help thinking, that 
 Sir Thomas Potter had no good and sub- 
 stantial answer to give. I have no doubt, 
 that it was the same temporising policy — 
 which is ever fatal to the public peace — 
 which induced the magistrates to with- 
 draw the troops, that permitted the mob 
 to march into a town like Manchester, 
 and to hand it over to them for the space 
 of forty-eight bouis. “ Weil but,” says 
 Mr. O’Connor, “ Down I came, and the 
 moment I came, all was peace: ” and Sir 
 Thomas Potter and several other persons 
 were called, by way of siqiporting that 
 view of the case. I asked Sir Thomas 
 Potter, “ How many constables did you 
 swear in ? ” “ Five hundred.” “ What 
 troops had you ? ” “ Why, five hundred 
 at first.” “ How many at last ? ” “ Abou 
 fifteen hundred.” “ When did you send 
 for more ? ” “ We sent on Saturday, 
 
 the .13th of August.” “ How long did 
 you, the magistrates, watch night and 
 day, with the special coiistahles in attend- 
 ance, relieving each other? ” “ For four 
 
 weeks at the least.” Why, gentlemen, 
 that would bring us down into the first 
 week in September, at the least. Gen- 
 tlemen, this was the state of the town of 
 Manchester when a procession had been 
 advertised for the IGlli of August, to com- 
 memorate, I think, the laying of the 
 foundation stone, or the festival, of 
 Hunt’s monument. On the 14th the 
 magistrates put forth a spirited, con- 
 stitutional, and proper proclamation, 
 a proclamation telling them in substance, 
 that all asseinblies whose obmet was not 
 of a legal character — that is Tor the per- 
 formance of some legal duty, and the ten- 
 dency of which was to create alarm, and 
 danger, should he prohibited. On the 
 loth a proclamation was issued from her 
 Majesty herself. Mr. b^cholefield says he 
 perused the magistrates’ proclamation and 
 ‘ immediately set about postponing his pro- 
 cession, and it was postponed ; and sub- 
 sequently it was extracted from oneofthe 
 witnesses that the tea party was also given 
 up. Nowq gentlemen, consider the state 
 
33-3 
 
 of things at this moment. Ibegto callyour 
 attention to this state of things. We are told 
 
 O there is nothing at all in this meet- 
 ing of the conference. 'I’lns meeting was 
 intended six weeks or two months before, 
 and the object of it was, lirst, the com- 
 memoration of Hunt, (which was aban- 
 doned) ; next to heal our ditferences, and 
 then to review our organization, and see 
 if we could make our body more legal.”-— 
 Very good, but the public meeting adver- 
 tised for these purposes is given up, and 
 the purposes themselves, you will see, are 
 fairly abandoned; for on the 17th notone 
 word is spoken about healing dilferences ; 
 there were none to heal — not one word 
 about Hunt’s monument— not one word 
 about making their organization more le- 
 gal ; all these were given up, and the bu- 
 siness of the conference seemed to be to 
 promote one common object, and that 
 was, how they might turn the strike to 
 the advantage of the Charter. That was 
 the single object, and you can perceive 
 that, gentlemen, beyond all doubt. At 
 the meeting of the trades delegates these 
 resolutions were passed : — 
 
 “ That, from the statements made before this 
 delegate meeting, it is evident that a tre- 
 mendous majority in these great manufacturing 
 districts are in favour of the People’s Charter 
 becoming the law of the land ; and, in confor- 
 mity with that opinion, it is at this stage of the 
 proceedings necessary that a definite decision 
 should be come to relative to the future course 
 of action to be immediately adopted by the 
 working classes, stating definitely whether la- 
 bour be further suspended, or again resumed.” 
 
 “ That the delegates here assembled recom- 
 mend their respective constituencies to adopt all 
 legal means to carry into effect the People’s 
 Charter, and that they send delegates to every 
 part of the United Kingdom, to endeavour to 
 get the co-operation of the middle and labouring 
 classes to ^;arry out the same ; and that they 
 stop work until it becomes the law of the 
 land.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — Were these proved ? 
 The ATI’ORNEY-GENEUAL:- 
 
 Ye.s, my liord ; you will find them in 
 the evidence of Mr. Hanley— they are 
 in his note.s. Your Jiordship will find 
 
 copy of them which I handed, up. 
 Now, gentlemen, the language of this 
 resolution is comparatively moderate; 
 
 and T quite agree that if it had been 
 passed on some other 1 6th of August — 
 although I believe it to be utterly ille- 
 gal— it might not be of so much import- 
 ance. But that resolution was passed 
 that day - on the 15tb of August. On 
 the 16th IMr. O’Connor came to Man- 
 chester, and the question of putting forth 
 the address, becomes at this moment 
 extremely important. You have already 
 had detailed the imperfect history of it. 
 That began with James Leach, who 
 endeavoured to disclaim the placard that 
 was exhibited at his door, and called a 
 witness to prove that it was put there. 
 James Leach was one of tlie executive, 
 committee. I p'roved that. I proved that 
 the executive committee consisted of five. 
 Flis Lordship has taken down their 
 names, and Leach is one. I asked the 
 man, who proved that executive pla- 
 card was posted at Leach’s door by 
 somebody else, if the posting-man went 
 into Leach’s house, and he said no; 
 then it could not he he who depo- 
 sited the other copy of the bill wbicb was 
 found on Leach’s counter. But why 
 did not Leach pull it down when he 
 came home and saw it staring him in the 
 face ? Is it nothing that he was pr||i- 
 dent of the committee vrho issued tliac 
 placard ? Is it nothing that this copy 
 was put in his house, which copy the 
 posting-man could not put there ? Does 
 Leach feel the force of that address ? 
 does he think that he may arise, and, by 
 means of it, lash the people to madness, 
 and then divest himself of the responsi- 
 bility, by saying — the posting-man 
 put it there ?" Why, I say, you are 
 one of the executive ; it purports to 
 come from the executive ; a copy of it 
 is posted at your door, and another copy 
 is found in your house. But where 
 did the proof-sheet come fi'om ? Where 
 did the manuscript come from ? This 
 implicates another person who has not 
 appeared before us, though his plea is 
 on the record. 
 
 Mr. MURPHY : — I appear for him. 
 The ATTORNEY - G ENERATi 
 We trace the original document from 
 place to place to M'Douall. The MS. is 
 burned; and if you tell me that the wit- 
 ness Cartledge is not to be believed, then 
 I confirm him by the ajiprentice boys. 
 
336 
 
 They tell where and how it came to them. ; 
 They confirm the story altogether, and 
 bring home to Leach and M'Douall that 
 Executive address. 'I'hen you have it | 
 proved that the address was adopted by 
 the conference the next day. When 
 Scholefield came in and announced Turner 
 the printer had been arrested, ?'*lr. O’Con- 
 nor immediately says — Now that justi- 
 fies what I said last night.” IVhat 1 said 
 last night. I date say Mr. O’Connor did 
 not want to he bolder than the occasion 
 required ; and you may remember one of 
 the expressions attributed to him was 
 this — “Don’t use the word recommend 
 merely use tb.e word approve', it will be 
 more legal; it will better evade the law- 
 in the event of the strike not turning as 
 wc expect which, after all, means this, 
 
 “ I want to use language adequate to the 
 occasion, but with so much caution and 
 guard, that, in the event of the strike not 
 turning cut as w'e wish, and the day of 
 reckoning shculd come before a jury, I 
 may have some little loop-hole to creej) out 
 at — something to offer — sosnething to 
 mitigate the sense in whicli I used this 
 expression. Gentlemen, M'Douall, one 
 of the Executive, is proved by incontro- 
 v?itfble evidence to have concocted and 
 corrected that address. The copy is 
 found at Leach’s w’here it was taken. It 
 ■was there M‘Douall was ; it was there 
 the paper was taken and there the cor- 
 rected copy was found in the handwriting 
 of MT)oualI-- 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR. — I do not wish to 
 interrupt the Atlorncy-Gencial, but I beg 
 to refer to your Ia)rdsljip’s notes to know', 
 if, in the evidence given by Grilfin or 
 Cartledge, any such observations were 
 made l)y me in reference to the Executive 
 address. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Somebody made the 
 observation. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:— You will find, 
 my Ldrd, that Cartledge said, in conver- 
 sation with Lairstow, when walking to- : 
 gether on Idonday, that I said something | 
 in reference to that address. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :-I 
 am told that it is in Griffin’s evideiqte. 
 
 I'HE JUDGE : — Cartledge is describ- | 
 ing wliat takes place in the chapel, lie 
 saw Mr. Scholefield there. He commu- 
 nicated something to the chairman, wdio 
 then declared that Turnci-, the printer. 
 
 ; had been aiTested. And then Mr. O’Con- 
 nor said that justified his remarks last 
 night, and added something to the effect 
 I that it was belter to avoid such things if 
 they could. 
 
 i he ATTORNEY- GENERAL : — 
 That IS what C’ariledge proved. He 
 proved that at that meeting, wdien Tur- 
 ner’s arrest was announced, Mr. O’Connor 
 said, “ That proves wdiat I said last night.” 
 Where had 1 the means of proving that 
 there was a meeting on the night there 
 alluded to ? I had not the means of 
 jiroving that till to-day, it was proved by 
 young Scholefield, who said that on the 
 night of the IGlh, there was a meeting 
 in the chapel, and that Mr. O’Connor 
 attended. There w’cre several persons 
 .there. ^I'hey came at seven o’clock and 
 remained till ten. A^oung Scholefield 
 w'ent to bed then, and how long they re- 
 mained he docs not know'. JMr. O’Con- 
 nor’s statement to-day throws light on 
 what he was doing. I asked if the ad- 
 dress appeared on Wednesday, and he 
 (Scholefield) said “No; he did not see 
 it till I'liursday.” I believe, in point of 
 fact, and so far as my evidence goes, that 
 placard, alihoiigh in a state of ])ublica- 
 tion, had not been put forth till after 
 that meeting of th.e night of the 16th. 
 Then comes the meeting of the next day. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR:—! do not w'isli to 
 interrupt the Attorney-General, blit the 
 evidence, as your Lordship will find by 
 a reference to your notes, is this ; that 
 the A18. was in the printer’s hands at 
 ten, and that wliocver sent it could not 
 wait to correct it ; and that it was out 
 the next clay between five a,nd six. 
 
 The ATTORN E Y-G EN ERAL : — 
 IT’S, but whether it was out of the print- 
 er’s hands and before the public, 1 don t 
 know. Ydiciher it was mooted and dis- 
 cussed at the meeting on the r;jgbt of the 
 I6tb, or not, this is certain, that Mr. O’ 
 Connor says, in refcience to it, the next 
 : day — “ That justifies the remark 1 made 
 I las't night.” I find that the testimony of 
 Cartledge and others on this })oint has 
 been alkukd to. Gentlemen, I don’t 
 stop to justify the violation of any pro- 
 mise that has been made in an iionest 
 cause. The defendants ha\e called wit- 
 nesses — the}' have no excuse for not call- 
 ing more. Johnson is accjuittcd, 'Vilde 
 is acquitted, Alliiison is acquitted, lliere 
 
was another reporter at the conference be- 
 sides Griffin, and if what passed there is 
 what can he avowed — what you and the 
 public should approve of, why don’t we 
 get it. O,” said Mr. O’Connor, why 
 don’t you put Griffin’s notes in evidence ?” 
 I tell you, gentlemen ; I wanted from 
 Griffin nothing hut the documents. I did 
 not want their speeches, I wanted but 
 the resolutions and address which I found 
 in the J\''orihern Star — nothing more. 
 If you do not choose to get it from Grif- 
 fin in cross-examination, do not complain 
 that I did not make his notes evidence. 
 When I put him into the box, if you 
 knew what he proved at Manchester, or 
 if he stated what was not true, there was 
 another reporter at the conference and 
 why not call him } If the character of the 
 meeting was misrepresented, why not 
 call this person ? There were forty at the 
 conference; they are not all in the in- 
 dictment, and why are they not called ? 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — The other re- 
 porter is a defendant. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL 
 William Hill is the other reporter, and 
 he being indicted they could not call him. 
 But, after all, my remark is this; it is 
 made a matter of complaint that I did 
 not give evidence of Griffin’s notes. But 
 if I had done so I should then be asked, 
 
 Why not confine yourself to documents 
 that cannot deceive ?” But I have strip- 
 ped Mr. O’Connor of that topic of re- 
 mark ; I have deprived him of that 
 opportunity of complaining by confining 
 him to the evidence of documents where 
 he cannot be deceived. This is the case. 
 Let us see what is the stale of Manches- 
 ter when the delegates assembled in con- 
 ference at Scholefield’s chapel on the 
 17th of August. That placard was 
 printed on Monday the 15th — Rim for 
 gold ; labour is suspended ; public credit 
 is shaken ; paper is worthless.” Good 
 God, gentlemen, I cannot but be ad- 
 dressing persons in that box who are ac- 
 quainted with what the effect of that 
 might be if there was a syllable of truth 
 in it. It is, not an uncommon thing 
 for a report to become true by the mis- 
 chievous consequences of its own propa- 
 gation. Run for gold, every sovereign 
 is now worth thirty shillings. Paper can- 
 not be cashed. Run, middle classmen, 
 trades, odd fellows^ sick clubs, money 
 
 clubs, to the savings’ banks, and all banks 
 for gold ! gold ! gold !” That was is- 
 sued on the loth. Then says Schole- 
 field, O spare me ; I yielded to the 
 authority of the magistrates. I put off 
 the meeting at my chapel. Nothing of 
 the kind was to take place. It was 
 stopped ■*by public advertisement.” And 
 says Mr. O'Connor and the rest of the 
 persons with him ; O spare us ; we 
 met ; we were at Mr. Scholefield’s cha- 
 pel in Manchester. We met there to 
 heal our differences, to organize our so- 
 ciety, and to commemorate Hunt’s mo- 
 nument.” Was there a syllable uttered 
 about healing differences ? Was there 
 one word about organizing the body, and 
 making it more legal ? Was there a word 
 about Hunt’s monument ? No ; They 
 met in conclave, for several hours, every 
 man stated the views of his constituency 
 and the state of his district .” — The views 
 of his constituency , and the state of his 
 district ! Gentlemen, I here do say, 
 that I consider that meeting — calling 
 themselves a meeting of delegates to re- 
 present districts, and the organ of the 
 opinions of the people of England — I 
 pronounce that, so far as I have any 
 judgment, to be in itself illegal. No 
 man has a right to assume to himself 
 any political function unknown to the 
 constitution. No set of persons have a 
 right, in defiance of the sovereign’s 
 power, to create corporations. No set of 
 persons have a right to act as a cor- 
 I porate body, without the sanction of 
 I the sovereign’s Charter; nor have any 
 persons a right to act as delegates 
 for any political purpose or other, in a 
 manner unknown to the constitution. 
 I state it briefly and fearlessly. I think 
 I am called upon to do so. The meet- 
 ing itself was illegal. Well, then I am 
 told, why don’t you stop such a meeting, 
 and such another meeting like it ? Why, 
 gentlemen, it is., perfectly true that I made 
 the remark alluded to, at Monmouth, on 
 the occasion of Frost’s trial, and I am 
 not at any time unprepared to make it 
 again when the occasion may call for it. 
 There are periods when you cannot carry 
 out the strict letter of the law to the last 
 point of legal exactness and severity ; and 
 it may be that an assembly of persons 
 was permitted at one time to sit cheek 
 by jowl with the House of Commons, 
 
338 
 
 bearding them, and discussing public j 
 questions and public measures side by ' 
 side with the House of Commons. In | 
 my humble judgment, that meeting was | 
 perfectly illegal ; it was sanctioned by no 
 constitutional authority. Every man has 
 a right to act for himself in ^his free 
 country ; he has aright fearlessly to express 
 his opinions upon all subjects connected 
 with his rights,— dealing with those rights 
 in a legal and proper manner, and subject 
 to the question, whether he is abusing, or 
 rightly using, the privilege of speech, — 
 every man has a right to petition ; but no 
 man has a right to create a political 
 organ, of which the constitution knows 
 nothing; no man has a right to consti- 
 tute himself a delegate, or create delegates 
 to meet other delegates, in a sort of con- 
 vention, and to have a sort of iwperium 
 i;i impmo in this state ; and great dan- 
 <rer must ensue from its being supposed 
 tiiat a meeting of this sort can take place 
 without a violation of the law. There 
 were delegates assembled in Manchester ; 
 and what did they do ? They passed a 
 resolution. It was assented to in a miti- 
 gated shape. An amendment was moved, 
 and that amendment was overruled. 
 There was an understanding that the de- 
 cision of the majority should bind the 
 minority. I do not rest merely on the 
 verbal evidence. The address w’as unan- 
 imously carried. I will presently call 
 your attention to the language of that 
 address, and to some of the passages that 
 are to be found in it. What is the language 
 of the meeting ? What is it that Cooper 
 savs ? I will say a word or two on what 
 Cooper says on*^ another occasion, by way 
 of testing the sincerity of those princi- 
 ples which to day we are called on to re- 
 spect. If my memory fails me not. Cooper 
 
 said For my part I am ready for 
 
 the worst; the Shakspearians of Leicester 
 are prepared to fight.” Gentlemen, it is 
 for you to consider whether it be true, but, 
 if it be true, what is the conclusion to 
 which you should come ? The puerile 
 comments on the phraseology of the ad- 
 dress about the God of battle— (and to 
 this address I shall presently allude) are 
 cattered in one moment, as soon as you 
 hear Cooper in the meeting at which he 
 referred to that address with approbation : 
 « I am prepared for the worst,” said he. 
 
 the Shakspearians of Leicester are pre- 
 pared to fight.” As — 
 
 The JUDGE: — He stated that the 
 Shakspearian Chartists of Leicester 
 were determined to have the Charter, and 
 that as for his part he was detemnned to 
 fight for the liberties of the people. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL : — 
 “ As for his part he was determined to 
 fight for the liberties of the people.” 
 Why, gentlemen, that is a better com- 
 mentary on the “ God of justice and of 
 battle,” than that suggested by my learned 
 and pious friend Dundas ; or that sug- 
 gested by some of the defendants, who 
 said it was taken out of our much admired 
 liturgy. Here is the resolution of the 
 conference delegates: — 
 
 “ That whilst the Chartist body did not origi- 
 nate the present cessation from labour, this con- 
 ference of delegates from various parts of Eng- 
 land, express their deep sympathy with their con- 
 stituents, the working men now on strike ; and 
 that we strongly approve the extension and the 
 continuance of their present struggle till the 
 People’s Charter becomes a legislative enact- 
 ment, and decide forthwith to issue an address 
 to that effect ; and pledge ourselves, on our re- 
 turn to our respective localities, to give a proper 
 direction to the people’s efforts.” 
 
 The amendment that might have miti- 
 gated that, found but a few supporters, 
 and they were out- voted. The conference 
 also adopted an address, and the Ex- 
 ecutive committee are referred to in that 
 address : — 
 
 “ Brothers, these are not times to hesitate! 
 The corn has a golden hue while your visages 
 are pale, but hope for change and better times. 
 We are fortunate in having an accredited execu- 
 tive, bearing the confidence of all, at our head.” 
 
 “ They, too, have called upon you. You will 
 read their address : it breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit.”^ 
 
 I have shewn you wdio the Executive 
 were ; James Leach, M‘Douall, Camp- 
 bell, Bairslow, and Morgan Williams. 
 The last mentioned is not before you. 
 "" It breathes a bold and manly spirit” — 
 
 Why,” says Mr. O’Connor, if you 
 were to speak of a crime, as being a bold, 
 and manly and daring act, would that 
 make you a party to it ? It might or it 
 might not. I can well understand an oc- 
 casion where, if you did speak of a crime 
 in those terms, especially the crime of trea- 
 
3:39 
 
 son, it would make you an accessory af- 
 ter the fiict. If you were associatin^f 
 with, and harbouring, persons wlro did 
 some bold act of treason, you would be 
 considered a party to the crime. We 
 are fortunate in having an accredited 
 Executive, bearing the confidence of all, 
 at our bead. They too, have called 
 upon yon. You will read their address; 
 it breathes a bold and manly spirit. We 
 could not, in times like the present, with- 
 hold from them, your servants, our cor- 
 dial support” — (that is the Executive 
 who published this address)— as in 
 union alone is security to be found, and 
 from unanimity alone, can success be ex- 
 pected.” Gentlemen, Mr. O’Connor has 
 alluded to the Chartist trials at Mon- 
 mouth. I stood side by side With Mr. 
 O’Connor watching the event of that 
 proceeding. Mr. O’Connor was there 
 acting on behalf of the unfortunate per- 
 sons implicated in that charge. To me, 
 indeed, Mr. O’Connor might not have 
 produced much of the evidence that he has 
 brought forward to-day to prove that he 
 is a person of warm and humane feeling, 
 of active benevolence, and of the kind- 
 liest nature. I bear of him that willing 
 testimony. You yourselves may have 
 seen how, when Pilling was telling his 
 story of distress, Mr. O’Connor melted 
 over those woes that he had not partici- 
 pated in. I believe that when Mr. 
 O’Connor came to Manchester he did 
 not intend to publish that address ; but 
 I say that, whether, seeing from the pros- 
 pect before him, that the time was now 
 ripe for joining in something like a gene- 
 ral movement to carry the Charter ; or, 
 whether he was carried away by others 
 against his better judgment, in the stream 
 of opinion, I know not. I do not accuse 
 Mr. O’Connor of going down to Man- 
 chester for that purpose ; but I do accuse 
 him of this ; — of knowing what that 
 Executive Address was, and, possibly 
 against his belter judgment, joining in 
 expressions in that address, in the reso- 
 lution, and in the Executive Placard, of 
 the meaning of which you will have, 
 presently, to judge altogether for your- 
 selves. (acntlemen, I may, perhaps, owe 
 to his Lordship, and to you, some apology 
 for what I have said with respect to Mr. 
 O’Connor; but I owe it to truth, and I 
 have ever fearlessly proclaimed what I 
 
 believe to he the truth, with respect to any 
 man whose conduct I had occasion to 
 speak of. I have never suppressed, under 
 any circumstances, that which I thought 
 might be advantageous, even to those 
 whom I was called upon to prosecute. 
 But I do say, gentlemen, notwithstanding 
 what I have stated, that I believe, after 
 hearing the evidence, and knowing what 
 I do know, — [ believe that Mr. O’Connor 
 came down with no intention of joining 
 that movement. But whether he was 
 carried away, as I said, by the opinions 
 of others, or thinking that the time was 
 come for such a movement, — I do charge 
 him with publishing this Executive Ad- 
 dress, this resolution, and the address of 
 the Chartist delegates. I charge him with 
 doing that for the purpose of inducing those 
 who were then out on strike to continue 
 the measures they were adopting, for the 
 purpose of carrying the Charter. But 
 then I am told about the words “ peace, 
 law and order.” Gentlemen, on this 
 subject I think Mr. O’Connor and the 
 Chartists have made a great mistake in 
 point ot law — I may almost say in point 
 of fact. They seem to think, that, pro- 
 vided no bones are broken, peace, 
 law and order, are preserved. Their 
 notion seems to be that if 5,000 people 
 march to a mill, and present their 
 physical intimidation, bludgeons, &c., 
 and with threats upon their brow ; then, 
 provided the parlies go out, without 
 being forced out, it seems to be the 
 opinion of those defendants that that is 
 no violation of the law. They fancy 
 that physical intimidation is moral 
 force. They say they do no mischief ; 
 but they go in such large num- 
 bers that no eftectaal resistance can be 
 offered, and then they say — "" Don’t 
 break windows or heads.” Now, sub- 
 ject to correction from his Lordship, I 
 don’t hesitate to pronounce this to be 
 as great a mistake, both in point of fact 
 and in point of law, as can be made. 
 It is not necessary that you should have 
 evidence of the pulling down and the 
 burning of mills — it is not necessary 
 that they should .have proceeded to such 
 lengths as would make the country un- 
 safe to live in; any set of men (his 
 Lordship will tell you whether I am 
 laying down the law correctly,^ who may 
 go in such numbers, as to make their 
 
340 
 
 request an irresistible demand, are not 
 conducting themselves consistently with 
 peace, law, and order. Now, of this 
 mistake I will give you one specimen. 
 Evidence w^as given that some people 
 W’ere at work. I think they w’ere doing 
 some bricklaying work, and some men 
 came up and said — ‘‘you are working, 
 you must not go on wuth the w’ork.” 
 The man said — “ I mean to go on if I 
 can ; I must not give up at your 
 bidding.” So away they went and got 
 another “lot” — I believe that was the 
 expression — and then they stopped. 
 “ Well,” said the defendant Woodruffe, 
 in cross-examining the witness with the 
 simplicity of a person falling into the 
 error— (the riot act was read, mind,) — 
 “ Well,” said Woodruffe to the witness 
 Maiden, “ was .any body hurt ?” “ No,” 
 
 said the witness. “ Was any property 
 destroyed ?” “ No.” That is their no- 
 
 tion of peace, law, and order. Provided 
 you do not destroy life, inflict some bodily 
 injuiy, or destroy property, they have a 
 notion that peace, law, and order, are 
 preserved, and that nobody has a right 
 to complain. I have read to you, gen- 
 tlemen, the only passages of the address, 
 and of the resolution, that I think it ne- 
 cessary now to call your attention to : 
 but the placard itself has been the subject 
 of a great deal of comment. I do not 
 mean to go through it in the elaborate 
 manner in which my learned friend Dun- 
 das has done, who commented upon it 
 sentence by sentence. What do you 
 think, gentlemen, of this, “ English- 
 men ! the blood of your brothers red- 
 dens the streets *of Preston and 
 Blackburn,” (in the smaller copy, Hali- 
 fax is put in) “ and the murderers 
 thirst for more.” Now, this was too 
 strong for my learned friend Dundas. 
 None of the defendants thought proper 
 to comment on this. My learned fiiend 
 Dundas felt bound to do so. But, says 
 my learned friend, it rvas wrong to call 
 them ‘ murderers.’ Well, you will find 
 that with reference to that very event, one 
 of the expressions used is, that English- 
 men had been murdered, while they w^ere 
 peacefully agitating. As if surrounding 
 the constituted authorities at Preston, and 
 the military who w’ere assisting them, as 
 if surrounding them by a mob in front 
 and rear ^nd from parrallel street, throwing 
 
 stones over the houses before and behind 
 — as if that was a peaceful agitation of 
 the Charter. 
 
 “ Be firm, be courageous, be men. Peace, 
 law, and order, have prevailed on our side, let 
 them be revered until our brethren in Scotland, 
 Wales, and Ireland, are informed of your 
 resolution ; and when a universal holiday pre- 
 vails, which will be the case in eight days, 
 of what use will bayonets be against public 
 opinion ?” 
 
 That is overpow^ering the constituted 
 authorities of the country by intimidation 
 — that is public opinion. 
 
 “ What tyrant can then live above the terrible 
 tide of thought and energy, which is now flowing 
 fast, under the guidance of man’s intellect, which 
 is now destined by a Creator to elevate his peo- 
 ple above the reach of want, the rancour of des- 
 potism, and the penalties of bondage ?” 
 
 “ The trades, a noble, patriotic band, have 
 taken the lead in declaring for the Charter, and 
 drawing their gold from the keeping of tyrants. 
 Follow their example, lend no whip to rulers 
 wherewith to scourge you. Countrymen and 
 brothers, centuries may roll on, as they have 
 fleeted past, before such universal action may 
 again be displayed. We have made the cast for 
 liberty, and we must stand like men the hazard 
 of the die. Let none despond. Let all be cool 
 and watchful, and like the bridesmaids in the 
 parable, keep your lamps burning, and let your 
 continued resolution be a beacon to guide those 
 who are now hastening far and wide to follow 
 your memorable example. Brethren, we rely 
 on your firmness; cowardice, treachery and 
 womanly fear, would cast our cause back for 
 half a century. Let no man or child break down 
 the solemn pledge, and if they do, may the curse 
 of the poor and the starving pursue them — they 
 deserve slavery who would madly court it. — 
 Our machinery is all arranged, and your cause 
 will in three days be impelled onward by all the 
 intellect we can summon to its aid ; therefore, 
 whilst you are peaceful, be firm, and whilst you 
 look to the law, remember that you had no voice 
 in making it, and are, therefore, the slaves to the 
 will, thelaw, and the caprice of your masters. All 
 officers of the Association are called upon to aid 
 and assist in the peaceful extension of the move- 
 ment, and to forward all monies for the use of 
 delegates who may be expressed over the 
 country. Strengthen our hands at this crisis. 
 Support your leaders. Rally round our sacred 
 cause, and leave the decision to the God of 
 Justice and of Battle.” 
 
341 
 
 Now, gentlemen, the very identical 
 newspaper in which this address and this 
 resolution are contained, and this refer- 
 ence to the Executive f)lacard was made, 
 contains a passage which was read on 
 behalf of the defendants for the purpose 
 of shewing what was the meaning of peace, 
 law”, and order. Your Lordship has a 
 copy of tile paper. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Yes, I have got a copy 
 of the third edition. I will now turn to 
 the passage to which Mr. O’Connor re- 
 ferred. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:—! 
 will hand up a copy to your Lordship of 
 the paper. I think you will find the 
 passage referred to on the eighth page. 
 
 FROM OUR THIRD EDITION OF LAST WEEK. 
 
 FURTHER PROGRESS. 
 
 “ Northern Star Office, 
 
 “ Saturday Morning, Two o’clock. 
 
 When the wicked bend their bow, they not 
 unfrequently shoot beyond the mark they aimed 
 at. We to-day dispatched our own reporter 
 into the disturbed districts, to learn the real 
 state of matters up to the latest moment; and 
 from his statement, which we subjoin, the League 
 men appear to have done so in this instance. 
 Their object, doubtless, in the forcing on and 
 sustaining of this preconcerted strike, was to 
 confine it to the adjuncts of machinery in mills 
 and factories. We imagine that their purpose 
 extended not further than the lightening of their 
 present heavy stock of manufactured goods by a 
 temporary cessation of productive power in that 
 particular department ; while they might make it 
 also serve the purpose of verifying their state- 
 ments of the people’s discontent and their pre- 
 dictions of ‘‘risings and riotings” for food; and 
 so of procuring for them another “ Extension of 
 Commerce" for the keeping up of the golden 
 showers to which they have become so habituated 
 that they take badly to a change of weather : 
 while, as we have already said, their further ob- 
 ject was to make it also a weapon against Char- 
 tism. They have over-reached themselves ! The 
 wicked are taken in their own snare ! and the 
 sham-Chartist League strike seems, from our re- 
 porter’s statement, to have become a Chartist strike 
 in good earnest, so far as Manehester, at least, 
 is concerned. The trades generally have now fol- 
 lowed out the mill hands. They appreciate the 
 kind feeling of their League friends in forcing 
 out their brethren ; they think what is good for 
 some must be good for all ; and so have turned 
 out for company. While they reason, truly and 
 like statesmen, that their efforts might as well 
 point to a primary as to a secondary benefit ; that 
 
 there is little use in obtaining an advantage of 
 which they may again be deprived to-morrow ; 
 and that therefore the thing in which they are 
 most interested is not so much the prevention of 
 the present reduction, nor even the obtaining a 
 present advance in wages, as the securing of that 
 political power of self-protection which may ena- 
 ble them to bring their labour to the market free 
 from the iniquitous and oppressive disadvantages 
 which now beat down its value. This is a glori- 
 ous conclusion. It is a point worth struggling 
 for ; worth suffering for ; worth passing through 
 some risk and hazard for ; because, once gained, 
 it cannot fail to compensate. 
 
 “ Our opinion on the means now used for its 
 attainment by the trades of Manchester was re- 
 gistered three years ago. That opinion has un- 
 dergone no change. A cessation from labour, to 
 be effectual to the carrying any political object, 
 must be national and simultaneous: it cannot 
 then fail to be successful, because it indicates the. 
 nation’s will, against which, in its full strength, 
 whether positively, or thus negatively, mani- 
 fested, no power can stand ; but a mere sectional 
 display of this most decisive of all forms 
 of moral force, like a mere sectional display of 
 physical resistance, is sure to be overpowered by 
 the strength of faction, consisting in its immense 
 wealth and its organized physical resources." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this is read for the pur- 
 pose of explaining the intention of the Ex- 
 ecutive address, the address to the Char- 
 tist body, and the resolution. What is 
 the meaning of this ? Does it not mean. 
 
 Don’t destroy property, don’t destroy 
 life, but don’t let the people work : stop 
 the mills, make it national: go about 
 with your large numbers, and request the 
 people, and if they see you strong enough 
 they will attend to your request.’* 
 
 “ If then the strike is to be a Chartist strike, ^ 
 it must become universal : not merely Manches- 
 ter, but every town in England, Wales, and 
 Scotland, must at once — as one man and with one 
 voice— declare the purpose of the people to 
 free ; and such a declaration will be to thosi- 
 whom it concerns the fiat of omnipotence. But 
 if Manchester, or even Lancashire, sustain the 
 struggle singly, it will be unsuccesful, and, in all 
 probability, retard the movement it was meant 
 to hasten." 
 
 I will read another passage from page 
 five, column three. This really is the 
 very life and soul of the question. Now, 
 gentlemen, just listen to this for a mo- 
 ment. 
 
 z 
 
CHORLEY. 
 
 August 17. 
 
 ‘ ‘ About 8000 people entered Chorley, yesterday, 
 about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, principally 
 coUiers by trade, and succeeded in stopping all 
 the works in less than two hours. A great num- 
 ber have gone to Preston this morning. All the 
 works are at a stand to-day ; none have dared to 
 start their mills, with the exception of Medcalf, 
 the manager for the estate of Dobson. A public 
 meeting took place last night, and a resolution 
 was psssed to have the Charter the law of the 
 land before they worked again." — 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR. — I am sure, the 
 Attorney-General does not mean to con- 
 vey any mistake ; the other was a lead- 
 ing article — this is correspondence. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 This is a statement of what was going 
 on, which serves as a proof that the editor 
 and proprietor of this paper knew what 
 was going on. He knew it, for it is 
 in the same paper which contains this 
 advice. 
 
 ]Mr. HILL : — The latter part of the 
 leading article, I presume, was not read : 
 it is materially connected with, and ex- 
 planatory of, the preceding part wliich 
 the Attorney-General has now read, and 
 should in all fairness come helbre the 
 
 jury 
 
 The JUDGE : — I wish you to mark 
 passages considered of importance, as 
 they have not been read before ; for 
 otherwise I shall have considerable difS- 
 ciilty in distinguishing them. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 I entreat of you, gentlemen, to read the 
 whole of that leading article which Mr. 
 Hill has adverted to, and, if he can find 
 anything in it but the meaning which I 
 pointed out, in the name of justice give 
 Mr. O’Connor the benefit of it. The re- 
 mainder of tlie article was then read. 
 
 “ Let the country see to this ; the men 
 of Lancashire have done nobly ; let their breth- 
 ren throughout the empire arouse ; let them 
 speak out at once, like men, and say, ‘ Yes’ or 
 ‘ No,’ to the great question of ‘ shall we now 
 strike for the Charter?’ No higgling — no hesita- 
 tation — no v/aiti:ig : — 
 
 ‘ If, when done, ’twere well done. 
 
 Then, ’twere well it were done quickly,’ 
 
 “Never, however, for one moment let it^be 
 forgotten by any Chartist, that to be successful 
 they must be peaceful. They have a right to 
 strike, but they have no right to riot. They have ! 
 
 I a right to work or not to work, but they have no 
 I right to break windows, destroy property, or burn 
 factories. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Above all things, they have no right to insult, 
 annoy, or fight with the police force or the sol- 
 diery. Every hellish invention will be practised 
 to indhee them to do this : let the bridle be kept 
 tightly on their tempers and even on their 
 tongues : let them even patiently bear annoyance, 
 insult and indignity ; resenting them only by the 
 calmness of a manly contempt, the offspring of 
 a lofty purpose not to be turned aside. 
 
 “ It rejoices us to see from our reporter’s state- 
 ment that it is so now. That the people laugh 
 at all efforts to bring them into collision with 
 the soldiery. Right thankful are w^e that our 
 often and again reiterated lessons of forbearance 
 have been thus appreciated, even by a starving 
 people, goaded as they are. Let but this spirit 
 be still manifested ; the “ risings and the riots ’’ 
 left to to the infernal hatchers of the plot ; the 
 calm determination of the people held up to its 
 point ; the enemy disarmed by peacefulness ; 
 and the strike becomes universal — England, 
 AVales, and Scotland presenting at the same mo- 
 ment one workless workshop — while the dogs 
 of war have no pretence to tear; and the fiends 
 of faction will soon “ scratch their heads,’’ and 
 knowing such an “ asking’’ to be equivalent to 
 “ taking,’’ will give the Charter in a trice, and 
 thankful to be thus let off. 
 
 “ But mind ! to be thus effective it must be 
 universal. The rolling of the ocean’s waters bears 
 away the dam upon which, though running in 
 the same direction, the rivulet makes no impres- 
 sion, and the stream expends its force in vain. 
 
 “ Let nothing, therefore, be done hastily. By 
 hastily we mean thoughtlessly, and without due 
 coirsideration. 
 
 ‘ The attempt, and not the deed 
 Destroys us.’ 
 
 “ If the people are prepared to carry out a na- 
 tional strike let them do so : but let them not 
 attempt it without first knowing that they can 
 carry it out. The vanntings and boastings of a 
 few thousands of too-zealous men ; the passing 
 of resolutions declaratory of their intention ne- 
 ver to return to work until the Charter becomes 
 law ; and then the failure of all this for want of 
 due support ; and the finish of the w hole by the 
 ‘ going in' of these parties, without the Charter, 
 and without any other practical advantage, pro- 
 bably to the great disadvantage of many of 
 them, would have a great tendency to dispirit 
 the people ; to damp their ardour in the move- 
 
343 
 
 ment ; and to throw seriously back the Charter 
 agitation. This, no true patriot could desire : 
 and yet from all the circumstances that we are 
 able to see of the whole case, we fear that this 
 will be just the effect of a perseverance in the 
 present movement. We see no chance of its 
 becoming national. There has been no concert, 
 save amongst the rascals of the League. There 
 is no organization for it. There are no means 
 upon which for the different sections of the 
 people to fall back for sustenance, while the 
 flame spreads through the land. And it seems 
 almost unnatural to expect that the corrupt tree 
 of Anti-corn-law League plottery should produce 
 any fruit so wholesome as the bending of the 
 whole energies of the whole people at one time 
 towards one point; and again we repeat, that 
 unless that he so, the whole will be, as far as 
 Chartism is concerned, a miserable failure, and 
 do us much harm. There is no power in any 
 section of the country to remain out for any 
 length of time, without coming in contact with 
 the law. The people must have food. If a 
 general cessation of labour in any given district 
 be kept up for a considerable length of time, a 
 great portion of the people of that district must 
 obtain food by means which will bring them 
 into collision tvith the authorities ; and this 
 must end in the infliction upon many of them 
 of at least a much greater amount of destitution 
 and suffering than they before endured ; to say 
 nothing of all the proscriptions, the imprison- 
 ments, the transportings, and, perhaps, the 
 hangings ; nothing of all the shootings and 
 saberings, to which it may be a prelude. An 
 universal strike would be free from these risks; 
 for its very appearance and existence would at 
 once paralyse the arm of power, and sicken the 
 heart of faction : while a sectional one. of 
 almost whatever magnitude, could only, and 
 certainly would only, be productive of the evils 
 we have just described. 
 
 “ Dearly, therefore, as we should love to see 
 the millions with one shout throw down their 
 tools, and throw up their hands, and fold up 
 their arras, while faction stood, as she would 
 then stand, amazed, dismayed and powerless, 
 we yet fear that this will not no^o be the case ; 
 and; therefore, we regret that the Charter move- 
 ment should have been at all mixed up with the 
 strike. We fear that it will eventually be found 
 to have only served the purpose of the enemy. 
 Lothe would we be to damp the ardour, to the 
 slightest extent, of any of our friends ; but we 
 
 should be still more lotbe to permit them un- 
 wittingly to harm the cause without warning. 
 We pretend not to infallibility of judgment ; 
 we presume not to dictate a course of action. 
 The people wull determine on their own course ; 
 but they have a right to our opinion, and while 
 we have power of wielding tongue or pen, they 
 shall always have it honestly, without fear or 
 favour. We have, then, on this matter, given 
 our opinion. Let the people give it its owu 
 value. They will w^eigh well the whole circum- 
 stances, and determine for themselves upon the 
 question of strike or no strike : but if Ihi 
 strike is to be for the Charter, let it be national, 
 and let it be simultaneous ; not progressing 
 slowly, but at once bringing out every place ; 
 or let it not be attempted. Let the I.eaguers 
 who have attempted the reduction, he battled 
 singly by the people of their districts ; and 
 made to feel that a single Leaguer is as power- 
 less against a large section of the people, as a 
 section of the people is against all the force of 
 faction. Thus will the strike return to its 
 original character, and be productive, if not of 
 benefit, at least of less mischief than we appre- 
 hend from it should it remain sectional, and yet 
 tend politically. The question is one of the 
 highest importance and greatest delicacy that 
 the people can entertain. Let it not be enter- 
 tained thoughtlessly ! Let them bring to it 
 deep consideration and expansive views ; taking 
 in the whole range of circumstances, effects, 
 and consequences ; and God speed them in their 
 efforts for Right !" 
 
 If you want to know what is meant 
 by certain expressions, you must enquire 
 something more about them than merely 
 what were the words used. 
 
 BINGLEY. 
 
 Several thousands left Bradford early on Tues- 
 day morning, and proceeded towards Shipley, 
 T»rhere they stopped all the mills without difficulty, 
 there being no protective force. From thence 
 they marched on to Bingley, where they com- 
 menced their work of putting a stop to all busi- 
 ness. While the Skipton mail was passing 
 through, all persons got on that could find room, 
 and rode on to Keighley. 
 
 WEDNESDAY. 
 
 Everything is quite at a stand still, and no- 
 thing is to be seen but the families of the turn- 
 outs who are parading the streets. 
 
 Why ? There being no protecliv^e 
 force. 
 
344 
 
 TAFFORD. 
 
 WEDNESDAY NIGHT. 
 
 How matters will terminate it is impossible for 
 one to tell. This part of the country is in an 
 awful state of excitement. On Monday last, all 
 the shops in this town were shut up, and great 
 excitement prevailed in consequence of a report 
 that the colliers “ were coming." Three hun- 
 dred additional specials were immediately sworn 
 in. The 12th foot were removed from this town 
 this morning for the Isle of France, and were 
 replaced by two troops of the 34th. If matters 
 do not assume a different aspect soon, the whole 
 of the Stafford trade will be at a stand-still, as 
 it depends entirely on the Pottery and the 
 northern districts, indeed many of the manufac- 
 turers are already talking of stopping their 
 shops." 
 
 » SKIPTON. 
 
 ‘‘ Several thousands visited this quiet town on 
 Tuesday, from Colne and other parts, and stopped 
 the mills. The town remained quiet on ^Yed- 
 nesday. On Tuesday, the special constables cap- 
 tured, with the assistance of a few of the military, 
 six of the turn-outs, who were committed to 
 York. Mr. Garforth, one of the magistrates, 
 was, we understand, much injured." 
 
 A witness was called to day for the 
 defence, who stated that he went from 
 Burnley to Colne, and held meetings 
 there, at which there Avere from 15000 to 
 20000 persons present ; and that he did 
 so in order to quiet the neighbour- 
 hood.” 
 
 « KEIGHLEY. 
 
 “ Great excitement prevailed here on Monday. 
 Several thousand turn- outs poured into the town 
 between ten and eleven o’clock, and proceeded 
 to stop all the mills. Every precaution was 
 taken by the magistrates, who issued a procla- 
 mation requesting all peaceable inhabitants to 
 keep within doors, and swore in upwards of 400 
 constables, but for whose services there were 
 not much occasion, not being backed by any 
 military, who were all engaged in the neighbour- 
 ing large towns." 
 
 “ POTTERIES. 
 
 SHELTON AND HANLEY. 
 
 TUESDAY, TWELVE o’CLOCK. 
 
 I have just heard that the military stationed 
 at Burslem have begun firing on the people, and 
 that two men have been killed, one from Stoke- 
 «pon-Trent, and the other from either Maccles- 
 field or Congleton ; but reports are so rife at 
 the present hour, that the extent of the foss of 
 
 life cannot be told. I also hear that numbers ai’ft 
 wounded, but how great a number I cannot say, 
 thus proving that the ruling few are determined, 
 at all hazards, to perpetuate their rule over the 
 sons of labour. MTiere these things Avill end I 
 cannot say, but this I do say, that neither life 
 nor property is now safe in these districts. I 
 would just make one remark before I close this,. 
 that, as a body, the Chartists have had no hand 
 in the destruction of property that has beea 
 going on here, nor has the advice of the Char- 
 tist speakers been attended to, for, had that 
 been the case, I can affirm that no such thing 
 as loss, either of property or life, could ever 
 have occurred. 
 
 “august 17th. 
 
 “ I resume my narrative from where I left off 
 in my report of yesterday, I perceive that I 
 omitted to state that the residence of the Rev. 
 R. E. Aitkins was set on fire sometime about 
 two o’clock A. M,, and Avhat makes this worse, 
 the Rev. gentleman was a complete invalid, and. 
 report says that the state of excitement into 
 which he was thrown, has terminated fatally, 
 but this I cannot say that I positively know,.. 
 nor can I rely on hearsay tales. I have also to 
 report that the elegant mansion of W. Parker, 
 Esq,, has shared the same fate, and nothing is. 
 to be seen but a heap of ruins at either of those 
 places, 
 
 “ A public meeting w^as suddenly called by 
 the influentials of Hanley and Shelton, to devise 
 the best means of relieving the distresses of 
 the inhabitants of this once flourishing district.. 
 This meeting was addressed by Mr. Moses 
 Simpson, W. Ridgw’ay, Esq., Mr. John Richards, 
 and Mr. \Vm. Ellis, from Burslem. Much good 
 speaking was the result, but just as the meeting 
 was about to come to some definite conclusion, 
 the arrival of a body of military put a stop to any~ 
 further proceedings ; but not before the Chartists 
 had passed a vote for the w’hole Charter. Mr. 
 Ridgway earnestly requested the meeting to stand 
 firm, as it was a legal public meeting, conducting 
 itself in a peaceable manner, and that the mili- 
 tary had no right to interfere. A magistrate 
 was with the military, (I hear a Rev.) and he, ia 
 true character, ordered the meeting to be dis- 
 persed, which was done. The Rev. Gentleman 
 then read the Riot Act, and gave strict orders 
 that all persons found in the streets should be ar- 
 rested. 
 
 I have also omitted to state, that there are 
 pawnshops in the townships of Hanley and Shel- 
 ton, and a number of persons of both sexes, but 
 mostly females, surrounded the pawn-brokers^ 
 
345 
 
 d,emanding the goods which they had pledged, 
 and though several persons addressed them, 
 urging that it would be unjust in them to take 
 back by force what they had pledged unless they 
 paid the money they had on those goods, yet the 
 women would have no nay : their clothes they 
 would have, and being emboldened by consider- 
 able numbers, forced their way into the pawn- 
 shops and served themselves, getting not their 
 own property but anything that came to their 
 hands, and taking many things belonging to other 
 persons. This morning I witnessed a spring cart 
 full of females, guarded by both horse and foot, 
 taken to Newcastle ; and some men on foot, be- 
 tween the sections of infantry, were likewise 
 taken to the same place, for examination before 
 the magistrates, and no doubt but most of them 
 will be committed for trial at the next sessions. 
 
 “ In my last I stated that two men were killed 
 at Burslem, it is now certain that one was shot 
 dead, the other, though very seriously wounded, 
 ^may still recover ; his name is Jerrold, a brick- 
 layer, at Stoke-upon-Trent. 
 
 Now, you will judge for yourselves 
 wliat could be the meaning of these words 
 — ^‘The God of battle,” and this allusion to 
 the inutility of bayonets, which I read from 
 the paper itself. It is mockery to tell us 
 that this was a mere tribute of adoration 
 to the God who governs all events ; a 
 mere expression, as Mr. Dundas has it, 
 to the great Being who decides contests 
 of the strong,” and means nothing. Gen- 
 tlemen, what was it calculated to pro- 
 duce ? I will tell you what it did pro- 
 duce. In page eight of the same paper 
 in which the explanatory leading article 
 is, you have this statement : — 
 
 DEWSBURY. 
 
 WEDNESDAY NIGHT. 
 
 While I am now writing, the turn-outs are 
 just returned to town ; there cannot be less than 
 twenty thousand — all sober, steady, straight- 
 forward men, — who apparently seem more de- 
 termined than ever for the general stand. They 
 have been round to Ossett, Horbury, Healey, 
 Middletown, and Thornhill, where they have 
 stopped all hands without the least interruptio . 
 
 The authorities have been sitting all day 
 swearing in any body they could for special con- 
 stables. ** 
 
 “ The millowners of Batley have compelled 
 their men to be sworn in as specials, so as they 
 ■can commence work in the morning : but, as far 
 BS I can learn, the assembled turn-outs in the 
 town are determined to resist it. 
 
 “ I he town is completely in the hands of the 
 turn-outs— all peaceable.’’ 
 
 All peaceable, gentlemen ! Is that the 
 peace that is meant by the words "" peace, 
 law and order,” which you find on the 
 Executive Placard ? All peaceable ! Yes, 
 because they have it entirely their own 
 way. 
 
 ‘‘ The town is completely in the hands of the 
 turn-outs — all peaceable. But I am afraid if 
 any interruption be offered it will not be for long, 
 as they appear determined to have their object 
 before they return to w'ork again.” 
 
 I do not think it necessary, my Lord, 
 to read more of this. I have called your 
 attention to, I think, six or seven para- 
 graphs, which I have marked, but, gen- 
 tlemen, take the whole paper and read it 
 for yourselves^ and say whether you be- 
 lieve that the words peace, law and 
 order,” do really mean peace, the protec- 
 tion of the law', and the preservation of 
 order, such as every man in this country 
 has a right to demand from those that 
 govern the lajid, and from the authorities 
 of the country, to protect him in. But 
 there is another paragraph which I can- 
 not help calling your attention to. Here 
 is a paragraph by one Thomas Cooper. 
 Against him it is no evidence ; but it is 
 evidence against the proprietor and editor 
 of the paper. I beg to call your atten- 
 tion to the heartless, hypocritical, sneer- 
 ing tone he has adopted. Cooper is sup- 
 posed to say that he went on to Staf- 
 ford : — 
 
 “ I found matters in a somewhat critical 
 condition in this Tory-ridden borough. Mason, 
 and his companions in tribulation, are confined 
 in the gaol here : one hundred and fifty colliers 
 had been also lodged in it within the week — 
 troops of soldiers had been marched into the 
 town — additional rooms were being built to the 
 gaol — cannon, it was said, was to be planted upon 
 the extreme towers — and everything looked so 
 threatening, that when the friends here took a 
 bill to the printer, announcing my lecture, he 
 did not dare to print it. Great fears were enter- 
 tained that I would be apprehended if I dared to 
 stand up in the market-place that night. How- 
 ever, when seven o’clock had struck, there I was 
 —mounted on a famous long bench, procured by 
 the friends. The superintendent of police then 
 took his station close by my right elbow, the 
 tory gentry and ladies threw up their windows to 
 listen and hear the rebel Chartist commit him- 
 
346 
 
 self, and to see him pounced upon and borne Padihara, Skipton, Blackburn and Pres- 
 away in the dirty claws of the raw lobsters. But ton. But what was the effect of the 
 
 no ! I shewed how excellent it was to have a 
 “ Sweet little silver-voiced lady,” 
 and pay our million and a quarter yearly to sup- 
 port herself and her establishment. I demon- 
 strated that loyal Chartists knew the land would 
 be ruined if the civil list were not kept up ? and 
 that working men would all weep their eyes sore 
 if Adelaide were to be bereft of her £100,000 
 a-year. I denounced any ragged shoemaker 
 (Stafford, like Northampton, you know, my 
 brave Shakspeareans, is a famous shoemaking 
 town,) as a stupid fellow if he dared to talk about 
 his aged grandmother being in a bastile and ve- 
 getating on skilly, while the Dowager had three 
 palaces to live in. The satire completely blunted 
 the talons of the blue-bottle ; his hard face re- 
 laxed, his teeth separated, and at length he 
 grinned outright, wliile the host of shopmates 
 burst into laughter. 
 
 Well — what was to be done ? I could not be 
 taken up for treason, for my words” — [Words, 
 words, words, said the Attorney-General ] 
 
 were ultra-loyal, with a witness ! Three villain- 
 ous red-coats, standing in the crowd, soon solved 
 the difficulty.” 
 
 That is an instance of the hypocri- 
 tical purposes for which certain language 
 can be adopted. Now, gentlemen, I 
 have a word or two to say upon the result 
 of this trial. I have taken some pains 
 W'ith the evidence, and I want to state to 
 you the effect of it. The Executive 
 Placard was got out of the printer’s 
 bands on the evening of the 16th, but 
 it does not appear to have been very much 
 abroad in Manchester till after the 17th. 
 Now I beg to tell you the names of the 
 places where that paper was made a rally- 
 ing watch-word, not of what I call peace, 
 law, and order, but of violence : Man- 
 chester, Stockport, Hj^de, Mottram, Old- 
 ham, Roy ton, Todmorden, Rochdale, 
 Burnley, Bacup, and Blackburn; eleven 
 places in all. In every one of those 
 places, a copy of that resolution appeared. 
 Let us see the effect of it. Before the 
 march on ^Manchester the stopping of the 
 mills had been comparatively at a few 
 places, but, from the 9tb of August, you 
 w'ill find most of the acts of violence oc- 
 curred. The attack on the Stockport 
 v/orkhouse was after that — I think on the 
 11th. Acts of violence were also com- 
 mitted after that act in IMoUram, Woolly- 
 bridge, Broadbottom, Glossop, Todmor- 
 clen, Rochdale, Burnley, Haslingden, 
 
 I placard ? Why, all the places in which 
 I considerable violence occurred, the da- 
 i mage was done after the publication of 
 I the placard. Shipley’s case was after 
 ; the placard. 
 
 j Mr. O’CONNOR : — That was on the 
 j lOih of Ano'ust. 
 
 I The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It 
 [ was on the 26th or 30th. Cooper’s was 
 ! on the 24lh. There were several other 
 acts of violence committed as the effect 
 of the publication of that placard. It 
 was industriously circulated over the coun- 
 tiy. By whom ? By those who put it 
 forth. There was none else to do it. It 
 did great mischief. It altered the tone 
 and general conduct of the turn-outs; 
 and they conducted themselves not with 
 the same respect for property and life, 
 and feeling as they did before. I beg, 
 gentlemen, now to call your attention to 
 another paragraph which I have read 
 from that paper, as explaining the mean- 
 ing of the terms “ peace, law, and order.” 
 These words meant — “Alarm, terrify, in- 
 timidate ; go in such numbers as to he 
 irresistible, hut do not desti'oy property, 
 for that may bring you \> ithin the ven- 
 geance of the law. Propertv'’ is protected 
 by acts of parliament. Don’t destroy 
 it; hut go and intimidate as much as 
 you please.” But, gentlemen, have you 
 not evidence that affects every body who 
 was present at that conference meeting ? 
 You will find that, in the first place, 
 Thomas IMalion was there. 
 
 I’lie JUDGE: — There were only 
 twenty-three proved. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL 
 Mahon’s name does not occur in the list 
 derived from either Cardedge or Griffin. 
 But in the evidence given at one of the 
 meetings, it is stated that Mahon was 
 elected to attend the conference, and was 
 going. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — That was the 
 trades’ delegates meeting, mv Lord. 
 
 The ATTORNEY - GENERAL 
 No, my Lord, he was chosen as a dele- 
 ^te to the convention St Manchester. 
 But, if there be any doubt about Mahon, 
 
 I will proceed to another — John Leach 
 of Hyde. Now he was at meetings of 
 the 1st, 7th, 8lh, 9lh, and lOlh, of August. 
 On the 12th he was at Hyde; on the 
 
347 
 
 13th at Stalybridge ; on the 15th at the 
 trades’ delegates meeting, and on the 17th 
 at the convention at Manchester. Gen- 
 tlemen, these men were cognizant of 
 what was going on ; even if they did not 
 learn it from the newspapers, you will 
 judge for yourselves if any one in the 
 county of Lancaster, could have been 
 ignorant of what was then taking place. 
 There they w^ere sitting in council, and 
 giving, in that conference, information of 
 what they had seen. David Morrison 
 was at Eccles on the 8th ; at another 
 meeting on the 1 1th. Christopher Doyle, 
 one of the conference, was at a meeting- 
 in Stockport, he was conjoined with some 
 other person in Stockport in making 
 that demand for the prisoners, and sug- 
 gesting to the magistrates that it would 
 not be safe to detain them in custody. 
 And there it is that first a demand was 
 made on some score of prudence, and 
 the concession obtained is made a ground 
 for demanding a greater concession. 
 
 CHRISTOPHER DOYLE I was 
 not in the workhouse at all. 
 
 The ATT ORNEY - GENERAL 
 No, gentlemen, but after the moh broke 
 in he was there, and came back with 
 Leach arm in arm. I don’t want to fix 
 on Doyde the petty larcenies committed 
 at the workhouse. Nothing like it. The 
 object of this prosecution lias no such 
 scope or compass. My object is to show 
 that these persons were at various meet- 
 ings ; that they moved from place to 
 place ; that some of them went to the con- 
 ference of delegates ; that they knew 
 what they were about ; that they adopted 
 certain language ; that that language 
 meant mischief, and that they knew what 
 the effect of it would be. M'Cartney 
 was proved to be at the conference ; he 
 was at a meeting at Eccles, and at an- 
 other meeting at lieigh in the evening. 
 There is another, gentlemen, whose case 
 is entitled to a few words of observation. 
 I mean Mr. Scholefield. I find Mr. 
 Scholefield going with a message to some 
 meeting at Carpenter’s Hall ; I find ex- 
 pressions there used by him. Of the 
 truth of them, in the first instance, you 
 are to judge, and of the meaning of them 
 in the second ; and also whether you 
 have so much of what was uttered, as 
 wdll enable you to arrive at a fair and 
 just ccnclusion as to its meaning. I find 
 
 there was a meeting at his chapel on the 
 night of the 16th, which meeting lasted 
 several hours. This we got from young 
 Scholefield. I find that there was a meet- 
 ing the next day in the same place, and 
 Mr. Scholefield — mind Mr. Scholefield, 
 who had professed to put don n the pro- 
 cession, and even the tea party^ on the 
 16th, on account of the troublesome state 
 of the times and the chance of misc.hief 
 occurring — Scholefield gives his chapel 
 for the occasion. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — He put down only 
 the procession ; he did not put down the 
 tea party^ 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : -- 
 Well, he put down only the_procession, 
 and had nothing to do with the tea 
 party ; or he did not put it down. But 
 this same gentleman who abandoned the 
 procession, and was consulting for the 
 peace of the town — that same gentleman 
 permits a meeting of the Chartist dele- 
 gates to take place in his chapel on the 
 17th ! He says, I knew nothing about 
 it. I was in my surgery. I passed 
 through the chapel to bring a raven or 
 jackdaw to be fed at dinner time. I 
 went through the chapel another time to 
 give directions about painting a gate. 
 God help me, I knew nothing of what 
 was passing in my chapel.” Gentlemen, 
 do you believe that ? What is the evi- 
 dence ? Not a single one of those dele- 
 gates who w'ere acquitted is called for the 
 defenc^. 
 
 The JUDGE : — No person proved to 
 be a delegate was acquitted. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — 
 Now just attend to this circumstance. 
 It has been said : — The room at Nob- 
 lett’s was not large enough, and we ap- 
 plied for Mr. Scholefield’s chapel.” Now, 
 could not Mr. Scholefield say — I 
 pledged myself to the magistrates to have 
 no procession, and therefore I will have no 
 step taken to hazard the public peace.” 
 The meeting takes place. There are 
 persons outside who are apparently 
 watching. Scholefield desires them to 
 he sent away. There are persons coming, 
 and he sends a message to desire that 
 they M’ould not come so publicly. There 
 are various ways of getting into the 
 place. During the meeting he goes into 
 the chapel and tells them that Turner is 
 arrested. How came that communica- 
 
348 
 
 tion to be made to him, and how came 
 }ie to make it to the meeting ? He re- 
 ceives and hands in a sovereign for the 
 Hunt’s monument committee, as it is 
 said ; but he had nothing to do with the 
 Hunt’s monument committee. Where 
 did that sovereign come from ? It is 
 quite clear that it was handed in for the 
 purposes of that meeting. 
 
 Mr. COBBF/rr : — It might be for 
 the Hunt’s monument committee. 
 
 The AITORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 The treasurer is the person to receive and 
 pay money, and if that money were for 
 the monument how should he hand it in 
 to that meeting ? I leave you to decide 
 whether Scholefield knowingly allowed 
 the chapel to be used for the purpose to 
 which it was applied by the delegates. 
 If you think he knew nothing about it, 
 pray, gentlemen, for the sake of justice, 
 acquit him ; but if you are satisfied that 
 he had a knowledge of it, then he becomes 
 responsible for the use to which the cha- 
 pel was applied. Gentlemen, I am ex- 
 tremely anxious not to detain you by ad- 
 dressing you at any great length, or beyond 
 what is absolutely necessary — beyond the 
 discharge of the duty which devolves on 
 me on the present occasion. I had in- 
 tended to take some notice of the case of 
 each defendant, but after what they have 
 said, and after the note taken by my 
 Lord, I think it unnecessary to go over 
 the evidence as applying to each particu- 
 lar defendant. I have no doubt there 
 are some whose names will occur to his 
 Lordship respecting whom the proof will 
 fall short as to their having attended that 
 conference of delegates. Now, gentle- 
 men, the case will be this ; you will find 
 that Woodruffe attended many meetings, 
 Aitkin, Challenger, Fenton, Pilling, 
 Brophy, Stephenson, and several others, 
 attended meetings before the conference 
 meeting at Manchester. Several of the 
 persons who attended these meetings 
 were themselves members of the confer- 
 ence at Manchester. The mob marched 
 to Manchester. Manchester became, one 
 scene of riot and confusion. Meetings 
 took place on the 16th and 17tl^. On 
 the 17th the conference adopted their re- 
 solution and address appended to that 
 dangerous placard — the address of the 
 Executive, which calls upon the people 
 
 to appeal to the God of battle. The 
 strike went on, and continued for at least 
 a fortnight or three weeks after that pe- 
 riod. And when it is said that the pre- 
 sence of any one person, however exten- 
 sive his influence might be among the 
 lower orders; or however popular and 
 deservedly esteemed he might be for acts 
 of kindness or zeal on their behalf ; or 
 however much he might have won their 
 confidence — I put it to you whether the 
 presence of any such person had the ef- 
 fect of putting an end to those' tumults ? 
 Whether they were not put down by the 
 authority of the law ? And whether 
 without that authority they would have 
 ceased ? Whether without the exer- 
 cise of that authority they would not 
 have terminated probably in a civil 
 war ? I charge that the conduct of that 
 conference at Manchester was adopted 
 for the purpose of using language to ad- 
 vance, extend, and enforce that strike, 
 which strike frequently exhibited itself in 
 great violence and in lawless disregard of 
 the rights of property, and the constituted 
 authorities— as an overpowering, inti- 
 midating superiority that none could 
 withstand ; and then they call that 
 peace, law, and order. Gentlemen, 
 the charge in the indictment is for 
 conspiring — that is for agreeing together 
 to produce a change in the constitution 
 by, among other acts, intimidation. It is 
 not necessary for me to bring home to 
 those individuals, some of whom, like 
 Cooper, may have been ready to fight- 
 others to put a bold front on and intimi- 
 date — it is not necessary for me to shew 
 that all had contemplated what was done. 
 It is necessary for you to consider that 
 there was a general combination of 
 persons to go from place to place to 
 alarm, terrify, and intimidate so as 'to 
 stop labour. I believe that that conference 
 at Manchester,' with Mr. O’Connor at 
 their head, thought the time was come 
 when certain language might be used to 
 accomplish, by intimidation and cessation 
 from labour, that change in the constitu- 
 tion which has been, in the course of this 
 inquiry, so frequently adverted to. Why, 
 gentlemen, could there be a stronger proof 
 of the intimidation that was used fh^n 
 the evidence adduced respecting those 
 licenses which were given lor the carry- 
 
349 
 
 ing on of labour ? One man was allowed 
 to make mourning, and another was al- 
 lowed to prevent goods from being 
 damaged by leaving them in an unfinished 
 state. There are two other classes of 
 cases, one man said it should be men- 
 tioned to the meeting in the morning, in 
 order that they might approve of what 
 was done. This was one of the most 
 alarming indications of the effects of this 
 conspiracy. If any one is offended with 
 the word conspiracy, I do not want to 
 confine ni3'self to it, but it is a legal ex- 
 pression defining a certain crime. It 
 is the combining together by act, and 
 conduct, and co-operation, to produce a 
 certain result. You will judge for your- 
 selves, whether you can entertain a doubt 
 that the defendants whom I first named 
 did go about from place to place to pro- 
 duce such a result. As to some of them, 
 it would be ridiculous to call your atten- 
 tion for a moment to the evidence against 
 them ; but the great point is this ; — what 
 think 3^ou of the conference ? If you 
 think the Executive placard, the resolu- 
 tion and address of the conference, con- 
 sistent with peace, law, and order, then 
 do the defendants, who were present at 
 that conference, the justice of acquitting 
 them. But looking at the whole scope 
 of these documents, and the paragraphs 
 which I have read to you from the 
 JVorthern Star, it will he for you to say 
 whether you can acquit them, or find 
 them guilty. Other topics have been in- 
 troduced with which I have nothing to 
 do. I have nothing to do with the high 
 names and great authorities which have 
 severally supported either universal suff- 
 rage, vote by ballot, or annual parlia- 
 ments. I know there are great names for 
 all these points of the Charter. And 
 then there is electoral districts, payment 
 of members, and no property qualifica- 
 tion. No property qualification exists in 
 Scotland, and the practice is recognized, 
 as has been observed, elsewhere. I care 
 not if people go about endeavouring to 
 promote measures, most beneficial and 
 philanthropic, as they think, but most 
 mischievous as others think ; but I say 
 they have no right to produce that state 
 of things which others think contrary to 
 the safety of the commonwealth. The 
 question is, are we to live under the safety 
 t>f the laws ? is property to be protected ? 
 
 or are we to be at the mercy of large 
 bodies of people moving from place to 
 place ? Their conduct I admit was charac- 
 terized by exemplary forbearance, they 
 used the despotic authority they had as- 
 sumed with great forbearance. I have lit- 
 tle to do with the speculative opinions of 
 political economy— I dare say no man 
 more respects the right of the poor man 
 to his labour, which is his property. It 
 is property, and it is this you have to 
 protect, you have to enable the poor man 
 to labour as he thinks proper, and not to 
 be told by his fellow men, whether he 
 shall labour or cease to labour in order to 
 further some political object about which 
 he may think nothing. Labour is as much 
 property and as much entitled to protec- 
 tion as the estate of the wealthiest and 
 loftiest peerin the realm. After all, what is 
 the difference between what is commonly 
 called propert}^ and labour. Labour is 
 the property of to day ; that which you 
 may leave to your children after you, is 
 the labour of yesterday. The labour of 
 to day, if it has produced anything that 
 can be laid b^", becomes capital ; so that 
 in reality there is a common interest in 
 the protection of labour and property" ; 
 for property is the representative of labour, 
 and labour is the only property which 
 the poor man can command. These 
 great elements of society are not to be 
 set in hostile array against each other. 
 It is perfectly true also that without 
 labour, what is called capital may be 
 valueless. It is just as true that in an 
 advanced state of civilization khour 
 would be quite as valueless if there 
 were not capital to give it employment. 
 These two great elements of the high 
 state of cultivation in which we are placed 
 ought not to be set in hostile array 
 against each other. The one is necessary 
 to support the other. Neither can do 
 without the other. I trust in God, 
 gentlemen, that the lesson of to day, so 
 far as this enquiry is capable of affording 
 one, will go forth to the world. Let it 
 be understood that labour and property 
 ought to have one common protection, 
 and ought both be directed to the com- 
 mon end of all, the happiness of the com- 
 munity and the glory of God. I hear 
 complaints made of the state of the poor 
 and comparisons made to the disadvantage 
 of the rich. I ^yill pass over these things. 
 
360 
 
 gentlemen. I know not what your feelings 
 may be, but when I beard the intelligence, 
 when I heard the eloquence — for frequent- 
 ly it was eloquent — when I beard the 
 speeches that have been made — I cannot 
 but feel disposed to be proud of the talent 
 of the defendants, and of the effect of 
 the education of the working Classes 
 of this country. We heard much 
 yesterday that we must admire and 
 approve of, in point of talent and in 
 point of tone ; and I shall not now stop to 
 quarrel with some expressions which I 
 wish had been spared — expressions carry- 
 ing too much of a tone of defiance. I 
 agree, gentlemen, with what was said by 
 Chief Justice Tindal, that one should not 
 too captiously weigh expressions, the pro- 
 bable import of which was nothing but 
 to communicate that the man who uttered 
 them was of a spirited and independent 
 mind. I watched the speeches of the de- 
 fendants, speech after speech, and I say now 
 that the language uttered by me at Mon- 
 mouth, in reference to Frost, is equally ap- 
 plicable to the present case. There is no 
 price at which it would not be worth wliile 
 to purchase the innocence of all the de- 
 fendants, mixed up as their guilt is with 
 much of the misery that probably may 
 have contributed to it. But your duty is 
 not to deal with questions of compassion, 
 but to deal with truth. As I said at 
 Monmouth, so also I am prepared to say 
 now, If you can, with truth, give a ver- 
 dict of not guilty — be it so; discharge 
 that pleasant duty. But if, when you 
 come seriously to reflect, casting aside 
 all political questions — ay, gentlemen, 
 and all questions of political economy — 
 and looking fearlessly but firmly and 
 steadily to the simple discharge of your 
 duty — if you find that there was intimi- 
 dation out of Manchester for the purpose 
 of producing a political change; then 
 those who took part in that intimidation 
 must of necessity be found guilty. And 
 if you find that in Manchester there 
 were persons who, while the excitement 
 raged at the highest, used language on 
 which you can put no other construction 
 than that it was their intention to encou- 
 rage and incite others to that cotirse of 
 intimidation ; then, gentlemen, it will be 
 your duty to find them also guilty of 
 that charge. They are bound up with 
 the others in the evidence, and they can- 
 
 not, because they were not on the spot, 
 escape the consequences of their own acts, 
 and their own incitement, if you believe 
 that those acts and that incitement were 
 adopted for the purpose which this in- 
 dictment imputes to them. With these 
 observations I leave the case for the pro- 
 secution in your hands, fully satisfied 
 that you have given the utmost patience 
 to it during the whole course of the en- 
 quiry. An expression from one of you 
 was, I believe, quite misunderstood, and 
 his Lordship was called upon to record 
 it. As I understand, it was simply an 
 enquiry whether, as my Lord had taken 
 notes of that which was evidence in the 
 case, the jury were required to take notes 
 of that which was not evidence in the 
 case. That was the way in which I un- 
 derstood it. And I mention it because 
 we must all agree that you have paid the 
 utmost attention, and have exhibited 
 the highest qualities, that jurymen could 
 exhibit during so long and so painful an 
 investigation. Certainly, I believe every- 
 body has observed the impartiality of the 
 bench, an impartiality which everybody 
 in this Court must believe worthy of all 
 imitation — perhaps I may be allowed to 
 say, in the presence of his Lordship, that 
 his conduct has been above all praise, 
 and has drawn forth expressions of ap- 
 probation from all parties. In the course 
 of this long and painful enquiry 1 have 
 endeavoured to discharge the duty im- 
 posed on me without mixing up with 
 the prosecution anything that might 
 occasion harshness of feeling, or give 
 any offence to any person present or 
 absent. This is the spirit in which a prose^ 
 cution ought to be conducted. It now re- 
 mains for you merely to hear the direction 
 of his Lordship, on those points of law 
 that are connected Avith this case, and I 
 feel satisfied that you will, in the face of 
 this great county, and before the public, 
 who very likely, as has been observed, are 
 watching with considerable anxiety the 
 result of this important enquiry — ^you 
 will fearlessly, and without prejudice 
 against any of the defendants, or favour 
 towards the crown, — but still, remember- 
 ing the solemn duty you have to discharge, 
 and remembering that you are bound by 
 your oaths to discharge that duty to the 
 public, as well as to the defendants — you 
 will deliver that verdict Avhich in justice 
 
361 
 
 and truth you can reconcile to your 
 conscience by the evidence you have 
 heard. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Of course I must 
 caution you, that, from the nature of the 
 case, the summing up may occupy a con- 
 siderable length of time ; and I do not 
 know whether, after I begin to sum up, 
 I shall have the power of adjourning. 
 Therefore I am entirely in your hands. 
 
 It is now a quarter to fivo o’clock. I 
 dare say you are naturally anxious to get 
 rid of this very irksome duty, but the 
 question you have to ask yourselves is, do 
 you think you will be in such a state of 
 mind and body, that you can fairly dis- 
 charge your duty if you proceed now ? 
 
 The foreman intimated, on behalf of the 
 jury, that it was their wish to adjomii, 
 and his Lordship consented to do so. 
 
 END or SEVENTH DAT’s TRIAL. 
 
ifnuictmtnt 
 
 It will be observed that the Indictment is, with the Evidence, the basis of the 
 Learned Judge’s summing 2ip to the Jury. We, therefore, give this document entire — 
 a document which, it will be recollected, was stated by the Attorney-General, during 
 the trial, to have been framed v-dth the greatest care, nicety, and caution, so as to 
 prevent the slightest loop-hole through which the smallest Conspirator could possibly 
 escape. 
 
 We give it to immortality. It will be a guide to the legal student — an amusing 
 piece of reading for those hitherto unacquainted with the power, concentration, and 
 force of legal jargon — and will render our work the more complete as a portion of 
 the history of Chartism. In its way it is a literary curiosity — one which we may 
 hereafter observe upon at some length. 
 
 MICHAELMAS TERM. 
 
 IN THE SIXTH YEAR OF QUEEN VICTORIA. 
 
 
 TO WIT.— BE IT REMEMBERED, that at 
 a Session of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by 
 the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender 
 of the Faith, of hearing and determining, and 
 gaol delivery, held at the Court-house in Liver- 
 pool, in and for the County Palatine of Lan- 
 caster, on Monday, the tenth day of October, 
 in the sixth year of the reign of our said 
 Lady the Queen, before Her Majesty's right 
 trusty and well-beloved cousin and councillor 
 James Lord Abinger, Chief Baron of Her 
 Majesty’s Court of Exchequer, Her Majesty’s 
 trusty and well-beloved Sir Edward Hall Alder- 
 son, Knight, one of the Barons of Her Ma- 
 jesty’s said Court of Exchequer,, Sir Cresswell 
 Cresswell, Knight, one of the Justices of Her 
 Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas, and other their 
 Companions, Justices and Commissioners of our 
 said Sovereign Lady the Queen, by the Letters 
 Patent of her the said Lady the Queen, under 
 the seal of the said County Palatine of Lancaster, 
 to the said Lord Abinger, Sir Edward Hall 
 Alderson, and Sir Cresswell Cresswell, and 
 others, or any two or more of them directed, 
 whereof the said Lord Abinger, SirEdv\’ard Hall 
 Alderson, and Sir Cresswell Cresswell (amongst 
 others), our said Sovereign Lady the Queen, 
 would have to be one, as well to hear and deter- 
 mine, as enquire, by the oaths of honest and 
 lawful men, of the said County Palatine of Lan- 
 caster, and by other ways, means, and methods, 
 which they can as w^ell within liberties as wij;hout, 
 by which the truth of the matter may be the 
 better knowm and enquired into of all treasons, 
 misprisons of treason, insurrections, rebellions, 
 murders, felonies, homicides, burglaries, man- 
 slaughters, rapes of women, unlawful congre- 
 gations and conventicles, unlawful speaking of 
 
 words, coadjunctions, misprisons, confederacies,, 
 false allegations, trespasses, riots, routs, retain- 
 ings, escapes, contempts, falsities, negligences, 
 concealments, maintenances, oppressions, cham- 
 parties, deceits, and other misdemeanours, oftences 
 and injuries whatsoever, and of the accessories to 
 the same, wdchin the county aforesaid, as well 
 against the forms of certain statutes as against 
 the common law, by whomsoever and howsoever 
 had, made, done, perpetrated, or committed, by" 
 whom and to whom, when, how, and after what 
 manner, and of all other articles and circum- 
 stances, the truth of the premises, or any of 
 them, in anywise concerning. And the same trea-! 
 sons and other the premises to hear and deter- 
 mine, and the Gaol of the County aforesaid, and 
 also the House of Correction at Kirkdale, in the 
 Hundred of West Derby, in the said County 
 Palatine, to deliver according to law and the cus- 
 tom of the kingdom of our Sovereign Lady the 
 Queen, and so forth. It is upon the oaths of 
 twelve Jurors, good and lawful men within the^' 
 County Palatine aforesaid, impannelled and sworn 
 and charged to inquire and present for our 
 Sovereign Lady the Queen, and for the body of the 
 County Palatine aforesaid, presented as followeth, 
 (that is to say) Lancashire (Jo wit.) The J urors 
 for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, 
 That 
 
 Feargus O’Connor, late of Manchester, in the 
 County of Lancaster, labourer. 
 
 Peter Murray M’Douall, late of the same 
 place, labourer. 
 
 James Scholefield, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 James Leach, late of the same place, labourer. 
 Christopher Doyle, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 John Campbell, late of the same place, labourer 
 
353 
 
 Jonathan Bairstow _late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 Bernard M’Cartney, late of the same place, 
 labourer 
 
 James Arthur, late of the same place, labourer, 
 otherwise called James M’Arthur. 
 
 David Ross, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 Richard Otley, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 George Julian Harney, late of the same 
 place, labourer. 
 
 James Cartledge, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Thomas Cooper, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. ' 
 
 William Hill, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 Robert Brooke, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 James Taylor, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 John Hoyle, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 John Thornton, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 John Norman, late of the same place, labourer 
 
 Joseph Clarke, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 John Massey, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 John Fletcher, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 Thomas Browne Smith, late of the same 
 place, labourer. 
 
 Thomas Fraser, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 John Allinson, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 James Grasby, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 William Beesley, late of the same place, 
 labourer, 
 
 James Chippendale, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 Samuel PARKEs,late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 Thomas Railton, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Robert Ramsden, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 James Mooney, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Thomas Mahon, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 John Leach, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 David Morrison, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 John Lomax, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 John Arran, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 James Skevington, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 William Scholefield, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 Richard Pilling, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 William Aitkin, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Sandy Challenger, late of the same place, 
 labourer, otherwise called Alexander 
 Challenger. 
 
 George Candelet, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 John Durham, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 Jambs Fenton, late of the same place, labourer. 
 
 William Stephenson, late of the same place, 
 abourer. 
 
 John Crossley, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Albert Woolfenden, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 Robert Lees, late of the same place, labourer. 
 John Lewis, late of the same place, labourer. 
 Patrick Murphy Brophy, late of the same 
 place, labourer. 
 
 George Johnson, late of the same place, la- 
 bourer. 
 
 Thomas Storah, late of the same place, la-^ 
 bourer. 
 
 William Booth, late of the same place, labourer, 
 John Wilde, late of the same place, labourer. 
 William Woodruffe, late of the same place, 
 labourer. 
 
 Frederick Augustus Taylor, late of the 
 same place, labourer. 
 
 Thomas Pitt, late of the same place, labourer, 
 together with divers other evil-disposed persons, 
 to the Jurors aforesaid as yet unknown, on the 
 first day of August, in the sixth year of the reign 
 of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, and on divers 
 other days and times between that day and the 
 first day of October in the year aforesaid, at the 
 Parish of Manchester, in the County of Lancaster, 
 unlawfully did conspire, confederate, and agree to- 
 gether, by causing to be brought and gathered 
 together divers unlawful tumultuous and riot- 
 ous assemblies of seditious and evil-disposed 
 persons in various parts of this Realm, 
 and by forcing and compelling divers of Her Ma- 
 jesty’s peaceable subjects, being then employed 
 in their respective trades, manufactures, and oc- 
 cupations, to desist and depart from their respec- 
 tive employments and work, and by divers sedi- 
 tious and inflammatory speeches, libels, placards, 
 and other publications, to create alarm, discon- 
 tent, and confusion, with intent thereby unlaw- 
 fully to effect and bring about a change in the 
 laws and constitution of this realm, against the 
 peace of our said Lady the Queen, Her Crown 
 and Dignity. 
 
 Second CouNT.-Andthe Jurors aforesaid, upon 
 their oath aforesaid, do further present that the 
 said Feargus O’Connor, Peter Murray M‘Douall, 
 James Scholefield, John Leach, Christopher 
 Doyle, John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Ber- 
 nard M'Cartney, James Arthur, otherwise called 
 James M'Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley,. 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Thomas 
 Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, J ames Tay- 
 lor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John Norman, 
 Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John Fletcher, 
 Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, John 
 Allinson,* James Grasby, William Beesley, 
 James Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, Thomas 
 Railton, Robert Ramsden, Robert Mooney, 
 Thomas Mahon, John Leach, David Morrison, 
 John Lomax, Juhn Arran, James Skevington, 
 William Scholefield, Richard Pilling, Wilham 
 Aitkin, Sandy Challenger, otherwise called Alex- 
 ander Challenger, George Candelet, John Dur- 
 ham, James Fenton, William Stephenson, John 
 Crossley, Robert Woolfenden, Robert Lees, John 
 Lewis, Patrick Murphy Brophy, George Johnson, 
 Thomas Storah, William Booth, John Wilde, 
 William Woodi’uffe, Frederick Augustus Taylor, 
 Thomas Pitt, together with divers others evil 
 disposed persons to the Jurors aforesaid as yet 
 unknown, afterwards, to wit on the first day of 
 August, in the year aforesaid, and on divers other 
 days between that day and the first day of Octo- 
 ber in the year aforesaid, unlawfully did conspire 
 
354 
 
 confederate, and agree together by force and vio- 
 lence, and by creating alarm, discontent, tumult, 
 and confusion, unlawfully to effect and bring 
 about a change in the laws and constitution of 
 this realm, against the peace of our said Lady 
 the Queen, Her Crown and Dignity. 
 
 Third Count. — And the Jurors aforesaid, on 
 their oath aforesaid, further present that 
 heretofore on the first day of August, in the 
 year aforesaid, and on divers other days and 
 times, between that day and the first day 
 of October in the year aforesaid, and at divers 
 places within this realm, divers evil disposed 
 persons unlawfully and tumultuously assembled 
 together, and by violence, threats and intimida- 
 tions to divers other persons, being then peace- 
 able subjects, of this realm, forced the said last- 
 mentioned subjects, to leave their occupations and 
 employments, and thereby impeded and stopped 
 the labour employed in the lawful and] peaceable 
 carrying on, by divers large numbers of the 
 subjects of this realm, of certain trades, manu- 
 factures and businesses, and thereby caused 
 great confusion, terror and alarm in the minds 
 of the peaceable subjects of this realm, and that 
 afterwards, to wit, on the first day of August, in 
 the year aforesaid, and on divers other days and 
 times, between that day and the first day of 
 October, in the year aforesaid, at the parish 
 aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said Fear- 
 gus O’Connor, Peter Murray M‘Douall, James 
 Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher Doyle, 
 John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Bernard 
 M'Cartney, James Arthur, otherwise called 
 •Tames Me Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Thomas 
 Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, James 
 Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John Nor- 
 man, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John Fletcher, 
 Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, John 
 Allinson, James Grasby, William Beesley, James 
 Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, Thomas Railton, 
 Robert Ramsden, James Mooney, Thomas Ma- 
 hon, John Leach, David Morrison, John Lomax, 
 John Arran, James Skevington William Schole- 
 field, Richard Pilling, William Aitkin, Sandy Chal- 
 lenger, otherwise called Alexander Challenger, 
 George Candelet, John Durham, James Fenton, 
 William Stephenson, John Crossly, Albert Woolf- 
 enden, Robert Lees, John Lewis, Patrick Murphy 
 Brophy, George Johnson, Thomas Storah, William 
 Booth ^ John Wilde, William Woodruffe, Frederick 
 AugustusTaylor,Thoma3 Pitt, together with divers 
 other evil disposed persons to the juriors aforesaid 
 as yet unknown, did unlawfully conspire, combine, 
 confederate and agree together to aid, ab^, assist, 
 comfort, support and encourage the said evil dis- 
 posed persons in this Count first mentioned, to 
 continue and persist in the said unlawful assem- 
 blings, threats, intimidations and violence, and 
 in the said impeding and stopping of the labour 
 employed in the said trades, manufactures and 
 businesses, with intent thereby to cause terror 
 and alarm in the minds of the peaceable subjects of 
 this realm, and by means of such terror and alarm, 
 violently and unlawfully to cause and procure 
 certain great changes to be made in the constitu- 
 tion of this realm, as by law established against 
 the peace of our Lady the Queen, Her Ci'own 
 and Dignity. 
 
 Fourth Count. — And the jurors aforesaid, on 
 their oath aforesaid, further present that hereto- 
 1 ore on the first day of August, in the year afore- 
 
 said, and on divers other days and times between 
 that day and the first day of October, in the year 
 aforesaid, and at divers places, divers evil disposed 
 persons unlawfully and tumultuously assembled 
 together, and by violence, threats and intimida- 
 tions to divers other persons being then peaceable 
 subjects of this realm, forced the said last-men- 
 tioned subjects to leave their occupations and 
 employments, and thereby impeded and stopped 
 the labour employed in the lawful and peaceable 
 carrying on by divers large numbers of the sub- 
 jects of this realm, of certain trades, manufac- 
 tures and businesses, and thereby caused great 
 confusion, terror and alarm in the minds of the 
 peaceable subjects of this realm, and, that after- 
 wards, on the first day of August, in the year 
 aforesaid, and on divers other days and times, 
 between that day and the first day of October, in 
 the year aforesaid, in the parish aforesaid, in the 
 county aforesaid, the said Feargus O’Connor, 
 Peter Murray M'Douall, James Scholefield, 
 James Leach, Christopher Doyle, John Camp- 
 bell, Jonathan Bairstow, Bernard M'Cartney, 
 James Arthur, otherwise called James Me Arthur, 
 David Ross, Richard Otley, George Julian Har- 
 ney, James Cartledge, Thomas Cooper, William 
 Hill, Robert Brooke, James Taylor, John Hoyle, 
 John Thornton, John Norman, Joseph Clarke, 
 John Massey, John Fletcher, Thomas Browne 
 Smith, Thomas Fraser, John Allinson, James 
 Grasby, William Beesley, James Chippendale, 
 Samuel Parkes, Thomas Railton, Robert Rams- 
 den, James Mooney, Thomas Mahon, John 
 Leach, David Morrison, John Lomax, John 
 Arran, James Skevington, William Scholefield, 
 Richard Pilling, William Aitkin, Sjady Challen- 
 ger, otherwise called Alexande#Nl!hallenger, 
 George Candelet, John Durham, James Fenton, 
 William Stephenson, John Crossley, Albert 
 Woolfenden, Robert Lees, John Lewis, Patrick 
 Murphy Brophy, George Johnson, Thomas 
 Storah, William Booth, John Wilde, William 
 Woodruff, Frederick Augustus Taylor, Thomas 
 Pitt, together with divers other evil disposed 
 persons to the jurors aforesaid as yet unknown, 
 did unlawfully aid, abet, assist, comfort, support 
 and encourage the said evil disposed persons in 
 this count first-mentioned, to continue and per- 
 sist in the said unlawful assemblings, threats, 
 intimidations and violence, and in the said im- 
 peding and stopping of the labour employed in 
 the said trades, manufactures and businesses, 
 with intent thereby to cause terror and alarm in 
 the minds of the peaceable subjects of this realm, 
 and by the means of such terror and alarm, vio- 
 lently and unlawfully to cause and procure cer- 
 tain great changes to be made in the constitution 
 of this realm, as by law established, against 
 the peace of our said Lady the Queen, Her 
 Crown and Dignity. 
 
 Fifth Count. — And the Jurors aforesaid, on 
 their oath aforesaid, do further present, that, 
 Feargus O’Connor, Peter Murray M‘Douall 
 James Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher 
 Doyle, John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow^, Ber- 
 nard M'Cartney, James Arthur otherwise called 
 James M‘Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Tho- 
 mas Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, 
 James Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John 
 Norman, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John 
 Fletcher, Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, 
 John Alimson, James Grasby, William Beesley, 
 James Chippendale, Samuel Parks, Thomas 
 
355 
 
 Railton, Robert Ramsden, James Mooney, Tho- 
 mas Mahon, John Leach, David Morrison, John 
 Lomax, John Arran, James Skevington, William 
 Scholefield, Richard Pilling, William Aitkin, 
 Sandy Challenger otherwise called Alexander 
 Challenger, George Candelet, John Durham, 
 James Fenton, William Stephenson, John Cross- 
 ley, Albert Woolfenden, Robert Lees, John 
 Lewis, Patrick Murphy Brophy, George John- 
 son, Thomas Storah, William Booth, John 
 Wilde, William WoodrufFe, Frederick Augustus 
 Taylor, Thomas Pitt, together with divers other 
 evil-disposed persons to the J urors aforesaid as 
 yet unknown, afterwards, to wit, on the first day 
 of August in the year aforesaid, and on divers 
 other days between that day and the first day of 
 October in the year aforesaid, together with di- 
 vers other evil-disposed persons, to the Jurors as 
 yet unknown, unlawfully did endeavour to excite 
 Her Majesty’s liege subjects to disaffection and 
 hatred of her laws, and unlawfully did endeavour 
 to persuade and encourage the said liege subjects 
 to unite, confederate, and agree to leave their 
 several %nd respective employments, and to 
 produce a cessation ot labour, throughout a large 
 ortion of this realm, with intent, and in order 
 y so doing, to bring about and produce a change 
 in the laws and constitution of this realm, against 
 the peace of our said Lady the Queen, Her Crown 
 and Dignity. 
 
 Sixth Count.— The jurors aforesaid, upon their 
 oath aforesaid, further present, that Feargus 
 O’Connor, Peter Murray M‘Douall, James 
 Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher Doyle, 
 John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Bernard 
 M‘Cartney, Jafhes Arthur, otherwise called 
 James Me Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, 
 Thomas Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, 
 James Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, 
 John Norman, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, 
 John Fletcher, Thomas. Browne Smith, Thomas 
 Fraser, John Allinson, James Grasby, William 
 Beesley, James Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, 
 Thomas Railton, Robert Ramsden, James 
 Mooney, Thomas Mahon, John Leach, David 
 Morrison, John Lomax, John Arran, James 
 Skevington, William Scholefield, Richard Pilling, 
 William Aitkin, Sandy Challenger, otherwise 
 called Alexander Challenger, George Candelet, 
 John Durham, James Fenton, William Stephen- 
 son, John Crossley, Albert Woolfenden, Robert 
 Lees, John Lewis, Patrick Murphy Brophy, 
 George Johnson, Thomas Storah, William Booth, 
 John Wilde, William Woodruff, Frederick Au- 
 gustus Taylor, Thomas Pitt, together with divers 
 other persons and to the jurors aforesaid as yet 
 unknown, to the number of one thousand and mox-e, 
 on the first day of August, in the sixth year of 
 the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, and on 
 divers other days and times, between that day 
 and the first day of October, in the year afore- 
 said, at the parish of Manchester, in the county 
 of Lancaster, unljiv. fully did conspire, confederate 
 and agree together to assemble and meet together 
 unlawfully,rictouslyand tumultuously , and to cause 
 divers other persons to assemble and meet together, 
 and by threats, menaces, violence and intimida- 
 tion, unlawfully to force and endeavour to force 
 divers of Her Majesty’s peaceable subjects, being 
 persons then employed in certain manufactures, 
 trades and businesses, to depart from their em- 
 ployment and work, against the peace of our said 
 Lady the Queen, Her Crown and Dignity. 
 
 Seventh Count. — And the jurors aforesaid, on 
 their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said 
 Feargus O’Connor, Peter Murray M'Douall, 
 James Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher 
 Doyle, John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Ber- 
 nard M’Cartney, James Arthur, otherwise called 
 James M’ Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Thomas 
 Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, James 
 Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John Nor- 
 man, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John Fletch- 
 er, Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, John 
 Allinson, James Grasby, William Beesley, James 
 Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, Thomas Railton, 
 Robert Ramsden, James Mooney, Thomas Ma- 
 hon, John Leach, David Morrison, John Lomax, 
 John Arran, James Skevington, William Schole- 
 field, Richard Pilling, William Aitkin, Sandy 
 Challenger, otherwise called Alexander Chal- 
 lenger, George Candelet, John Durham, .Tames 
 Fenton, William Stephenson, John Crossley, 
 Albert Woolfenden, Robert Lees, John Lewis, 
 Patrick Murphy Brophy, George Johnson, Tho- 
 mas Storah, William Booth, John Wilde, Wil- 
 liam Woodruffe, Frederick Augustus Taylor, 
 Thomas Pitt, afterwards, to wit, on the day and 
 year first aforesaid, and on divers other days and 
 times between that day and the first day of Oc- 
 tober, in the said year, unlawfully, w’ickedly, and 
 maliciously incited, stirred up and endeavoured 
 to incite and stir up a great number of Her Ma- 
 jesty’s liege subjects, to the jurors aforesaid 
 unknown, with force and arms unlawfully, riot- 
 ously, and tumultuously to assemble and gather 
 together, and by threats, violence, and intimida- 
 tion, unlawfully to force, and endeavour to force, 
 divers of Her Majesty’s peaceable subjects, being 
 persons then employed in certain manufactures, 
 trades, and businesses, to depart from their em- 
 ployment and work, and against the peace of our 
 said Lady the Queen, her Crowm and Dignity. 
 
 Eighth Count. — And the Jurors aforesaid, 
 on their oath aforesaid, present, that the said Fear- 
 gus O’Connor, Peter Murray M’Douall, James 
 Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher Doyle, 
 John, Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Bernard 
 M’Cartney, Jahies Arthur, otherwise called- 
 James M’Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Thomas 
 Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, James 
 Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John Nor- 
 man, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John Fletcher, 
 Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, John 
 Allinson, James Grasby, William Beesley, 
 James Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, Thomas 
 Railton, Robert Ramsden, James Mooneye, 
 Thomas Mahon, John Leach, David Mor- 
 rison, John Lomax, John Arran, James 
 Ske\dngton, William Seholefield, Richard Pil- 
 ling, William Aitkin, Sandy Challenger, 
 otherwise called Alexander Challenger, George 
 Candelet, John Durham, James Fenton, 
 William Stephenson, John Crossley, Albert 
 Woolfenden, Robert Lees, John Lewis, Patrick 
 Murphy Brophy, George Johnson, Thomas 
 Storah, William Booth, John Wilde, William 
 Woodruffe, PTederick Augustus Taylor, Thomas 
 Pitt, together with divers other lawless disorderly 
 and evil disposed persons, to the number of one 
 thousand and more, whose names are, to the 
 Jurors aforesaid, as yet unknown, afterwards, to 
 wit, on the first day of August in the year afore- 
 said, and on divers other days and times between 
 that day and the first day of October in the year 
 
aforesaid, with force and arms, at the parish 
 aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully did 
 meet and assemble together in a formidable and 
 menacing manner, with clubs, sticks, and other 
 offensive weapons, to disturb the tranquillity, 
 peace, and good order of this Realm, in contempt 
 of our said Lady the Queen and her laws, and 
 against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, 
 her Crown and Dignity. 
 
 Ninth Count. — And the Jurors aforesaid, on 
 their oaths aforesaid, do further present, that the 
 said Feargus O’Connor, Peter Murray M‘Douall, 
 James Scholefield, James Leach, Christopher 
 Doyle, John Campbell, Jonathan Bairstow, Ber- 
 nard M'Cartney, James Arthur, otherwise called 
 James M‘ Arthur, David Ross, Richard Otley, 
 George Julian Harney, James Cartledge, Thomas 
 Cooper, William Hill, Robert Brooke, James 
 Taylor, John Hoyle, John Thornton, John Nor- 
 man, Joseph Clarke, John Massey, John 
 Fletcher, Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas Fraser, 
 John Allinson, James Grasby, William Beesley, 
 James Chippendale, Samuel Parkes, Thomas 
 Railton, Robert Ramsden, James Mooney, 
 Thomas Mahon, John Leach, David Morrison, 
 John Lomax, John Arran, James Skevington, 
 William Scholefield, Richard Pilling, William 
 Aitkin, Sandy Challenger, otherwise called Alex- 
 ander Challenger, George Candelet, John Dur- 
 ham, James Fenton, William Stephenson, John 
 Crossley, Albert Woolfenden, Robert Lees, 
 John Lewis, Patrick Murphy Brophy, George 
 Johnson, Thomas Storah, William Booth, 
 John Wilde, William Woodruffe, Frederick Au- 
 gustus Taylor, Thomas Pitt, together with divers 
 other evil disposed persons, to the number of one 
 thousand and more, whose names are to the 
 jurors aforesaid as yet unknown, afterwards, to 
 wit, on the first day of August in the year afore- 
 
 said, and on divers other days and times between 
 that day and the first day of October in the year 
 aforesaid, with force and arms at the Parish 
 aforesaid, in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, 
 riotously, routously, and tumultuously did as- 
 semble and gather together to disturb the peace 
 of our said Lady the Queen, and being then and 
 there so assembled and gathered together, did 
 then and there make a great noise, riot, rout, 
 tumult, and disturbance, and did then and there 
 unlawfully, riotously, routously, and tumultu- 
 ously, remain -and continue together, making 
 such riot, rout, noise, tumult, and disturbance, 
 for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of 
 six hours and more then next following, to 
 the great terror of the liege subjects of our said 
 Lady the Queen, then and there being in con- 
 tempt of our said Lady the Queen, and her 
 Laws, and against the Peace of our said Lady 
 the Queen, her Crown and Dignity. 
 
 Witnesses. 
 
 Richard Beswick 
 William Griffin 
 Archibald M'Mullin 
 Nathaniel Higgin 
 Henry Mason 
 William Clayton 
 James Buckley 
 Luke M'Dermot 
 Joseph Armitage 
 Jolm Robinson 
 Thomas Beattie 
 John Hanley 
 
 (Sworn in Court.) . 
 
 William Standrin 
 John Fisher 
 William Ledward 
 Simeon Titton 
 John Fairweather 
 Morris Yacoby 
 Robert Newton 
 Joseph Little 
 John Heap 
 John Robinson Scott 
 Peter Jamieson 
 Abraham Longson 
 
 (True Bill.) 
 
TRIAL OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ., 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 EIGHTH DAY, 
 
 Thursday y March 9 thy 1843. 
 
 THE SUMMING UP. 
 
 Great interest was excited this morning by the summing up. The apparent dif- 
 ference of opinion between Mr. Baron Rolfe and the Attorney -General on some of 
 the points connected with the indictment, created much speculation as to the pro- 
 bability of the escape of certain sections of the defendants. The summing up, it 
 was anticipated, would be very lengthy, but it was even more elaborate than was 
 expec.ted. The Learned Judge, who had been most laboriously engaged since the 
 commencement of the trial, had evidently taken the greatest pains, not only in 
 bringing the general mass of testimony before the Jury in order to enable them to 
 judge of the general question whether a conspiracy had existed or not, but after- 
 wards in apportioning to each defendant the evidence which related to his acts, 
 whether bearing for or against him. Whatever opinion may exist as to the policy 
 or result of the trial, there can be but one opinion — an opinion which prevails 
 amongst the defendants themselves, that it was impossible for such a prosecution to 
 be more mildly conducted by the Law Officers of the Grown, or that it could have 
 been presided over by a more painstaking or impartial Judge. 
 
 The Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at nine o’clock precisely. From 
 the prevailing influenza,” as the reporter of a local journal justly observes, ^Mve 
 never recollect such a continual and wholly irrepressible noise in a court of justice. 
 The coughing, sneezing, and other audible symptoms of the prevailing epidemic 
 were at times so loud as to appear like the simulated colds with which honourable 
 members are sometimes seized in the House of Commons; and, occasionally, they 
 prevented even the purport of the Learned Judge’s observations from being heard 
 even at the table. The Learned Baron himself, in commencing his address, apolo- 
 gised for the low tone of his voice, which, he said, was quite hoarse from the elTects 
 of a bad cold ; a catarrh frequently interrupted his observations; while the bar, the 
 jury, the defendants, the reporters, the officers of the court, and the auditors gene- 
 rally, contributed their full share to the general disturbance. The under-sheriff 
 shouted and hushed ” himself hoarse, with labouring to obtain an impossible 
 silence ; and, we repeal, we never before witnessed an audience so universally la- 
 bouring under ^ a bad cold.’ ” 
 
 A A 
 
358 
 
 Immediately after tlie names of the 
 jurors were called over, Mr. Baron Rolfe 
 summed up as follows : — 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, we are at length 
 arrived at what I may call the last stage 
 of this very important investigation ; and 
 you have received from both sides, as 
 well from the prosecution as from the de- 
 fendants, an expression of the deep sense 
 entertained of the unremitting and patient 
 attention which you have given to the 
 case ; and I must now bespeak that same 
 attention while I enedavour, in the dis- 
 charge of my duty, to call that attention, 
 first, to what the nature of the charge 
 against the defendants is ; next, to what 
 the law is, as referable to charges of. that 
 description ; and, lastly, which is the most 
 important part of the case, to what the 
 evidence is, bearing generally upon the 
 defendants as a body, and particularly 
 upon each defendant, as bringing or not 
 bringing them or him within that law 
 which makes criminal the acts charged 
 against them. Gentlemen, I say that I 
 shall bespeak your attention. Of coui-se 
 I shall not waste the public time by any- 
 thing like an apology for asking your 
 attention, for it is your duty to give your 
 attention to the things brought before 
 ou, but, I must apprise you, that it may 
 e a work of some little difficulty on your 
 parts to keep your attention fully directed 
 to what is about to be laid before you, 
 and that for two reasons. First, because 
 I shall feel it my duty to call your attention 
 to every portion of the evidence before 
 you, — an irksome task I am aware, — be- 
 cause you have had to listen to a great deal 
 already, but I think in the present case 
 I cannot dispense with that part of my 
 duty. And, secondly, because I shall 
 feel it necessary to point out a few of the 
 legal distinctions on subjects of this na- 
 ture, which are not very easy for you to 
 apprehend ; indeed, not always easy for 
 persons familiar with such subjects, fully 
 to appreciate. Gentlemen, you have been 
 told, over and over again, what no doubt 
 is the fact, that what these defendants 
 stand charged with is the crime of con- 
 spiracy, and with that only. There were 
 originally other charges in the indictment, 
 which it is not necessary to dis6uss, as 
 they have been withdrawn. What I 
 would now call your attention to is the 
 charge of conspiracy, and that alone. 
 
 What, then, is that act, or those acts, 
 which, in the eye of the law, constitute 
 conspiracy. ’It has been said, that there 
 is great difficulty on this subject, and 
 great confusion in explaining what con- 
 stitutes conspiracy ? I do not see those 
 difficulties to the same extent as they have 
 been suggested by others. Doubtless, 
 cases may arise in which it might be dif- 
 ficult to say, if certain acts constitute 
 conspiracy, why they do; but, in the 
 present case, there can be no difficulty at 
 all ; because, for the purpose of this in- 
 vestigation, it is quite sufficient for us to 
 define conspiracy as being a combination 
 of two or more persons, either to do, or 
 to cause others to do, an illegal act, or to 
 bring about a legal act by illegal means. 
 You must not understand, me, itl stating 
 that, as laying down, as a general pro- 
 position, that nothing can be a conspiracy 
 which does not come within such a propo- 
 sition. Any of you may choose not to deal 
 with John Smith, the baker, but if all of 
 you combine together not to deal with 
 him, but as far as you can prevent others 
 from dealing with him, that would not be 
 an illegal act, but, no doubt, it would be 
 a conspiracy. I make this observation 
 to guard myself against laj|ng down a 
 rule that nothing is conspiracy but what 
 comes within this definition. I define, 
 in this case, conspiracy to be a combina- 
 tion of two or more persons, either to do, 
 or cause others to do, an illegal act, or to 
 bring about a legal act by illegal means. 
 Taking that as the definition, I must now 
 call your attention to what the indictment 
 charges against these defendants. In 
 bringing this before you, I am necessa- 
 rily obliged to use some legal terms, 
 which, though familiar to lawyers, are 
 not so to jurors. I shall, therefore, stu- 
 diously avoid the use of such terms, and 
 endeavour to translate into ordinary lan- 
 guage, that which long time and great 
 precision have made the language and 
 style of the law. An indictment con- 
 sists, and does in this case consist, of a 
 variety of what are called counts — that is 
 a variety of separate charges. Each 
 count states the .. charge in a somewhat 
 different manner, for fear the charge; 
 only stated in the manner in which' it 
 might appear in the first count, might 
 not be borne out by the evidence, and 
 the party might be acquitted. The 
 
359 
 
 charge is therefore stated in a variety of 
 ways in order that, if the evidence should 
 not precisely bear out one, it might hit 
 another form of charge. In this indict- 
 ment there were originally nine counts. 
 Two of them were put out of the ques- 
 tion because they did not relate to a con- 
 spiracy ; so that there remained seven 
 different counts, or charges relating to 
 conspiracy only. * I shall in the first 
 place shew what these counts are, and I 
 think I shall be able, practically, to re- 
 duce the number much below seven, be- 
 cause several of them, in truth, turn out, 
 in reference to the evidence, to be pre- 
 cisely the same. The first count charges 
 that Feargus O’Connor, together with 
 divers other evil-disposed persons to 
 the jurors unknown,” (that is to the grand 
 jury) between the 1st of August and 
 the 1st of September last, unlawfully did 
 conspire, confederate, and agree, by caus- 
 ing to be brought together divers unlaw- 
 ful, tumultuous, ^nd riotous assemblies of 
 seditious and evil-disposed persons, and 
 by forcing and compelling divers of her 
 Majesty’s peaceable subjects, being then 
 employed in their respective trades, to 
 desist and to depart from their work, and 
 by divers seditious and inflammatory 
 speeches, libels, placards, and other pub- 
 lications, to create alarm, discontent, and 
 confusion, with intent thereby unlaw- 
 fully to effect and bring about a change 
 in the law's and constitution of this realm.” 
 That is the first count. The second 
 count is exactly the same, except, that 
 instead of enumerating the diflerent 
 modes of violence by which they are 
 charged wdth endeavouring to carry their 
 object into effect, the count states that 
 they did ** conspire by force and vio- 
 lence, and creating alarm ' — that was 
 meant to meet the possible case of their 
 having proved a conspiracy to cause a 
 change in the laws and constitution of 
 the country — which here meant to make 
 the Charter become the law of the land — 
 but failing to prove anything like intimi- 
 dating the workmen. But it is quite 
 clear, that, if there had been a conspiracy 
 to cause a change in the laws and con- 
 stitution of the country, and that violence 
 was used for that purpose — that violence 
 would consist in stopping labour. No 
 doubt that w'as the reason w'hy the second 
 count was made out. As it is clear. 
 
 however, from the evidence produced, 
 that the “ force and violence” here 
 charged, means the intimidation of other 
 persons and preventing them from pur- 
 suing their occupations, this count is, 
 substantially, the same as the first, and 
 you are therefore to dismiss it from your 
 consideration. The grand charge is con- 
 tained in the next count— that the de- 
 fendants conspired together, by seditious 
 placards, riots, and tumults in the coun- 
 try, to bring about a change in the laws 
 and constitution. The framers of this 
 indictment probably said this — ** We 
 may fail in making out that these' dis- 
 turbances and “ turn-outs” were occa- 
 sioned by any conspiracy of this sort ; it 
 may turn out that the strike and tumults 
 which took place, were the result of 
 something with which the conspirators” 
 (if vve may call them conspirators) had 
 nothing to do; and, in order to meet 
 this, we will put the charge in another 
 shape.” And then they state that, at the 
 period in question, divers evil-disposed 
 persons had tumultuously assembled, and, 
 by force and threats, forced the subjects 
 of her Majesty to leave their occupations, 
 and thereby impeded divers trades, to the 
 great terror and alarm of her Majesty’s 
 subjects. And then the indictment 
 charges, that Feargus O’Connor and 
 the other defendants conspired to aid 
 and assist the same evil-disposed per- 
 sons to combine in unlawful assem- 
 blies, to create alarm, and by rea- 
 son thereof to bring about a change 
 in the laws and constitution. The charge 
 is similar, to the first charge, except that 
 it does not charge the conspirators with 
 being the originators of the tumults and 
 confusion. But assuming that it had 
 some connexion with the first charge ; — 
 it charges the , conspirators with having 
 combined to aid and assist the turn- 
 outs” in their unlawful assemblies, and 
 unlawful turning out of work, and so ef- 
 fect a change in the laws of the country. 
 You will see that there is little difference 
 between them. The first charge is that 
 others having originated the outrages, the 
 defendants conspired together to aid and 
 assist them in the prosecution of their de- 
 sign. The fourth charge merely varies 
 the third in an immaterial way. It omits 
 the word conspiracy” altogether, but 
 charges the defendants with “ aidinp? 
 
360 
 
 and assisting.” I do not think there is a 
 material difference between the two. If a 
 number of persons do aid and assist,” 
 it is not exactly the same thing as con- 
 spiring to aid and assist,” but the differ- 
 ence is so slight, that I think I shall he 
 aiding you in putting it out of considera- 
 tion. The charges in the first four counts 
 substantially are ; — 1st. That the defen- 
 dants conspired by force and violence to 
 bring about a change in the laws and con- 
 stitution ; and — 2nd. That others having 
 caused workmen forcibly to depart from 
 their labour, the defendants conspired 
 to aid, assist, and encourage them in 
 continuing the violent stopping of labour, 
 in order thereby to bring about a change 
 in the laws and constitution. Tlie fifth 
 count varied the change in a difierent 
 form. In one view of the case this count 
 is exceedingly important, and demands 
 your particular attention. It states — 
 That Feargus O’Connor, with divers 
 persons unknown, conspired to excite tlie 
 Queen’s subjects to disaffection and ha- 
 tred of her laws.” Standing alone that 
 is nothing : these are mere idle words. 
 You cannot charge persons with exciting 
 luitred to the laws — for how is that done ? 
 — You must have that explained. By 
 what means is that done ? — You must 
 put that out of the question. — “ By en- 
 deavouring to persuade and encourage the 
 Queen’s subjects to unite, conlederate, 
 and agree to leave their employments, 
 and produce a cessation of labour through 
 a large portion of the realm, with intent 
 thereby to bring about a change in the 
 laws and constitution.” The charge 
 here against the defendants is, tliat they 
 endeavoured to persuade persons engaged 
 in trade, and others, engaged in labour, to 
 cease from tlieir labour till the Charter — 
 (for tliat, in short is what is meant by 
 a change in the laws and constitution”) 
 should become the law of the land. This 
 count diflers from both the former charges 
 in this material ingredient ; — that it does 
 not charge upon the defendants the ex- 
 citing to, or encouraging of, any violation 
 of the laws whatsoever ; unless the mere- 
 ly persuading workmen not to work till 
 tile Charter b^ecomes law, be of itself cri- 
 minal. Now, gentlemen, you have heard 
 it stated by one of the learned counsel at 
 the bar, that a diflerence of opinion ex- 
 ists among very high legal authorities as 
 
 to whether, under the comparatively re- 
 cent acts of parliament passed onthesuh- 
 ject of combinations among workmen — 
 the merely persuading people not to work 
 till the Charter became the law of the 
 land is, or is not, criminal. For the pur- 
 poses of this enquiry I should distinctly 
 tell you to consider it criminal — for this 
 reason, that one of the counts in the in- 
 dictment charges no other criminality but 
 that. And if you should be of opinion, 
 in reference to all, or any, of the defen- 
 dants, that that is all of which they have 
 been guilty, then you will find them 
 guilty on that count only ; and it will be 
 then for the Court of Queen’s Bench to 
 say whether tliat count does, or does not, 
 bring them within anything criminal ac- 
 cording to the true construction of 
 the law. You are aware that a great 
 number of statutes were passed from time 
 to time, from the earliest ages, rendering 
 any combination among the workmen 
 not to work under certain wages — laws 
 have been passed, from time to time, ma- 
 king tliat, of itself, a very serious offence. 
 Modern views of political economy — and, 
 perhaps I am not stepping much out of 
 my path to say, very much more enlight- 
 ened views — began to prevail about 
 twenty years ago. This question then 
 began to he mooted, ‘‘ whether it was 
 equal and impartial justice to allow — as 
 the law did within certain limits — to allow 
 employers to meet together and say, * We 
 will not pay more than certain prices for 
 our work,’ whilst it was unlawful for the 
 workjieople to meet and say, ^ We will 
 not work for less than a certain price.’ ” 
 In order to put both parties on an equal 
 footing an act of parliament was then 
 ])assed, the 5th of George IV. This 
 enactment was found, immediately after 
 it passed, to be extremely inconvenient, 
 and ineffectual for obtaining the object in 
 view, and consequently in the following 
 year (1825) it was repealed, and a new 
 act was passed (the 6th Geo. IV.) regu- 
 lating the subject; and this act is now 
 the governing law on this point. By this 
 act all other acts were repealed, and a 
 provision was introduced making it highly 
 penal for any persons to meet together 
 in order by intimidation, threats, or vio- 
 lence, to interfere witli others in the exer- 
 cise of their judgment, as to the rate of 
 wages for which they were content to 
 
361 
 
 work. The third section of jhe act to 
 which I have referred, says : — 
 
 “ And be it further enacted, that, from and 
 after the passing of this act, if any person shall, 
 by violence to the person or property, or by 
 threats or intimidation, or by molesting or in 
 any way obstructing another, force or endea- 
 vouring to force any journeyman, manufacturer, 
 workmait or other person hired or employed in 
 any manufacture, trade or business, to depart 
 from his hiring, employment or work, or to 
 return his work before the same shall be finished, 
 or prevent, or endeavour to prevent, any jour- 
 neyman, manufacturer, workman, or other per- 
 son not being hired or employed from hiring 
 himself to, or from accepting work or employ- 
 ment from, any person or persons ; or if any 
 person shall molest or in any way obstruct 
 another for the purpose of forcing or inducing 
 such person to belong to any club or association, 
 or to contribute to any common fund, or to pay 
 any fine or penalty, or on account of his not 
 belonging to any particular club or association, 
 or not having contributed, or having refused to 
 contribute, to any common fund, or to pay any 
 fine or penalty, or on account of his not having 
 complied, or of his refusing to comply, with any 
 rules, orders, resolutions, or regulations, made 
 to obtain an advance or to reduce the rate of 
 wages, or to lessen or alter the hours of work- 
 ing, or to decrease or alter the quantity of work, 
 or to regulate the mode of carrying on any ma- 
 nufacture, trade, or business, or the management 
 thereof ; or if any person shall by violence to 
 the person or property of another, or by threats 
 or intimidation, or by molesting or in any way 
 obstructing another, force or endeavour to force 
 any manufacturer or person carrying on any 
 trade or business, to make any alteration in his 
 mode of regulating, managing, conducting, or 
 carrying on such manufacture, trade, or busi- 
 ness, or to limit the number of his apprentices, 
 or the number or description of his journeymen, 
 workmen, or servants ; every person so offending, 
 or aiding, abetting, or assisting therein, being 
 convicted thereof in manner hereinafter men- 
 tioned, shall be imprisoned only, or shall and 
 may be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 
 any time not exceeding three calendar months." 
 The fourth section says, 
 
 “ Provided abvays, and be it enacted, that this 
 Act shall not extend to subject any persons to 
 punishment, who shall meet together for the sole 
 purpose of consulting upon, and determining the 
 
 rate of wages or prices, wluch the persons pre- 
 sent at such meeting or any of them, shall rS- 
 quire or demand for his or their work, or the 
 hours or time for which he or they shall work in 
 any manufacture, trade or business, or who shall 
 enter into any agreement, verbal or written, 
 among themselves, for the purpose of fixing the 
 rate of wages or prices which the parties entering 
 into such agreement, or any of them, shall require 
 or demand for his or their wmrk, or the hours Oi 
 time for which he or they will work, in any manu 
 facture, trade or business ; and that persons sa 
 meeting for the purposes aforesaid, or entering; 
 into any such agreement as aforesaid, shall not be 
 liable to any prosecution or penalty for so doing ; 
 any law or statute to the contrary nothwfith- 
 standing." 
 
 The next section contains a similar 
 provision as to masters, that might be 
 termed the converse. That is the law on 
 the subject, and I do not know that I am 
 stepping out of my way in saying that it 
 is as wise a provision as could exist. 
 Persons may meet together for the pur- 
 pose of determining that they shall not 
 work under twenty shillings a week, and 
 that those of them who cannot get that 
 must be out of work. Just in the same 
 way masters may meet together, and say, 
 — “ We will not give more wages than 
 so and so, and if we cannot get workmen 
 at that price, we must be content (o do 
 without them, and let the work stop 
 That is the law. Everybody is perfectly 
 free to bring his capital into the market 
 on such terms as he may think lit ; and, 
 on the other hand, every one has a right 
 to bring his labour into the market on 
 such terms as he may think fit ; and, 
 provided there is no interference with the 
 free will of others, the law, in doing that, 
 has done all it can do — all that it ought 
 to do. That being the law, this fifth 
 count charges the defendants with having 
 endeavoured to persuade certain workmen 
 engaged in the factories to confederate 
 and leave their employment, and produce 
 a cessation of labour in a large portion of 
 the realms, wdth intent thereby to bring 
 about a change in the laws and constitu- 
 tion. Now, the doubt that has existed 
 on this subject is this: — It being lawful 
 for persons to meet together, where no 
 violence is practised, and determine not 
 to work except upon certain terms, can it 
 then be illegal for others to combine to- 
 gether to pursuade them to do so? It has 
 been suggested that it is illegal ; first. 
 
362 
 
 because it did not necessarily follow that 
 • because it was legal for certain persons 
 to enter into such an agreement, it was 
 therefore legal for others to combine to 
 pursuade them to do so. I don’t know 
 whether that will come within the law of 
 conspiracy or not. Again, whether, hav- 
 ing a right to persuade others not to work 
 without a certain rate of wages, it was 
 not unlawful to make that a means of 
 bringing about a change in the laws and 
 constitution. It is charged here as an 
 illegality, and as such we will treat it. I 
 thought it necessary, that a satisfactory 
 explanation of how the matter stands should 
 be given here. I have therefore explained 
 what is charged as an illegality here. I 
 have again, gentlemen, to remind you, of 
 what, up to this point, the indictment 
 charges. The first count charges the de- 
 fendants with having originated, by 
 conspiracy, a strike, tumult and confusion, 
 in order to cause the Charter to become 
 the law of the land — to alter the laws and 
 constitution means the same thing. The 
 second c^unt charges that others having 
 caused the strike, the defendants com- 
 bined to assist those parties in order 
 thereby to make the Charter the law of 
 the land. The third, dropping all about 
 violence, charges the defendants, simply 
 with endeavouring to excite persons to 
 desist from labour altogether till the 
 Charter became the law of the land. 
 Gentlemen, there are two other counts on 
 which I shall dwell slightly. One of 
 these charges Mr. O’Connor and others 
 with having conspired together between 
 the 1st of August and the 1st of October, 
 to meet together violently and tumul- 
 tuously, and to cause others by violence, 
 threats and intimidation to depart from 
 their employment, leaving out all that 
 about causing the Charter to become the 
 law of the land. I presume that was 
 meant to meet the case that might be the 
 result of the evidence ; namely, that you 
 might be satisfied that there was an effort 
 to force people to abstain from work, but 
 might not be satisfied that any part of 
 that object was to cause the Charter to be- 
 come the law of the land. It mi^ht be 
 that there was no other object but to pro- 
 duce a cessation from labour. The sixth 
 and seventh counts are exactly the same 
 in that respect ; so that you will see that 
 the indictment charges the offence of con- ' 
 
 spiracy on the defendants in four different 
 forms ; and in order to convict them you 
 must be satisfied that the evidence shews, 
 either that they combined, or conspired 
 together, in order to cause workmen to be 
 forcibly expelled from their work, and 
 made, against their will, to cease from their 
 labour ; and also to create tumults 
 throughout the country in order to cause 
 the Charter to become the law of the 
 land ; or, that other persons having caused 
 that tumult, they combined and conspired 
 to aid and assist those who had departed 
 from labour, in order that the Charter 
 might become the law of the land; or 
 that, without violence, they did combine to 
 persuade others, without acts of violence, 
 to cease from labour in order to produce a 
 change in the laws and constitution ; or, 
 that they combined together to cause tu- 
 mult and a cessation from work without 
 any reference to ulterior objects or any 
 alteration of the laws and constitution of 
 the countiy. Gentlemen, I have en- 
 deavoured as well as^I could to make you 
 understand what the law of the case is. 
 In a case of this nature it is of the ut- 
 most importance that you should have 
 the thing clearly in your minds; for in 
 looking at the evidence in this case, you 
 are to consider whether you can convict 
 the defendants, or such of them as the 
 evidence may apply to, of a combination 
 or conspiracy to effect one or other of 
 those illegal objects to which I have called 
 your attention. Gentlemen, there is an- 
 other difficulty which may present itself 
 to persons in your station, who are not 
 conversant with legal proceedings — a dif- 
 ficulty which necessarily besets a case of 
 this sort, — it is this : that in order to 
 convict parties of" the offence of con- 
 spiracy various modes may be adopted, 
 differing as far from each other as the 
 east is Ifom the west. And that cannot 
 be better illustrated than it is by the evi- 
 dence in the present case. The charge — 
 be It always present to your minds — is not 
 that of having attended illegal meetings, 
 or of having uttered seditious speeches, 
 or of having turned workmen from 
 their employment, or of having caused 
 tumult, violence, and outrage, (and if the 
 defendants, or any of them, have been 
 guilty of any of these, they are still 
 liable to be indicted for such offence ; 
 and their conviction or acquittal on this 
 
^Q6 
 
 indictment will neither protect nor hurt 
 them), but the sole charge here is, that 
 they combined and conspired together to 
 elfectuate certain objects ; if they did so, 
 from that moment the crime here charged 
 is complete, even though not a single 
 man has been tumed-out, or a single 
 outrage committed. On the other hand, 
 if there was a conspiracy, and that some 
 who took part in the proceedings resulting ! 
 from it were ignorant of the conspiracy ' 
 and the object of it, they are no more guilty 
 of the charge contained in this indictment 
 than those who took no part in it ; not 
 having entered into the combination or 
 agreement. That being so, I say the 
 difficulty, at the very outset, likely to | 
 present itself to the minds of those con- I 
 sidering subjects of this sort for the first 
 time is, that — If the crime consists in 
 the agreement to do certain unlavrful acts, 
 how are we to find that any such agree- 
 ment has been entered into ? In the , 
 ordinary transactions of life, when parties j 
 enter into an agreement, they manifest it 
 by reducing it to writing, or by making 
 it verbally among themselves, and the 
 evidence of the writing, or the person | 
 who heard the agreement made, will hej 
 sufficient to substantiate it. But in order! 
 to convict persons of a conspiracy mustj 
 we have the same sort of evidence ? — j 
 Must we find the parties reducing to' 
 wriiing w hat they conspired to do ? Or, ! 
 must we have the evidence of somebody; 
 V. ho was present and heard them, when I 
 tlicy were entering into the contract?; 
 C’ertainly not. Perhaps the most satis- ! 
 factory evidence would he that of persons 
 who were present, wffien the individuals! 
 cljarged with the crime had entered into 
 the agreement; or when they did that' 
 which clearly amounted to such an agree-' 
 rnent, hut this is by no means necessary. | 
 You may convict parties of conspiring' 
 together to effect a certain purpose, al- 
 tliough you may have no writing to show 
 such combination, or agreement, or al-' 
 though you may not have the evidence 
 of any party who was present, and heard 
 such an agreement when it was entered 
 into. You may infer that there was such 
 an agreement from the acts wdiich the 
 parties committed. In the reply of the 
 Attorney-General, yesterday, he was al- ; 
 lading, in some degree, to this view of' 
 the case. I think his language went he- ' 
 
 yond what I have stated to you the law 
 would w'arrant. Probably he meant the 
 same thing that I did, hut I think the ex- 
 pression made use of was calculated to mis- 
 lead. He stated, in substance — these are 
 not his exact words — that if these parties 
 were going about lecturing, and exciting 
 parties to all those acts referred to in th<».; 
 charge, at Mottram Moor, Ashton, Hyde, 
 Duckingfield, &c., and if they were all re- 
 commending the same line of conduct, 
 that that would amount to a conspiracy. 
 The only qualification I put on that in 
 laying down the law is this; — that that 
 would not amount to conspiracy at all. 
 It might be evidence from which you 
 might infer a previous combination — it 
 might be evidence leading more or less 
 forcibly to that conclusion, according to 
 all the surrounding circumstances. Now, 
 for instance, suppose there had been a 
 very great desire to obtain a rise of wages; 
 and a very gTeat desire to obtain the 
 Charter — suppose that, taking that state 
 of things which has been represented as 
 having existed— that the leading people 
 among the turn-outs at all the different 
 towns are making this sort of lecturing 
 and speechifying, and exciting the peo- 
 ple to acts of violence, and to insist upon 
 iiaving the Charter — if that leads you to 
 the conclusion that there has been — (I 
 don’t say that it is all necessary that there 
 should be a meeting) any arrangement 
 by any sort of machinery that they should 
 do this, then, not only would they he 
 guilty of the acts committed at those 
 meetings, but it might be a proof that 
 there was such combination. On the 
 other hand, it might be evidence that 
 there was no such combination at all. The 
 circumstances of unity of object, and same- 
 ness of views, would explain the fact of 
 their taking the same course, and pro- 
 pounding the same objects; and shows that 
 no one knew at all what the other was do- 
 ing. Tire nearer the parties are the 
 more they are in the habit of associating, 
 and the more probable their previous 
 combination ; the more distant the par- 
 ties are, and the less their intercourse with 
 each other, the less probable is it that any 
 previous combination occurred. Now, 
 gentlemen, in the present case, you see, 
 there will be pressing on your minds par- 
 ticular difficulties arising from the facts 
 proved as evidence of previous combina- 
 
364 
 
 tion. As to a great many of these de- 
 fendants there will be no other evidence 
 whatever, at least that I have been able to 
 discover, of previous combination, or 
 agreement to carry out any of those ille- 
 gal purposes, except so far as it is to be 
 inferred from their acts in attempting to^ 
 carry the strike out. With regard to 
 others of the defendants, so far from that 
 being the case, it is quite clear they took 
 no part at all in tlie actual carrying out 
 of the strike ; and the only evidence 
 against them would be — (I allude parti- 
 cularly to what are called the delegates in 
 Scholefield s chapel) their meeting toge- 
 ther and entering into the resolutions 
 and transactions of that meeting. So that 
 as to a portion of the defendants you will 
 have to convict them — (if you do convict 
 them) on one sort of evidence ; the in- 
 ference from their acts ; and as to the 
 other defendants you will have to convict 
 them on evidence of a totally different 
 character — on, I may say, a priori evi- 
 dence, and that in spite of their 
 non-participation in those acts which 
 form the sole evidence against the other 
 defendants. Before I call your atten- 
 tion to the evidence, it is extremely im- 
 portant that I should direct your minds 
 to one point, it is this: — You maybe 
 satisfied, taking the law from me, that in 
 order to convict all, or any, of the defend- ' 
 ants, you must convict them of one and ; 
 the same conspiracy ; — one and the same. ' 
 I don’t mean by that that every conspi- 
 rator — I use the word for shortness but I ; 
 do not employ it in an offensive sense — 
 
 I do not mean that every one of the de- 
 fendants used exactly the same influence. ' 
 If you think that all the defendants, or 
 any number of them, combined together 
 for the purpose of carrying the Charter, 
 and some of them said, I won’t use any . 
 violence at all,”— (and you find that ; 
 some of them used no violence at all ; j 
 nor consented to the use of violence) — 
 
 I will give my countenance to nothing < 
 but a voluntary abstinence from labour < 
 and that others said — I will encourage i 
 a voluntary abstinence from labour, and I 
 a forced abstinence also” — if you find j 
 that the parties all agi'eed substantially in i 
 one and the same act, you may convict ; 
 them all, but on diflerent counts ; those ] 
 who declared or took part in violence, ( 
 upon the counts relating to violence ; and s 
 
 • those who stopped short of violence anA 
 ! took no part in it, upon the other portion 
 I of the indictment. It may be difficult 
 
 * conceive such a state of things, because 
 ■ if a party knew that others were eneou 
 
 ! raging violence for the promotion of the 
 common purpose, he must instantly know 
 I that he, being joined with those persons, 
 ; was encouraging violence also, and that 
 he was then combining in the ndiole, al- 
 , though he does not choose to say, “ I am 
 ; combining in the whole,” and proof of 
 that would be sufficient to enable you to 
 say that it was one and the same conspi- 
 racy, although they do not all go the 
 same length, or all take the same active 
 part in carrying out the common desigj^. 
 Gentlemen, what I mean by saying that 
 it may be one and the same conspiracy 
 is this: — If you should be of opinion, 
 in the first instance, that there was among 
 some persons a combination to cause a 
 riot for the purpose of occasioning a rise 
 of wages, though they were no parties to- 
 any combination about carrying the Char- 
 ter, they would be guilty of the offence 
 of conspiracy. But if you are of opinion 
 that the defendants entered into, insulated 
 it may be, and took part in, a movement 
 resulting from a conspiracy in which 
 they took no part whatever, the mere cir- 
 cumstance that what they intended, to 
 effect formed a part of the common ob- 
 ject, will not enable you to convict them 
 of the same offence. For instance, if 
 A, B, and C, at Manchester, enter into 
 a conspiracy to carry the Charter by 
 means of something they may effect, and 
 that at Duckiufield and Hyde other par- 
 ties combine to raise wages, and that 
 both happen to do the same acts, that 
 will not be sufficient to convict the par- 
 ties at Manchester of the conspiracy at 
 Hyde and Duckinfield for raising wages, 
 although the parties in both places are 
 guilty of the same description of acts. 
 
 I cannot too often repeat to you the ne- 
 cessity of giving your attention to the 
 evidence. You must always recollect 
 that it is to this the indictment points— 
 that the parties combined together to ef- 
 fectuate these illegal objects. You need 
 not be satisfied (hat they met together; 
 you need not be satisfied that any ex- 
 press terms were observed ; but that all 
 of them, in some form or other, were as- 
 sociated together for this common object. 
 
365 
 
 When I say ** associated together” I do not 
 mean that each one must come in contact 
 with all the others, but that there was a 
 common object with them all. If not 
 satisfied of this you will acquit the de- 
 fendants ; if you are, you will find them 
 guilty. I have sho^vn first what the law 
 of conspiracy is, and what the indictment 
 is, and what the evidence is whereby such 
 an indictment may be substantiated. 
 You have heard the whole of the evidence 
 before, and it would be a very great re- 
 lief to my mind if I could have felt, that 
 in justice to the public, to the Crown, and 
 the prosecutor, — who, in truth is the pub- 
 lic, and injustice to the defendants, who, 
 in every case, but most particularly in a 
 case like this, in which there is so much 
 difficulty both of law and fact — at least 
 so much difficulty in clearly applying the 
 law to the facts of the case — in justice to 
 the defendants who stand charged on this 
 heavy indictment, I feel bound to do that, 
 which, in ordinary and shorter cases, I 
 seldom do — namely, to recapitulate to 
 you, at the risk, I am afraid, of being 
 very irksome and wearisome, the whole 
 of this evidence, that you may see, first 
 of all how it bears out the prosecution in 
 establishing a conspiracy at all, and se- 
 condly, if that be established to your 
 satisfaction, how it bears on each and 
 every individual, to prove o« their part 
 a conspiracy, and to what extent. Gen- 
 tlemen, recollect the first portion of the 
 evidence, — that which occupied the first 
 two days, or thereabouts, constituted 
 almost entirdy evidence of this sort; that 
 ill the manufacturing districts, namely, 
 Manchester, Stalybridge, Hyde, Duckin- 
 field, Mottram Moor, Glossop,and there- 
 abouts, early in August, — perhaps be- 
 ginning in June, but generally beginning 
 about the 5th or 6th of August, — there 
 were a great number of meetings of a 
 more or less tumultuous character; and 
 at these meetings speeches were made of 
 a more or less inflammatory character, and 
 by a variety of speakers, some of whom 
 were connected with this conference of 
 delegates; and that the object of those 
 meetings was to excite the workmen to 
 quit their employment, and, undoubtedly, 
 not only to quit their employment, but 
 to force others to discontinue their em- 
 ployment, and threaten with violence 
 those who resisted it. Now that evidence, 
 
 on this charge, can only be given for the 
 purpose of showing by evidence a pos- 
 teriori, the existence of a previous con- 
 spiracy to take part in those proceedings. 
 I have already told you how that evidence 
 bears on the indictment, but unless you 
 very clearly and distinctly see your way 
 so as to infer, from those acts of which 
 they were guilty, a previous combination, 
 yo:i must not find them guilty. I now 
 proceed to call your attention to what, 
 after a lapse of more than a week, your 
 minds may not be fully possessed of. The 
 first witness was a man. of the name of 
 Joseph Haigb. I shall make but very 
 few observations in the course of sum- 
 ming up this evidence to you. You saw 
 all the witnesses, and the degree of credit 
 which each is to receive at your hands is 
 a matter for your discretion. As a mat- 
 ter of remark, I don’t think any of them — 
 I put out of the case the accomplices — in- 
 tended to tell you that which they believed 
 to be untrue. I think one or two of them 
 give rather a coloured account. A man 
 of the name of Buckley, I thought, was 
 somewhat rather flippantand over zealous,, 
 and his evidence did not possess me with 
 over credit as did that of others. Several 
 of the witnesses were quite respectable. 
 With regard to the policemen who gave 
 their testimony ; the important situations 
 in which they were placed, the difficulties 
 they had to encounter, and the delicate 
 nature of their duty, require every sort of 
 allowance to be made for any little zeal 
 which they may have exhibited, and 
 which might lead them a little beyond, I 
 wont say truth, but a strict shade of 
 colouring. But with that observation I 
 must make this remark, that it certainly 
 dees sometimes occur to me,, that when 
 we afterwards come to detail matters 
 which have come under our observation, 
 we sometimes give them a slight degree 
 of colouring quite unknown to ourselves ; 
 that is the only observation I shall now 
 make, and you will give it as much weight 
 as your own judgment leads yoy to do. 
 [Havingread the evidence of Joseph Haigh 
 (the first witness) which, his Lordship 
 said, amounted to very little ; and also 
 the evidence of Henry Bricrly, his Lord- 
 ship observed :] Gentlemen, I must make 
 one observation here ; wherever you find 
 about the 8th of August, that the turn- 
 outs were discussing whether it weald be 
 
366 
 
 a Wage or Charter ""question, and that 
 differences existed among them oji that 
 point, I think it rather looks the contrary 
 way of having any expressed or implied 
 combination among them. It does ap- 
 pear that up to a later period there cer- 
 tainly was very little like combination 
 among them. Some were for one thing 
 some for another. The one-armed man 
 alluded to by this witness is, no doubt, 
 Cartledge, he has but one arm. I must 
 be under the necessity of calling your at- 
 tention, after I have gone through the 
 whole of the evidence, to that part which 
 applies to eacli? defendant. For it would 
 be idle to suppose that you could carry 
 the case of each in your mind ; and, 
 therefore, in the first place, you must be 
 satisfied whether the general evidence will 
 enable you to come to a conclusion as 
 to whether there has been a conspiracy. 
 I have got an index to each person s case, 
 and what I want you to do now is to see 
 whether or not, attending to the general 
 character of the speeches made by the 
 several speakers, you are led to the con- 
 clusion that there was a combination 
 among persons going about from place to 
 place; and that they were not merely 
 guilty of violence on each occasion but 
 that what they were doing was more or less 
 in pursuance of a combination among 
 them. [Having read the e\ddence of 
 William Clayton, his Lordship pro- 
 ceeded]: Then comes a witness of greatim- 
 portance,because he gives a much more ac- 
 curate account of some of the preceding wit- 
 nesses, more accurate and more to be relied 
 upon, because he is one of those who has 
 notes of what took place; — Joseph Little. 
 He acted as special constable of Hyde. 
 [The Judge then read Little's evidence.] 
 There is a good deal in the speech of 
 Leach, spoben to by this witness, which 
 is entirely irrelevant to the question be- 
 fore you. All you have to do is to say 
 if there is any thing in it calculated to 
 lead you to the supposition that he was 
 a party to any combination. The witness 
 says, respecting Leach, “ He said a great 
 deal more of which I took no notes.” 
 The observation upon this is, “ Can you 
 trust reporters who omit to take notes of a 
 great deal of what is said All I can say 
 is this; if you want to know the general 
 character of a meeting, and particularly to 
 
 be able to draw a just inference as to the 
 part which speakers may have taken in 
 any combination, the best way would be 
 to have an accurate transcript of a short- 
 hand writer’s notes of every word and 
 syllable ; and the next best way is to have 
 the general substance of w'hat was said 
 from a person who heard it. But because 
 you cannot have that, it is not to follow 
 that you are to shut your eyes to what 
 you can have. You will not give 
 the same degree of attention to a party 
 though he tells you fairly I cannot give 
 the whole, as you would to one who can 
 give the whole, but Little says he has 
 taken down what he thought of conse- 
 quence. A great number of statements 
 have been made respecting the words. 
 Peace, law, and order ; ” I will not 
 repeat the observation which has been 
 made, Avhich must strike every man of 
 common sense, that such expressions 
 are nonsense if they are not in unison 
 with the general tendency of the publi- 
 cation in which they appear. I do not 
 think that you are to pay too much at- 
 tention to a few inflammatory words which 
 may be in a publication, if the general 
 tendency of it is to promote peace and 
 good order. You should not pay too 
 much attention to a few hasty or un- 
 guarded expressions, if the general result 
 be what I have stated. And, on the 
 other han^, you should not regard such 
 words as, “ peace, law, and order,” if the 
 general tendency of the publication in 
 which they occur be to promote violence 
 or disorder. [^Oentlernen, lam labouring 
 under a^ severe cold, and nave much dif^ 
 Jiculty in addressing you.'] That closes 
 the evidence for the first day. This evi- 
 dence shows that in Ashton, Stalybridge, 
 Duckingfield, and other places, iu August 
 last, there were several meetings, and al- 
 lusions to other meetings, with excite- 
 ments to riots and violence ; that some- 
 times it appeared as if the Charter was 
 the object, and sometimes as if Wages was 
 the object. You will consider whether 
 or not, the persons going about then had, 
 or had not, entered into a combination 
 for the purposes charged in the indict- 
 ment. The same style of evidence is fol- 
 lowed out the next day. [His Lordship 
 reads the evidence of Joseph Sadler, 
 Thomas Barrington, and William Moore. 1 
 
367 
 
 The next witness is James Crompton. 
 He says, “ I was on duty at Marple on 
 the 15th of August last; about 1000 
 persons were there at a meeting: Taylor 
 was in the chair.” There are two 
 Taylors’, and one of these was in the 
 chair. 
 
 Mr MURPHY:— My Lord, I have 
 made a marginal note here, that that 
 Taylor was not indicted. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:— 
 My Lord, that is quite correct ; that is 
 not the Taylor who is indicted. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I dare say that is 
 quite correct. I find that in my margi- 
 nal references to all the cases there is no 
 reference to the Taylors. Joseph Taylor 
 is not in the indictment. It appears, 
 from this witness’s evidence, that permis- 
 sion was given to Robinson to finish his 
 work. Parties took on themselves not 
 naerely to stop the works, but to give 
 license to work. That is important ; not 
 as establishing the charge of conspiracy, 
 but I think that the granting of licenses 
 to persons to work, is th^ strongest pos- 
 sible evidence that, but for this license, 
 they would not be permitted to do so. 
 Then comes a man who was examined 
 at great length, and who gives notes 
 of a great many meetings — Abraham 
 Longson. He dictated what he had 
 seen and heard to a person then with 
 him, who wrote it down for him. 
 Now, you know that persons who refresh 
 their memory with notes made, can only 
 do so with notes made at the time. Of 
 course you know that the quickest short- 
 hand writer in the world cannot put 
 down on paper what is said till after it 
 has been uttered. This man put down 
 what he has given in evidence when the 
 matter was fresh in his memory. He is 
 questioned about the accuracy of his 
 recollection of what passed ; but I don’t 
 think that bears on the case; but if it 
 does detract from his accuracy, you are 
 at liberty to think so. He gives you an 
 account of Pilling, who gave that account 
 of his family which all of us, I am sure, 
 80 deeply and sincerely felt : — 
 
 After Wright had taken the chair, he pro- 
 posed, that whoever introduced any subject 
 not connected with that of wages should be put 
 down^ he told them they must get their 
 wages, and if they could not, they must ask 
 their masters why they could not give it them ; 
 
 and if they told them it was through the ‘ top 
 shop,’ (the government,) they must ask their 
 masters to go with them as commanders and ser- 
 geants, and find them with bread and cheese on the 
 road ; and to go to the Duke of Wellington ; and 
 if that would not do to go to Buckingham Palace, 
 and the House of Commons, and the House of 
 Lords, or whatever they have a mind to call it, 
 and demand from them to take all restrictions 
 off.” 
 
 It would appear, from w’hat he said, 
 that he was connected wdth some other 
 political party in the country. I do not 
 see what that party has to do with the 
 question at all. I have not understood 
 what that introduction (made several 
 times) of the name of the Anti-com 
 JLeague, and other parties connected with 
 it — what it has do with the present ques- 
 tion at all. However, you have it before 
 you, and it is quite competent for you to 
 give it what weight you think fit. The 
 chairman said he would not go to Lon- 
 don. They must take the responsibility 
 upon themselves, for he would not go to 
 London. James Allinson then got up, 
 and moved that the question be left open, 
 and let the meeting decide whether or 
 not they would get their W'ages or the 
 Charter. A person named Brown ad- 
 vised them to stick out till they had 
 their wages and their rights ; and abide 
 by the question, and not meddle wdth 
 any other subject, for if they did they 
 would lose all their support.” 
 
 Pilling said : — 
 
 “ Fellow-townsmen, for I may so call you, 
 having lived amongst you so long, and having 
 been at so many meetings, by thousands, and 
 have been in prison — I do not know w'hether it 
 would be safe for me to own it or not ; but I may 
 avow that I have the honour to be father of this 
 movement, and the sole cause of your being la- 
 dies and gentlemen at the present time ; for the 
 masters of Ashton had thought proper to offer a 
 reduction of 25 per cent, upon their wages. I 
 then caused the bellman to go round and call the 
 meeting, swearing, by the God of heaven, that;, if 
 the reduction took place, we would annihilate the 
 system, and cause the day of reckoning. I then 
 addressed a meeting of 12,000. I then went to 
 Stalybridge, and addressed a meeting of 10,000. 
 
 I then addressed a meeting at Hyde of 10,000, 
 and at Duckinfield of 5,000. At every meeting 
 they came to a resolution to work no more till 
 they got the same wages as they had in February, 
 1840. He then said he addressed a meeting at 
 
368 
 
 Ro^on, who came to same resolution. He 
 said he then called a meeting at Oldham, but, 
 there they were taken by surprise, and I had to 
 come back, with five other of the speakers against 
 me. In consequence of that, the people of Old- 
 ham were not out, but I w’as determined next 
 morning to go and drub them out. I went ac- 
 cordingly, and met them at eight o’clock, where 
 one of them attacked me, and I gave him a 
 floorer, and they all lay prostrated at my feet. 
 All the masters were then willing to give them 
 their prices but one of the Anti-corn-law League, 
 of the name of Bayley, of Stalybridge. In the 
 course of the last three weeks, I have addressed 
 upwards of 300,000 in different parts of Lanca- 
 shire and Cheshire. We then went to Droylsden 
 and hlanchester, and the people of Droylsden 
 swore by the God of heaven they would not work 
 any more until they had got their price of 1840. 
 They then came to Stockport, and caused all the 
 mills to be stopped. You did not turn out as my 
 friend here stated. It was the Ashton lads that 
 turned you out ; and mind one thing, if you do 
 go in, they will come over and give you a d — d 
 good hiding. They then went to the bastile ; 
 but I did not consider that right ; but this winter 
 we may all become thieves, and then the soldiers 
 and police will have to look after us ; and that 
 will eat up the system, as there are more ways 
 than one of eating up the system; biit, if the 
 Ashton lads had not been there, they w'ould not 
 have known that there had been such a place. 
 The magistrates ought to have looked over such 
 a trifling thing as that, and not have committed 
 some to Chester. He said he had been in all 
 parts of South Lancashire, and at Burnley, Chor- 
 ley, Bolton, Preston, Colne, Padiham, Clitheroe, 
 Todmorden, Blackburn. The two Tory mem- 
 bers of Blackburn was a-gate of working patent 
 looms at l^d. per cut less than any other mas- 
 ters were giving in that neighbourhood, and 
 stopped 9d. per week for every loom. He then 
 went to Todmorden, and the w'orthy member for 
 Oldham was actually giving more wages for some 
 kinds of work than what they were turned out 
 for ; and when the authorities and soldiers went 
 to him to protect his factory, he told them he 
 could do without them, as the arms of the people 
 were his protection ; and when that ceased, he 
 hoped he should cease to live. He then said, 
 
 “ There’s that d — d rascal of a Marshall, and 
 that d — d bloodhound of a thief of a Jem Brad- 
 shaw ; they are both particular friends of mine, 
 and I love them well, and they knyw it. But 
 you must be sure and stick out, and not go to 
 your work ; for, if you do, the masters will crush 
 you down, you may depend upon it, and then the 
 Ashton lads will come over again, and give you a 
 d— d, good hiding; and don’t you deserve it?” 
 
 The crowd said, ‘‘ Yes.” He said, ” But you 
 will not get off as you did before. Now, that is 
 intimidation ; but I know the law of conspiracy, 
 and there never yet was a good thing got, but 
 some one had to suffer for it. But they may put 
 me in prison, for I don’t care a d — n for being 
 within the walls of the prison.” 
 
 He made a mistake. He finished by ex- 
 horting them to stick out. He said he 
 had a child who was dead a short time 
 since. I believe he said a child, or one 
 of the members of his family, I am not 
 certain. On the 17th a meeting was held. 
 Wm.Williamson was in the chair. Wright 
 was elected a delegate. Williamson ad- 
 dressed the meeting, and said those dele- 
 gates that had been at Manchester would 
 come forward, and state what had been 
 done. John Wright addressed the meet- 
 ing: — 
 
 “ Delegates, chairman, and fellow-sufferers, I 
 am come back quite different to that I expected 
 I should have come back, but I have not re- 
 ceived any information. But we were put down 
 by the authoritijg^. I went to Tib-street for to 
 find the delegates, but I could not. I W'ent to 
 Avery-street to look for them ; and went to 
 several other streets to look for them, but could 
 not find them. At last we found them, and 
 saw from the placards on the wall that it was 
 dangerous for them to meet. We were admitted 
 into the room. There were the work-people as 
 we call them. There were seventeen delegates 
 to support wages, but the moment we entered 
 the room the meeting adjourned until to-morrow ; 
 
 ‘ And I could not tell 
 My Lord God from Tom Bell ; ’ 
 but there was no delegate there for your benefit. 
 The meetings in Manchester are called illegal, 
 and this meeting is illegal ; but when you get 
 your wages go to your work. But in Manchester 
 they will not go to their work until they get the 
 Charter. But I did not come here to deceive 
 you. But I believe there is a great many that 
 will go and creep under the gates before this 
 day month. We went for the wages we came 
 out for. For I don’t care for no man, whether 
 he be fool or Dick. Mr. President, I hope that 
 no man wdll go from this meeting under any 
 mistake. But I will not deceive you, for I have 
 not voted this day. But the meeting was con- . 
 eluded for w’ages and the Charter, and both had 
 gone together.” 
 
 ” Fool or Dick,” it is suggested, is a 
 mistake for the names of two magistrates. 
 
369 
 
 who go the slang names of Hoole a^d 
 Dick. The only importance attached to 
 it i!y;he suggestion, How can you trust 
 to a man who is not accurate in giving 
 these names.?” I confess such a mistake 
 ■rvould not in my estimation lead me to 
 doubt the general accuracy of the state- 
 ment. It is only a mistake as to a letter. 
 [His Lordship read the remainder of 
 Longson’s evidence, and also the evidence 
 of John Robinson Scott, and Silvester 
 Faraday.] You may infer from the evi- 
 dence of Faraday, that all the mills weie 
 stopped pretty much in the same way. I 
 think T am called upon also to remark, 
 that, although a great deal of violence 
 was manifested in stopping the mills, yet 
 we must not infer that all the people who 
 turned out of the mills were turned out 
 against their wills; on the contrary, it 
 appears from tlxe evidence that a large 
 ortion of the work-people were glad to 
 e turned out ; some, no doubt, were sorry 
 to he turned out; others were not; but 
 we have no direct evidence who were 
 acting from their own will, or who were 
 acting from violence. All we can say is, 
 that there were some who did go out 
 willingly, and that others W'ere turned 
 out against their will. William Bent- 
 ley, one of the county police at Roch- 
 dale, states that the Executive Placard 
 was posted there on the 17th of August, 
 and that he saw the Queen’s pro- 
 clamation posted at Rochdale on the 
 15th. The people returned to work about 
 the 20th. Then comes that witness whom 
 I told you, by his manner, was not 
 quite entitled to credibility. That, how- 
 ever, I leave to yourselves ; I mean the 
 witness .James Buckley. I do not say 
 that because he is a man of humble life, 
 but because, according to his own showing, 
 he was a person hanging about, and look- 
 ing after the turn-outs to find something 
 against them. [His Lordship read the 
 remainder of the evidence for the second 
 day w'iihout comment.} Gentlemen, that 
 closes the evidence given on the second 
 day. On the following morning a gen- 
 tleman came before you who gave an ex- 
 cellent character of Crossley. Another 
 witness was called to show the accuracy 
 of Little, and prove that his book was 
 not an invention. The next witness, John 
 Brooks, was called to show that the peo- 
 ple were turned out forcibly. This was 
 
 intended, no doubt, to meet the c-hallenge 
 thrown down by Mr. O’Connor, that the 
 mill-owners were to blame. One of the 
 defendants, who cross-examined this wit- 
 ness, said, that if a man produced twenty 
 pieces of cloth twenty years ago, he got 
 much more for it than a man would get 
 for double the quantity at present, and 
 that therefore the workmen were not as 
 well remunerated for their labour as they 
 were twenty years ago. But the witness 
 says, That is not the fair way of putting 
 it, because he produces a great deal more 
 now by reason of the improvements in 
 machinery ; estimating wages by the pro- 
 duce is not the fair way, but by the num- 
 ber of hours in which the labourer is 
 employed ; that is the fair way of putting 
 it, and by that rule the workmen got at 
 least as much more.” But I do not say 
 that that is, or is not, true. I should say, 
 as a juryman, that the weight of evidence 
 is strongly that the workmen are now 
 getting much less wages than formerly. 
 That, however, has no earthly bearing 
 upon the point of laAV. It may be here- 
 after, if any of the defendants are con- 
 victed, and that the Court has to inflict 
 punishment on them — the degree of suf- 
 fering and temptation to commit the 
 crime may — (I do not say it will) — have 
 an influence in mitigating, or exaggera- 
 ting, the degree of punishment for enter- 
 ing into any such combination. The 
 next witness is James Bradshaw, a mill- 
 owner of Stockport. I suppose this is 
 the man to whom Pilling alluded, whether 
 in irony or joke, when he spoke of his 
 fiiend ‘‘ Jem Bradshaw.” [His Lordship 
 then read the remainder of the evidence 
 adduced the third day.] That is the evi- 
 ence of the first three days. The evidence is 
 then of a different class altogether, and 
 the object of it is, to connect the conspi- 
 racy (if conspiracy there existed) in the 
 disturbed districts, with certain persons 
 assembling in Manchester, at Scholefield’s 
 chapel, including Mr. O’Connor, M’ 
 Douall, and several other persons, as the 
 originators of it, or as having joined it af- 
 ter others had set the matter afloat. Whe- 
 ther the evidence does that or not I leave 
 you to determine. The evidence of the 
 first witness, [James Hindley, p. 9, 4th 
 day] proves nothing at all. His Lord- 
 ship then read the evidence of Robert 
 Bell, [p. 10.] Thomas Noblett, [p. 15.] 
 
370 
 
 and Agnes MaryNoblett, [p. 28.] Gen- 
 tlemen, that evidence is adduced to lay 
 the foundation for other evidence which 
 may bring the matter home to the Char- 
 tist delegates. This evidence shews that 
 Mr. O’Connor arrived in Manchester on 
 the morning of the 16th, and wentto Scho- 
 lefield’s house. Then it is shewn that there 
 was a meeting in the chapel that evening. 
 The delegates tried to take a room at Nob- 
 lett’s house, but finding the room unsafe, no 
 meeting takes place on the 16th, (Young 
 Scholefield,who was called yesterday, gave 
 a rather different account) that is laid as the 
 foundation. Now with that foundation I 
 will lead you to the testimony of another 
 witness — Cartledge — on whose testimony 
 the case very mainly — not mainly, but 
 very mainly, rests against the defendants. 
 Now, Cartledge was himself a delegate, 
 and certainly an active Chartist. As a 
 delegate at some meeting he was taken hi 
 custody, and brought here on the same 
 charge as the other defendants. He comes 
 here with all the odium attached to his 
 testimony which can attach to a person 
 who has betrayed his former associates. 
 He says he does so because they ill- 
 treated his wife. It may be he has 
 thought that what he was doing is wrong, 
 and that what he is now doing is right. 
 He may be telling truth, or falsehood ; 
 and you will have to see whether his tes- 
 timony is confirmed by, or contrasted 
 with, the testimony of others. Whether 
 you think the man more or less respect- 
 able is not quite material, but it may lead 
 you to the inference whether you can 
 safely trust him. You Avill now hear 
 what his testimony is. I must also tell 
 you this, that he was one of the parties ac- 
 tually included in this indictment ; but in 
 point of law that difficulty has been, in 
 my view of the case, got over, because he 
 has been acquitted. It was thought that 
 a nolle prosequi had been entered before, 
 but as that was found not to be the case, 
 he was acquitted. He comes here with 
 the odium attending him that he was 
 one of the very parties accused, and he 
 gives his testimony as the price of remov- 
 ing that accusation. If that induces you 
 to take his testimony here it is : — [Reads 
 Cartledge’s testimony.] 
 
 Mr. MURPHY ; — I am sure, my 
 Lord, you will excuse me for interrupt- 
 ing you. At the end of my cross-exami- 
 
 nation of Cartledge, I have got a quota- 
 tion here — the last one of all — which does 
 not appear to be in your lordship’s nofis : 
 — “ I cannot say whether the resolution 
 was put to that meeting, that the majority 
 should govern the minority.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — I did not think it ne- 
 cessary to take that down — what a person 
 cannot know. I think it is troublesome 
 enough to take down and read over all 
 that is material. If a person says, I 
 cannot say” — then de non existentibus 
 et de non apparentihus, eademest ratio. 
 It is quite clear that every thing Cart- 
 ledge says that bears in favour of any of 
 the defendants, may be taken as strongly 
 in their favour, for he comes here for the 
 prosecution. Cartledge speaks of a pla- 
 card issued by the trades delegates, but I 
 don’t believe that that document is in evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR : — No, my Lord, it 
 is not in evidence. 
 
 The JUDGE : — The Executive Pla- 
 card, which was in the hand- writing of 
 M‘Douall, was sent to Turner to be 
 printed ; and in order that this may not 
 rest on the testimony of Cai'tledge merely, 
 two apprentices of Turner’s are produced. 
 [Reads the evidence of George Barlow 
 and Thomas Sutton.] That evidence 
 goes to show this, distinctly, that four of 
 the defendants constituted part of a body 
 of five, called the Chartist Executive 
 Committee. One of these was McDouall, 
 and he sent the MS. of that document 
 which goes by the name of the Executive 
 Placard to the printer’s, and a proof of it 
 was sent to McDouall, then at Leach’s 
 house, for correction. The meeting 
 called the Chartist delegates took place 
 at Scholefield’s chapel, where the resolu- 
 tion and address in question, the parti- 
 culars of which I have not yet called 
 your attention to, were carried unani- 
 mously by a majority of some thirty or 
 thereabouts. One of the persons who 
 addressed the delegates was a person 
 named Brooke. This goes to show that 
 the delegates are not only implicated as 
 delegates, but in other ways. For this 
 purpose they call John Heap, the con- 
 stable of Todmorden, who proves that he 
 arrested Brooke in his house, and found 
 some papers on him. These papers are 
 exceedingly difficult to decipher. I de- 
 ciphered a good deal of them. They 
 
371 
 
 evidently show that Brooke was at the 
 meeting of delegates. In that way the 
 notes are material. It is impossible not 
 to see, from the way in which the notes 
 are taken, that he was there at the time. 
 This conclusively shows, as far as it goes, 
 that Cartledge’s testimony is true. You 
 cannot fail coming to the conclusion that 
 Brooke was at that meeting. [His Lord- 
 ship then read the evidence of William 
 Heap, James Wilcox, Samuel Shepley, 
 Henry Lees, Robert Newton, and Thomas 
 Rhodes.] Some doubt was at first en- 
 tertained about Lewis’s hand-writing, but 
 the letters produced in evidence, purport- 
 ing to have come from him, were at least 
 established beyond all doubt. On Mon- 
 day the first witness called was Edwin 
 Sheppard, superintendant of police for 
 the Blackburn lower division. [Reads 
 his evidence.] I don’t see that that car- 
 ries the thing out at all ; it does not affect 
 any of the defendants. It merely proves 
 that violence was used, more or less, in 
 turning out the hands. Then comes an- 
 other important witness, that is William 
 Griffin, the reporter. He stands exactly 
 in the same situation as Cartledge ; I 
 think, perhaps, in a less creditable situa- 
 tion, because from some of the evidence 
 given on Saturday, something appeared 
 that led to the conclusion that Griffin 
 was actuated by personal and malicious 
 motives towards the persons against 
 whom he gave evidence. It is quite 
 certain he was, like Cartledge, taking an 
 active part in the Chartist movement ; 
 and it is also quite certain that he now 
 comes forward actuated by motives more 
 or less malicious towards one or other of 
 the parties. The question is, does that, 
 or does it not, lead you to doubt what he 
 says ? with that observation I will leave 
 it. [Reads Griffin’s evidence]. Gentle- 
 men, the next witness is a witness wffio 
 gives you some account of the meeting 
 of trades delegates- There was a meet- 
 ing, you know, of the trades delegates on 
 the 15th. The witness, John Hanley, who 
 was then reporter to the Manchester 
 Guardian^ was there. He says there 
 was a meeting of the trades delegates held 
 at the Sherwood Inn, Tib Street. 
 Alexander Hutchinson was in the chair. 
 Charles Stuart was Secretary. Scru- 
 tineers were appointed to examine the 
 credentials of those presenting themselves 
 
 as delegates. The meeting adjourned to 
 Carpenters Hall. The chair was taken 
 at one o’clock p. m. Present many of the 
 defendants. Some were Chartist dele- 
 gates and some were not. M‘Cartney, 
 John Leach of Hyde, George Candelet, 
 Augustus Frederick Taylor from Royton, 
 David Morrison, William Woodruffe, 
 and Albert Wolfenden from Ashton, 
 were there. Speeches were made. Duffy 
 complained that the Anti-corn-law League 
 was the origin of the disturbances. On 
 the same evening a tea party took place in 
 Carpenters Hall ” — you must bear this in 
 mind that this tea party had a reference 
 to the celebration of Hunt’s monument. 
 The procession was put off, but the tea- 
 party took place as was originally pro- 
 jected. Well, if it was merely a social 
 tea-party it may be supposed to have 
 passed off quietly, as no one would go 
 there without paying, and thus persons 
 likely to create a riot would be excluded. 
 Scholefield addressed the meeting and 
 said ‘^your day is coming, and when it 
 comes it will come with a vengeance.’* 
 He told them to enjoy themselves, and 
 that after sorrow comes pleasure. Having 
 read the evidence of this witness respect- 
 ing what occurred at the meeting of dele- 
 gates on the 16th at the Hall of Science, 
 his Lordship observed : — McCartney 
 cross-examined him, and asked him if 
 the speeches generally did not inculcate 
 a respect for property, and were not of a 
 peaceable character ; the witness said 
 there w^as one exception-; the speech of 
 Candelet. When I look at what did take 
 place on that occasion I certainly 
 think that that is a statement calculated 
 to put you on your guard as to how 
 for you should give implicit credit to 
 what a person states to be the result of 
 what he hears. George Candelet is 
 represented as desiring the people to go 
 to the hills, and take possession of the 
 crops. Now that may be the construc- 
 tion of what he said, but it is not the 
 necessary construction of it. For, on 
 referring to the notes, it will be found that 
 the expression may mean that there was 
 plenty of crops to maintain the people. 
 — If there were better laws, and a bet- 
 ter system of legislation ; if capitalists 
 would not be entering on injurious specu- 
 lations, if there were more educated people 
 to regulate these matters, there is plenty 
 
372 
 
 of provisions in the country to maintain 
 us.” I do really think it may hear that 
 construction. — “There is plenty of pro- 
 duce in the country to support every 
 body if we only had such laws as would 
 bring that produce within every body’s 
 reach”. — That I think is a fair construc- 
 tion of the words. I mention this because 
 it will serve as a warning to you, that we 
 cannot always put implicit credit in 
 statements of results [Reads the evidence 
 of Matthew Maiden, Samuel Newton and 
 James Whittam] I don’t place much 
 credit on this threat to repel force by 
 force which Whittam speaks of — “We 
 have four double barrel guns, and some 
 single ones” — now I don’t think much of 
 that, it is absurd. You will remember, I 
 dare say, some of you, some evidence that 
 was given on the trial of Watson for con- 
 spiracy twenty-five years ago, when it 
 was stated that some three or four persons 
 marched up with a pistol and dirk to take 
 the Bank and the Tower. This is just as 
 absurd. It is hardly serious; it really 
 may be a joke. What is material in the 
 evidence is, that it shows the truth of 
 what Cartledge and Griffin have stated. 
 [His Lordship then read the evidence of 
 Charles Slorack, Grattan, M‘Cabe, 
 Issachar Thorpe,Peter Jamieson, William 
 Barker, James Roth well, George Roberts, 
 and Henry Rhodes, p. 104.] Gentlemen, 
 I have not called attention to the docu- 
 ments read. The principal ones are some 
 concerning Scholefield ; and others con- 
 cerning the meetings of delegates, and 
 the resolution passed there. The Execu- 
 tive placard and the address were passed 
 there. I have not yet called your attention 
 to them ; I will do so when I call your at- 
 tention to the case of each defendant. 
 The circumstances of the defendants you 
 have heard and I would rather that you 
 would take your own impressions from 
 what they said. A great number of them 
 are only charged with being present at 
 the delegate meeting, and they don’t deny 
 it — they rather boast of it. And if they 
 satisfy you that the fair result of 
 what was done at that meeting, was 
 not at all to bring the people' fairly 
 
 within this indictment that it was 
 
 not at all to excite persons to vio- 
 lence, in order that the Charter might 
 become the law of the land, or to en- 
 courage those that were so doing, they 
 
 cannot be amenable to any charge because 
 they avow themselves to be a meeting of 
 delegates. It was said yesterday, that 
 such meeting was illegal ; on that I ex- 
 press no opinion. On that there may be 
 some doubt. Allusion has been made to 
 what was said by the Attorney-General 
 when addressing a jury on behalf of per- 
 sons under a charge of high treason. I 
 think what he said there was what every 
 one must feel as to the legality or ille- 
 gality of meetings for discussion. What 
 numbers can make such a meeting ille- 
 gal ; what quantum of organization and 
 anangement, what deputations from one 
 to another — what quantum of any or all 
 of these makes a meeting illegal, is a 
 question that must depend wholly on 
 degree. It is very difficult to lay down 
 airy rule a priori, and, therefore, I will 
 not encumber the present sufficiently en- 
 cumbered case by stating what my view 
 of the law is on that point. All I shall 
 say is, that some of the defendants assem- 
 bled at Scholefield ’s chapel as Chartist 
 delegates — for of that there is undoubted 
 and uncontradicted evidence — but if they 
 did nothing else than that they are guilty 
 of no crime whatever of which we can 
 take cognizance. Therefore if the At- 
 torney-General fails to satisfy you that 
 what was done there was criminal, then 
 he fails to bring them within the scope of 
 this indictnent. There has been a great 
 deal of discussion about the right of those 
 parties to vindicate their opinions respect- 
 ing the Charter. It is perfectly compe- 
 tent for any body to say, he professes 
 annual parliaments, vote by ballot, and 
 universal suffrage, or any of those matters. 
 I will say I was ashamed of hearing it 
 urged that every one had that right. I 
 will not say I was ashamed when pressed 
 forward by the defendants, but when it 
 was pressed forward by others, — it is a 
 shame to assume that any one of educa- 
 tion held a contrary opinion. Every one 
 had a perfect right to his own opinions ; 
 one might think such changes inexpe- 
 dient ; and another might think them 
 expedient ; one might think that a man 
 with such notions was a hare-brained and 
 crack-brained enthusiast; and the other 
 might think those who differed with him 
 grossly dull and blind, and that they did 
 not see so far as himself. But caii any 
 body be so blind as not to see that that is 
 
373 
 
 not what the defendants are indicted for. 
 Why, supposing the change the most 
 desirable that could be conceived ; sup- 
 pose it had been a combination to cause 
 the abolition of slavery, (which took 
 place some three years ago,) or to cause 
 a better Sabbath observance, or any the 
 most innocent measure that could pos- 
 sibly be conceived, — it would, exactly in 
 the same way, be within the scope of this 
 indictment, if they tried to effect that by 
 illegal means ; or if, within the fifth count, 
 the conspiracy to force those who had 
 voluntarily left work to remain out, were 
 criminal, as upon this indictment I shall 
 certainly assume it to be. Accordingly, 
 all that has been said about this being an 
 indictment to put down the Charter is a 
 matter that I may dismiss without any 
 further observation. You must also dis- 
 miss from your consideration that, which, 
 to my own mind, was of a painfully 
 exciting nature. Several of the defend- 
 ants, one in particular, had described, in 
 the most affecting terms, the trouble, 
 suffering, and privation he had under- 
 gone; which he attributed (rightly or 
 wrongly) to the non-introduction of the 
 Charter as the law of the land. He has 
 not had the advantages of good education, 
 and those who have had that advantage 
 think the remedy proposed is absurd. 
 Still there must be great compassion for 
 those who, whether they entertained right 
 or wrong notions, probably entertained 
 them quite sincerely ; and he was driven 
 to suppose that, from some reason or other 
 which he could not investigate, he is in a 
 state of abject poverty, while he sees 
 others around him rolling in affluence. 
 What was done by him under that ex- 
 citement must bespeak for him every 
 favorable consideration possible, even 
 though considerations of that kind, I 
 must tell you, have not the slightest 
 bearing on the question, which is, not 
 whether the defendants have a right to 
 look for high or low w'ages, but whether 
 they, or any of them, w'ere parties in a 
 combination such as was charged in the 
 indictment. If they were, and were con- 
 victed, perhaps hereafter, Avhen the Court 
 has to punish them, the circumstances of 
 the misery they have had to undergo, the 
 almost madness to which they were 
 driven, may have a favorable effect on 
 the mind of the Court, in assigning their 
 
 punishment; but it cannot have the 
 slightest effect on your decision as to 
 whether they are guilty or not guilty. 
 With regard to one of the defendants 
 (Woolfenden) he insists, that it is not 
 true that he ever made at any of those 
 meetings any speeches on the Chartist 
 question. When yon consider that you 
 will always bear in mind the observation, 
 that it is very possible that reporters may 
 make all the difference, where they do 
 not give the exact words of the speakers. 
 That being the case on the part of the 
 prosecution, I have now to state to you 
 what is the case on the part of the defen- 
 dants. The first defendant calling a wit- 
 ness was Scholefield ; there is no pretence 
 he had anything to do with this, except 
 his going to a meeting at Carpenters’ 
 Hall, Avhere he said some W'ords to the 
 trades delegates, and lending his chapel 
 to the Chartist delegates, and occasion- 
 ally passing backwards and forwards 
 through the chapel to and from his house 
 while the conference was sitting. That 
 is all that is against him. His defence is, 
 “ It is quite true, I rvas an active party 
 in the erection of Hunt’s monument ; it 
 was in my burial ground the monument 
 was erected. I knew most of the parties 
 concerned in its erection; I put off the 
 procession, lest it should lead to a distur- 
 bance. I knew Mr. O’Connor for seve- 
 ral years. I lent him my chapel because 
 I thought that in a public house he might 
 be molested, and that he Avould be more 
 quiet in my house, because it was more 
 out of the way. It had been arranged, 
 five weeks before, that the delegates should 
 meet. There was nothing illegal in their 
 meeting. That is all I know about it ; 
 they met for a legal purpose, and to im- 
 plicate me in any thing they did after- 
 wards would be out of the question.” 
 The fact of his saying that Turner was 
 arrested is nothing but what any person 
 might do under the circumstances. His 
 Lordship then read the evidence of Wil- 
 liam Scholefield, John Northcote, John 
 Brooke, John Cockshot, and Henry 
 Holland. This witness is called to shew, 
 that the general tendency of Mr. O’Con- 
 nor’s addresses to the people was not 
 calculated to create any excitement, but 
 on the contrary was calculated to preserve 
 peace and good order. That was much 
 insisted upon by Mr. O’Connor. I must 
 
 B 
 
374 
 
 say I never heard much of Mr. O’Con- 
 nor’s speeches in that place — (the House 
 of Commons) — where I once sat with 
 him. At some public meetings out of 
 doors I may have heard him, hut I must 
 take my account of his speeches from the 
 evidence. I think, however, it is a fail- 
 inference, that jMr. O’Connor has strongly 
 inculcated the Charter, and that that was 
 the only remedy, as he supposed, lor the 
 evils of the people ; but that that had 
 been accompanied by general directions 
 to them to preserve the public peace and 
 order, and to respect property on their 
 owu account ; and that unless they did 
 that, they never could hope to obtain the 
 Charter. I think that is a fair inference 
 from the evidence given. You are, how- 
 ever, to judge for yourselves of the ten- 
 dency of Mr. O’Connor’s speeches. The 
 evidence of this witness (Holland) is only 
 receivable in the nature of evidence to 
 character. [His Lordship then read the 
 evidence of Sir Thomas Potter.] The 
 general tendency of his evidence is this, 
 that he was acling as a magistrate in 
 jManchester, and tliat he did not witness 
 any violence, such as we have heard had 
 taken place. He is a magistrate, and a 
 gentleman of considerable age ; but his 
 stating that he did not see any violence, 
 is like the old joke of the person 
 proved by one witness to have stolen an 
 article, because he saw him, and who, in 
 order to disprove that evidence, called 
 half a dozen persons to swear they did 
 not see him take it. There can be no 
 doubt that violence was connected with 
 the turn-out, and the evidence of persons 
 who did not see it, is no proof of its non- 
 existence. The evidence of the violence 
 seems to have been most distinctly made 
 out. But if you are to deduct from the 
 turn-out the violence of turning out the 
 people, forcibly expelled — if you do not 
 take that into account, then there has 
 been exhibited throughout the whole of 
 this county, a most striking and most cre- 
 ditable absence of violence. I had the 
 honour of being one of the judges at the 
 special commission at Stafford ; and the 
 acts perpetrated there were infinitely 
 more terrible than here, although the dis- 
 tress, as far as I could learn, was not so 
 great. But, even there, there was ample 
 evidence to satisfy my mind of the great 
 moral advance in the least educated and 
 
 most suffering parts of the population of 
 this country ; because, even there, there 
 was a steady absence from personal vio- 
 lence, though not from violence as to 
 property. There were some statements 
 of their getting bread from the shops, but 
 to a very small extent. But here I have 
 discovered a studied abstinence from all 
 violence, except that — wdiich I do not 
 hesitate to call gross violence — the vio- 
 lence of forcing people to abstain from 
 work. If you can come to any moral 
 code, whereby you can deduct that from 
 violence, then there was none here. [In 
 Lancashire.] There seems to have been 
 a singular, and I think creditable absti- 
 nence from all violence except that, and 
 when I except that, I except that sort of 
 violence which I consider the most into- 
 lerable that can be practised. For though 
 I said in the outset of my remarks to- 
 day, that I concurred in the M-isdom of 
 the legislature, in having passed that act 
 of parliament which gave to the work- 
 people the fullest power to combine toge- 
 ther not to work for less wages than their 
 labour was worth ; yet I see also the wis- 
 dom of the legislature in making it a 
 highly penal act for one workman by 
 threats or intimidation to compel another 
 to take the same view of the value of his 
 labour which others take. If the effect 
 of all law be to protect property, is there 
 any kind of property which ought to be 
 more protected, or for the violation of 
 which a greater punishment should be 
 inflicted, than labour, the property of the 
 working man I say, that the act of 
 those who compel others to cease from 
 work, because they think it will have the 
 effect of causing a rise in wages, is vio- 
 lence of the grossest description. But 
 the working classes had a vague notion 
 that what they did was in accordance 
 with the wishes of those that were affected 
 by it. But, making allowance for the 
 feelings of those persons, I certainly say, 
 in conformity to the testimony of Mr. 
 O’Connor in the address he made to 
 you,~I do think, if I am to judge of the 
 outbreak in this county by the testimony 
 given in the course of this long trial, 
 there was a singular and creditable ab- 
 stinence from violence. [Having read the 
 evidence of Alderman Chappell, his Lord- 
 ship observed :] — He said the manufac- 
 turers had no prod for three years. I 
 
3/0 
 
 don’t think that evidence tends much to 
 shew, what one of the defendants sug- 
 gested, that the manufacturers are hard- 
 hearted. It only shews that they cannot 
 sell their goods for that which would en- 
 able them to give higher wages to their 
 workmen. Instead of hard-hearted ma- 
 nufacturers it might he hard-hearted pur- 
 chasers who will not enable them to give 
 the wages required. The manufacturers 
 cannot force people to buy their goods, 
 and they cannot employ people to make 
 them if they cannot sell them. That is 
 an observation which I would rather not 
 have made. I consider it as stepping 
 out of way. His Lordship then read the 
 evidence of James Kershaw, mayor of 
 Manchester, and Isaac Clark Pray. The 
 evidence of Pray was to shew that as he 
 opened all the letters addressed to Mr. 
 O’Connor, private as well as public, no- 
 thing of a private conspiracy was going 
 on. My own impression is, that no let- 
 ters of that nature were addressed to Mr. 
 O’Connor. It is not the course of the 
 prosecution to charge him with anything 
 of the sort as far as I can see. The 
 judge then read the evidence of James 
 Halliday, Titus Brookes, and John Farr. 
 Farr’s evidence shews Mr. O ’^Connor to 
 he a kind-hearted man, and deservedly 
 popular anGong the peasantry, as one 
 who treated them in a kind manner 
 and took an interest in their welfare. 
 Having read the remainder of the evi- 
 dence for the defence, his Lordship pro- 
 ceeded : — Now, Gentlemen, that is the 
 evidence on one side and the other, and 
 it now becomes necessary for you to con- 
 sider the charge applying to these de- 
 fendants, namely, that they combine to- 
 gether to cause a forcible strike and 
 tumult, and thereby to carry the Charter 
 into law ; or that, others having done so, 
 these defendants combined together to 
 assist them ; or that, these parties com- 
 bined together to encourage others to 
 stand out on a voluntary strike for wages, 
 without force, until the Charter became 
 the law of the land. How does this evi- 
 dence apply to implicate the defendants, 
 all or any of them, on such a charge ? 
 I told you in the outset, that in order to 
 convict parties of such a charge, you 
 must show such acts perpetrated by them 
 as indicate such a complete union of 
 design as makes it impossible not to see 
 
 that there must have been some com- 
 bination beforehand ; not, perhaps, all 
 meeting together, but one saying to an- 
 other, Well, we will go to such and such 
 a place, and we will get John Smith to 
 go to such a place, and do so and so.” 
 It might be proved, either that such was 
 the case, or by distinct testimony of meet- 
 ing, combining, and arranging to carry 
 such things into effect. I have told you 
 at the outset that the evidence applying 
 to one portion of the defendants is of one 
 character ; and that that applying to an- 
 other, and a large portion of the ^ de- 
 fendants, is of a contrary character; and 
 both kinds of evidence apply to some. 
 Gentlemen, I have turned anxiously in 
 my mind what will be the mode of put- 
 ting the case relative to each of the de- 
 fendants so as to lead to a satisfactory 
 result, and after much consideration I 
 have come to the conclusion that the best 
 course will be, first of all to put in what 
 evidence there is as to the case of those 
 persons against whom there is direct evi- 
 dence, if I may so call it, of conspiracy. 
 I will state to you what the evidence is as 
 to them. There is a little discrepancy 
 in the evidence as to some of them, but, 
 generally speaking, the evidence as to 
 some of them will be almost the same. 
 I allude to those who, it is alleged, were 
 present at the Chartist delegate conference 
 on the 17th of August, and then, next, to 
 those (which will be a different considera- 
 tion) who were present at the trades’ 
 delegates Conference, on the loth and 
 16th. At one time I thought it might 
 be a better course to have gone through 
 with the evidence affecting each defendant 
 separately, from beginning to. end, but it 
 is not necessary for the ends of justice, 
 and, in truth, it may not be so satisfac- 
 tory a mode ; for if I were to begin, and 
 go through them, alphabetically, I would 
 have to jump from one consideration to 
 another in order to ascertain whether 
 such or such a man was at a certain 
 meeting on such a day. I will not receive 
 your verdict as to any till you are ready 
 to give it respecting all. 1 intended 
 to follow the example of Lord Chief 
 Justice Tindal in Stafford, who, in a case of 
 not nearly the same difficulty or com- 
 plexity as this, put into the hands of the 
 jury the names of the defendants, and 
 then told the jury what was the evidence 
 
376 
 
 affecting each. In that case twenty-six 
 individuals were charged with having 
 burned a house down. There was no 
 difficulty as to the house having been 
 burned ; but the only question was whe- 
 ther it was proved that A or B was 
 concerned. I cannot do so exactly in 
 the present case, but I think I may 
 present it to you in a manner less ardu- 
 ous, irksome, and laborious. Now, I 
 have, on this paper, a list of all the 
 persons mentioned in the indictment. 
 I^Hands the list to the jury.] The 
 jury, at the request of the foreman, 
 obtained permission to retire for five 
 minutes. 
 
 On the return of the jury his Lordship 
 proceeded : — Gentlemen, I was proceed- 
 ing to tell you that the most convenient 
 course I could take was to point out 
 what the evidence was as to a large 
 number of defendants, called Chartist 
 delegates ; next those who met, as trades’ 
 delegates, at Carpenters' Hall. Now, 
 you recollect the charge is, that the 
 defendants conspired to cause a violent 
 strike ; or that, others having done so, 
 they conspired to assist them, or that, 
 putting violence altogether out of the 
 question, they endeavoured to persuade 
 others to abstain from labour till the 
 Charter became the law of the land. 
 If you find them not guilty of anything, 
 then, of course there is aid end of ' it. If 
 you find them guilty of a conspiracy 
 to cause the Charter to become the law 
 of the land, by violence, (that is a short 
 word which you will understand,) then 
 it will be quite immaterial for you to 
 consider whether they combined to cause 
 the stiike, or Vv'hether, others having 
 caused the strike, they combined to 
 assist them in their violent measures, 
 in order that the Charter might be- 
 come the law of the land. There is no 
 possible question as to either of these 
 things being e^qually criminal acts. There 
 is only a formal difference between them. 
 It is different, if you find that they are 
 guilty of endeavouring to persuade others 
 to stand out, without violence, until the 
 Charter becomes the law of the land ; for 
 although that is laid down here as a 
 crime, and although I tell you to deal 
 with it as such, yet doubts may exist as 
 to whether or not that amounts to a crime. 
 If then that be the. only offence of which 
 
 you find them guilty, it will be necessary 
 for you to distinguish, whether in your 
 opinion the defendants originated the 
 disturbances, or only promoted that which 
 others originated. I do not find it neces- 
 sary to request you to distinguish between 
 the other cases, because they, virtually, 
 amount to the same thing. Now, with 
 reference to the Chartist delegates, there 
 is evidence incontrovertible to prove that, 
 previous to that week which began on the 
 15th of August, there had been what I 
 may shortly designate a forced strike for 
 wages. I have no doubt that Sir Thomas 
 Potter is right as to a great many of the 
 hands, that they went out willingly — per- 
 haps rather wished to be forced out than 
 go out of their own accord, but it is quite 
 impossible not to see that that was not 
 the case with all, for it is in evidence 
 that some wanted to come back again but 
 the turn-outs would not let them. There 
 was a great number out on a forced strike 
 and some on a voluntary strike, but the 
 projiortioii of one to the other was ex- 
 tremely difficult to discover. That being 
 So, you have this established quite clear, 
 that a meeting took place at Manchester, 
 which was concerted six weeks before — 
 on the 8th of June : I allude to the 
 meeting of Chartist delegates. These 
 delegates met at Manchester certainly for 
 purposes unconnected with the strike. 
 They met by arrangement entered into a 
 considerable time before — for weeks be- 
 fore the strike was ever heard or thought 
 of. They came accidentally, and for a law- 
 ful purpose to Manchester, at the time 
 of the strike; just at the time when the 
 strike was at the highest, they came. 
 There is this body of delegates, and there 
 is, besides, another body called the Ex- 
 ecutiv-e Committee. The Executive Com- 
 mittee calls a meeting. 1 will again call 
 your attention to the evidence of Cart- 
 ledge and Griffin, which principally re- 
 lates to this. The meeting was called. 
 It was at first intended that it should take 
 place at Nohlett’s puhlic-liouse, as it was 
 thought that so many delegates would 
 not come as did come in fact. There 
 was only eighteen expected. Nearly 
 double that number met. For that, and 
 some other reasons, Scholefield’s chapel 
 IS fixed upon for the meeting. They did 
 meet there. Certain resolutions are pas- 
 sed, and certain resolutions are voted. 
 
377 
 
 The address is circulated through the 
 Northern Star. N o\v, as against those de- 
 legates, against Tvhom there is no evidence, 
 but their concurrence in that meeting, do 
 these acts, or do they not, bring them 
 within any of the charges contained in 
 this indictment ? — Does the evidence 
 show either that they originated, or does 
 it show that they remained together to 
 assist, the forced strike for wages till 
 the Charter became the law of the land ? 
 Or that^by what they did, they encouraged 
 persons to stand out until the Charter 
 became the law of the land. In order 
 to enable you to come to a just conclu- 
 sion on that subject, you must look 
 to what was the purport of the resolu- 
 tion and the tenor of the address, and 
 if you are satisfied that the fair interpreta- 
 tion of that address and resolution is to 
 encourage a forced-strike for wages, un- 
 questionably every one who concurred 
 in that address and resolution is within 
 that count, which charges them with 
 aiding and encouraging the forced-strike 
 already in existence. Well then, if you 
 are of opinion that the fair tenor of that 
 resolution and address was to show that 
 the meeting did not encourage the forced 
 strike for wages, but merely that the 
 people should keep out till the Charter 
 became' the law, then you would find 
 them guilty on the fifth count only. But 
 all those parties who were present' at the 
 conference, concurred in the resolution 
 and address. Now, what is the meaning 
 of concurring ? The resolution was put 
 to the vote, and carried, but there were 
 several objecting. However, it was said, 
 that there was some understanding about 
 the majority binding the minorit}^ Now, 
 it w^as not necessary to say that, as that 
 is usual at all meetings. I cannot, how- 
 ever, lay it down, as a proposition of law, 
 that everybody who is at a meetng, sirn- 
 pliciter, is bound criminally by what w’as 
 done at that meeting. If, for instance, 
 at Mottram Moor 20,000 people assem- 
 bled, of which I am one, and somebody 
 puts an absurd resolution ; suppose I 
 ■walk away, am I bound by that resolu- 
 tion, although I walk aw^ay and don’t 
 think it necessary to oppose it ? If at 
 that meeting we all propose w'hat we think 
 best, and that any proposition is carried, 
 then Ave are bound by that proposition ; 
 and, it is not necessary to say, that the 
 
 majority are bound by the minority. It 
 is not necessary to do that. That is the 
 ordinary mode of doing it. If you pro- 
 pose a thing and carry it, and that I 
 don’t agree with it, then common sense 
 expects that I shall indicate by some act 
 that I do not agree with it. The resolu- 
 tion and address were practically carried. 
 A division took place, and that of itself 
 implies that the minority was bound by 
 the majority on this occasion. But, this is 
 not left to mere inference, for, according 
 to the evidence of Griffin, it w^as said by 
 some one that the minority should be bound 
 by the majority. Though I do not like 
 to call in aid what any defendant said,, 
 (a respectable looking man) something 
 that amounted to that— was it Harney, 
 or somebody else, Avho addressed you ? — 
 
 I was against wdiat was done, but still 
 I yield to the majority.” That must be 
 the fair meaning of all acts of that sort 
 done at meetings consisting of a limited 
 number of persons, assembling to discuss 
 any particular subject. In all cases the mi- 
 nority, unless in a strong and forcible man- 
 ner they indicate that they oppose or dis- 
 sent from the proposition carried, they are 
 bound by it, but here there Avas a decided 
 I acquiescence on the part of the minority, 
 that they would be bound by the majority, 
 although they carried certain resolutions 
 of which they (the minority) did not ap- 
 prove. That I think is a fair construc- 
 tion, in point of fact, that the minority 
 , are to be bound by the majority. I will 
 now call your attention to Avhat Cartledge 
 I and Griffin represent as having passed at 
 that meeting [reads the evidence of 
 Cartledge and Griffin.] Now let us see 
 Avhat the resolution of the delegates is. 
 This is evidently the resolution, it was 
 circulated Avidely. 
 
 “ Resolution of the delegates. — That whilst 
 the Chartist body did not originate the present 
 cessation from labour, this conference of dele- 
 i gates from various parts of England, express 
 their deep sympathy with their constituents, the 
 Avorking men now on strike ; and that we 
 strongly approve the extension and the continu- 
 ance of their present struggle till the People’s 
 Charter becomes a legislative enactment, and 
 decide forthwith to issue an address to that effect; 
 and pledge purselves, on our return to our re- 
 spective localities, to give a proper directiou to 
 the people’s efforts.” 
 
378 
 
 Is that, or is it not, an act of encourage- 
 ment to the people then out upon strike ? | 
 Does it indicate that the persons who 
 passed that resolution had entered into an 
 agreement with one another, call it what 
 YOU please, to give encouragement to a 
 forcible strike, or a strike without force ? 
 For if it does, I must tell you clearly the 
 point of law, it is not the less a conspi- 
 racy because it was merely the offspring 
 of the moment. In order to constitute a 
 conspiracy, it is not necessary that it 
 should be anything secret. We read of 
 consjnrators in melo-drama,- meeting in 
 dark and gloomy caves at midnight, and 
 so on ; — but, in law, a conspiracy means 
 the combining together. If, then, those 
 parlies combine together, to aid and en- 
 courage others in this forcible strike, they 
 are guilty. It seems to me, certainly, 
 that that must he the construction put 
 upon this, and not unreasonably, if you 
 adopt that view as being the fair con- 
 struction that all this means to indicate, 
 on the part of the conference, their con- 
 currence in the act of abstaining from 
 labour. If that were so, it would bring 
 them within that count of the indictment, 
 which charges them with encouraging the 
 persons out on strike to abstain from 
 labour, but without force. A great deal 
 of stress has been put on the particular 
 wording of the resolution. I don’t think 
 the fair way is to spin out from particular- 
 words anything of criminality or inno- 
 cence, but rather to look at the whole. 
 
 I confess I feel extreme difficulty, wishing 
 to do everything I can to point out, on 
 behalf of those defendants, many of whom 
 have no other counsel than the individual 
 now addressing you — I feel the greatest 
 difficulty on earth in pointing out how 
 you can say, that a man who concurs 
 in a resolution like that must not be 
 taken, at all events, to encourage the 
 people not to work till the Charter be- 
 comes the law of the land, and thus 
 bring them within the indictment. I 
 don’t think it by any means so clear, that 
 the party issuing the placard meant to 
 encourage them to commit any acts of 
 violence, of which they had then been 
 guilty. That, however, is for you to say. 
 If the meaning is, we issue an address 
 to direct you in the present struggle,” 
 meaning the forcibly compelling the 
 people to abstain from labour, that un- 1 
 
 I doubtedly brings them within the less 
 mitigated count. The address is voted : 
 and it must be taken as a part of the 
 whole ; and we must see what is para- 
 mount in the address. The address is 
 printed in the Northern Star, which 
 comes out at the end of the week. 
 It was circulated at the time, but, of 
 course, it was circulated at the end of the 
 week : — 
 
 “ MEETING OF DELEGATES IN CONFER- 
 ENCE, AT MANCHESTER. 
 
 “ This body was driven by the ‘ troublous 
 times’ from the consideration of the particular 
 matters and things for which it was sum- 
 moned.” 
 
 Now, that is not evidence for the de- 
 fendants ; but it shows the truth of what 
 was stated, that they did not come with 
 any view relating to this resolution, but 
 for a totally different purpose : — 
 
 “ The all-absorbing interest of the ‘ strike’ 
 movement was forced on the attention of its 
 members as a first object of consideration. It 
 being known that the sitting of this body was to 
 commence on Monday, it was generally under- 
 stood and believed, that they would take up the 
 subject ; and the decision to which they might 
 come as to the course of action to be commended , 
 was looked for by hundreds of thousands with 
 an intenseness of anxiety perfectly indescribable . 
 The conference commenced its session on Tues- 
 day, at two p. M. — 
 
 I suppose that -was at Noblett’s house, 
 when ^Ir. O’Connor went up there at 
 one o’clock. 
 
 “ and continued, by adjournments, till about 
 seven on Wednesday evening. Their delibera- 
 tions were, as might be expected, most anxious ; 
 the discussions most animated and earnest, and 
 while some difference of opinion prevailed on the 
 course to be recommended to the people, one 
 soul and purpose seemed to animate the entire 
 assembly as to the necessity of enforcing, by 
 every means in their individual and collective 
 power, the observance of peace, law, and order 
 by and among the people. Each member, in 
 the first instance, stated to the conference, so 
 far as he had means of knowing it, the state of 
 his own district, and the opinion of his consti- 
 tuents in reference to ‘ the strike.’ 
 
 “ A general, anxious, and protracted discus- 
 sion then ensued upon the question of adopting 
 the following resolution;”— 
 
379 
 
 J will not read it again, as I have read 
 it already. 
 
 ‘‘ Every speaker was restricted to five minutes, 
 and no man allowed to speak twice on tlie same 
 question. An amendment was proposed, differ- 
 ing from the resolution in phraseology, but 
 having the same purport. Another amendment 
 was proposed to the effect that — ‘ The informa- 
 tion laid before this conference by the several 
 delegates of whom it is composed, does not 
 warrant this conference in now recommending 
 to the people any national strike or holiday, or 
 in anyway mixing up the Chartist name and 
 movement with the present strike for wages, 
 subsisting in some districts, and originated, as 
 this conference believes, by the Anti-corn Law 
 League ; not seeing any means whereby the said 
 strike can now be made a successful effort for 
 the carrying of the People’s Charter ; while at 
 the same time this conference deeply sympathise 
 with their oppressed brethren on strike, and 
 admire the spirit of energy and patriotism with 
 which the trades of Manchester, and other 
 places, have declared for the People’s Charter, 
 and express their earnest hope, that the energies 
 of those bodies, and all other bodies of the 
 people, will be unceasingly continued with in- 
 creasing ardour and determination, until the 
 enactment of that document be secured.” 
 
 That was the amendment. 
 
 “ After almost every member had spoken upon 
 the question, it was put, and the original resolu- 
 tion carried by a large majority. 
 
 “It is but fair to state that a considerable 
 majority of delegates were from the districts 
 actually out and taking part in the struggle. 
 After the adoption of the above resolution, the 
 following, address was agreed to, nem. con. The 
 mover and supporters of the amendment deem- 
 ing it both unnecessary and unwise to maintain 
 an opposition, which, from being persisted in 
 when seen to be powerless, might justly have 
 been considered to be factious.” 
 
 Now, here is the address : — 
 
 ADDRESS OF THE NATIONAL CONFER- 
 ENCE TO THE CHARTIST PUBLIC. 
 
 “ Brother Chartists, — Those who have steeped 
 you in poverty, and accumulated vast incomes 
 by your labour, have turned upon you even in 
 your distress, and would plunge you yet lower in 
 the gulph of misery. Failing to purchase your 
 aid for the accomplishment of their own sordid 
 ends, they have effectually put into force the 
 doctrine that “man has a right to do what he 
 likes with his own and, in the hope of starving 
 you into compliance with their will, they have 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 paralysed the hand of labour of the old and the 
 young. Yea, infancy and old age are alike in- 
 struments in their hands for enhancing the in- 
 terests of their order. Willing still to labour for 
 a bare pittance, and watching events peacefully, 
 which might lead to the attainment of your just 
 rights, and thereby render you independent of the 
 oppressor’s will, you were cast upon the wide 
 world for support. Thanks — eternal thanks to 
 the brave and independent Trades of Manches- 
 ter ! They saw the evil, and nobly threv/ their 
 comparative comfort into misery’s scale. They 
 have struck, not for wages, but for principle : 
 and, regardless of consequences to themselves, 
 they have taken the foreground in your cause. 
 They have declared that they wdll cease to toil 
 till all labour shall be justly requited ; which, in 
 their opinion, cannot be effected till the Charter 
 become law. Must not their names be handed 
 down to posterity as patriots, sacrificing their 
 own convenience and comfort for the attainment 
 of that of their fellow-men ? Who can with- 
 hold praise from such men } You have not 
 struck — you have been stricken ; but let the 
 stroke recoil upon the tyrants who have so 
 cruelly arrayed themselves against the interests 
 of labour. 
 
 “ Brothers, these are not times to hesitate I 
 The corn has a golden hue while your visages 
 are pale, but hope for a change and better times^ 
 We are fortunate in having an accredited exe- 
 cutive, bearing the confidence of all, at our 
 head.” 
 
 “They, too, have called upon you. You will 
 read their address : it breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit.” 
 
 “ We could not, in times like the jiresent, with- 
 hold from them, your servants, our cordial sup- 
 port, as in union alone is security to be found, 
 and from unanimity alone can success be ex- 
 pected. This is not a voluntary ‘ holiday.’ It 
 is the forced ‘ strike’ of ill-requited labour against 
 the dominion of all powerful capital. But as 
 the tyrants have forced the alternative upon you, 
 adopt it — and out of the oppressor’s threat let 
 freedom spring.” 
 
 “ While we have not been the originators of, 
 we are yet bold enough to say to those who adopt 
 the oppressor’s remedy, stick to it rather than be- 
 come tools for your own destruction ; and may 
 he who has a bit to spare, and would refuse it to 
 men struggling for their rights, feel the gripe of 
 hunger, and the still more stinging grief of a 
 crying offspring !” 
 
 “ Brothers. — If we are worthy of your confi- 
 dence, we must prove that we merit your esteem. 
 Hear us, then, and mark well our admonition 
 
 « 
 
380 
 
 m 
 
 Xet no act of yours take the odium from those 
 ■who have goaded you into resistance, and who 
 would now torture you, because you do resist. 
 Be not deceived ; for although the discomfited 
 Whigs have attempted to rally their scattered 
 forces under this new pretext, yet will all of 
 their order in society, of whatever shade in poli- 
 tics, join with them in throwing upon you the 
 odium which belongs to your oppressors. But, 
 heed them not. Our’s is the battle of labour 
 against capital — of poverty against property — of 
 right against might — of justice against injustice 
 —and of knowledge against bigotry and intoler- 
 ance. 
 
 This is a holiday, proclaimed not by nature 
 —most unnaturally proclaimed ; and may the 
 wicked fall into the pit which they have dug. 
 
 Let union and peace be the watchword. We 
 counsel you against ■v\'aging -vN'arfare against re- 
 cognized authority, while we believe the moral 
 strength of an united people to be sufficiently 
 powerful, when well directed, to overcome all the 
 physical force that tyranny can summon to its 
 aid. The blood of your brothers has been shed 
 while peacefully agitating for their rights ; and 
 the brave delegates of the trades of Manchester 
 have been scattered from their place of meeting 
 at the point of the bayonet ; yet will the friends 
 of justice ever find a refuge as long as nature’s 
 canopy stands, and so long as those for whom 
 they struggle stand by them. As the people 
 appear to have made the “ strike of the League” 
 for a repeal of the Corn-laws, into a stand for 
 principle and the Charter, we would implore every 
 man loving justice and having a shilling at his com- 
 mand to advance it, upon the good understand- 
 ing that free labour will ere long repay the loan. 
 
 “ Brothers, the trades have issued a noble ad- 
 dress. It breathes a spirit worthy of old laws and 
 old English liberties. This, brothers, is the time 
 for courage, prudence, caution, watchfulness and 
 resolution. 
 
 “ In conclusion, brothers, we would, above all 
 things, counsel you against the destruction of life 
 or property. 
 
 Remain firm to your principles, which are to 
 be found in the document entitled the People’s 
 Charter. 
 
 Men, be wise ! do not commit yourselves or 
 your cause. Let all your acts be strictly legal 
 and constitutional, and ere long your enemies 
 will discover that labour is in truth the source of 
 wealth, and should be the only source of power.” 
 
 Immediately after the adoption of the address, 
 it was resolved unanimously, “ That the thanks 
 of the Conference be given to the Executive, 
 for their energetic labours on behalf of the 
 people.” 
 
 And it was then reserved unanimously— 
 this conference do now dissolve.” And the 
 delegates immediately dispersed to their several 
 homes.” 
 
 That, gentlemen, is the address. If that 
 were a correct representation, there was a 
 perfect concuiTence and acquiescence in 
 the address. I thought it right to read 
 the whole of it to you. A great deal of 
 it has no bearing upon the subject, but 
 there are certain passages that have, or 
 you may think they have, a considerable 
 bearing ; such as, They have struck, 
 not for wages, but for principle. That is 
 a mere representation of this meeting, 
 that the strike was for the Charter rather 
 than for anything of any other character. 
 - We are fortunate in having an accre- 
 dited executive, possessing the confidence 
 of the people. You will read this ad- 
 dress ; it breathes a hold and manly 
 spirit.” It is an address generally to the 
 Chartist bod}', clearly in some sense ap- 
 proving of the other ; but it may be a 
 fair question wfith you whether it is that 
 they mean to express approbation, and 
 consequently agree to encourage the 
 strike as a forcible strike, or whether, 
 finding that the people liad been out, it 
 merely means to recommend them not to 
 work till the Charter became the law of 
 the land. I cannot suggest any inter- 
 pretation which does not encourage them 
 to stand out till the Charter becomes the 
 law of the land, but whether it approves 
 of forcing the people out unlawfully, is a 
 question which I must leave you to decide. 
 At this meeting there were present four 
 persons, members of the Executive Com- 
 mittee, of whom it is said that they wej-e 
 not delegates, but their being members of 
 the Executive Committee did not neces- 
 sarily incapacitate them from fulfilling 
 the office of delegates. Bairstow was a 
 delegate for different places which he 
 mentioned. It was said that James 
 Leach, though there, was not a delegate, 
 but he is one who, by all the evidence, 
 cannot be held otherwise than responsi- 
 ble for issuing this placard, he its effects 
 whatever they may, because the evidence 
 is such, if you believe Cartledge, whose 
 testimony is so much confirmed by all 
 the other circumstances, that is impossi- 
 ble to doubt what he tells you. Hey- 
 wood gave a roll of paper to Cartledge, 
 who took it to M’Douall, who was up 
 
381 
 
 stairs-at Leach’s house. He sent it down 
 to be printed. It came back for correc- 
 tion, and is sent up stairs. It is examin- 
 ed and corrected, and then Leach and 
 Other parties came down stairs together. 
 It is then sent to the printer’s, and after- 
 wards issued as the placard of the Exe- 
 cutive Committee. Just what has been 
 said about the meeting may be said about 
 the parties calling themselves the Execu- 
 tive Committee. This placard is seen 
 coming from the house of Leach, one of 
 the Executive Committee. A copy of it 
 is found in his house independent of the 
 one at the door, he is associating with the 
 writer of the placard ; he is at the meet- 
 ing when the resolution is passed approv- 
 ing of it, and saying that it breathes a 
 noble spirit,” and I think it would require 
 very strong evidence of dissent on his 
 part in order that he might not be im- 
 plicated in the consequences of issuing it, 
 although it only comes from the hands 
 of M‘Douall. It is not important to 
 prove that other members of the Com- 
 mittee were cognizant of it. As to 
 McDouall it is certain that he was the 
 man that wrote it and corrected it, and 
 there can be no doubt but that he is 
 responsible for it. It is plainly proved 
 and there can be no doubt of it. With 
 respect to Bairstow and Campbell, they 
 were both delegates at the meeting, and 
 certainly took part as far as the rest of 
 the meeting, and with the rest of the 
 meeting issued an address, in which they 
 pointed the attention of the public to this 
 as a spirited address, breathing a noble 
 and manly spirit. It is for you to say 
 whether, in your construction of the 
 meaning of the conference address, they 
 recognise and approve it, wl}en they say, 
 that it ‘‘ breathes a bold and manly 
 spirit.” It is the more to be considered 
 the fair construction, as it seems to me, 
 when you recollect that at the time 
 they voted this address and resolutions, 
 they knew that the printer of this placard 
 had been taken up. McDouall said it 
 w’as not for printing it that Turner was 
 taken up, but because he would not 
 give up a copy of it. At all events 
 they knew that this was the placard, 
 for the printing of which 'I'urner was 
 arrested. This placard they a])pioved 
 of, and represented as breathing a bold 
 and manly spirit. It seems to me that 
 you can hardly come to any other con- 
 
 I elusion but that of identifying them with 
 it — though not, perhaps, with every word 
 of it. I will call your attention, now, 
 to the whole placard, because it is neces- 
 sary to go into detail. — Rally round 
 our sacred cause, and leave the decision 
 to the God of justice and of battle.” — 
 I don’t hesitate to tell you, that if there 
 was nothing more in this than that sort 
 of expression about the God of justice 
 and of battle, although it is very intem- 
 perate language, and very improper, I 
 don’t think too much reliance ought to 
 be placed on that. People in excited 
 times, as was said by Chief Justice 
 Tindal, must not measure too nicely 
 the expressions in their speeches, and 
 certainly, though not with the same lati- 
 tude of allowance, you must not measure 
 the language in ^vritten and printed ad- 
 dresses too nicely. The Attorney-Gene- 
 ral told you very properly, don’t let the 
 flimsy gauze veil of such words as 
 peace, law, and order,” if the whole 
 tendency of the document be again,st 
 peace, law, and order, deceive you. I 
 say, just in the same way, if a placard 
 has no serious mischief in it, and merely 
 some expression which I dare say the 
 writer thought very sublime, it would be a 
 great deal too much to dwell with too much 
 minuteness on an expression of that sort, 
 in reference to a crime, of that magnitude, 
 which you have now to consider. But 
 there are other expressions in this docu- 
 ment which do not admit of the same ob- 
 servation. I can quite pardon the ex- 
 pression — “Leave the decision to the 
 God of Justice and of Battle,” — but what 
 is the meaning of this, which I marked 
 when the placard was sent up to me as 
 being, I must say, the worst part of 
 this address ? “ Englishmen, the blood 
 
 of your brothers reddens the streets of 
 Preston and Blackburn, and the mur- 
 derers thirst for more.” That is only 
 vulgar and inflammatory; but, now, what 
 do you make of this ? “ Peace, law 
 
 and order, have prevailed on our side.” 
 That struck me as one of the most im- 
 portant statements in the placard, because 
 it led me to the conclusion that the per- 
 sons who prepared and issued it did not 
 think it any breach of peace, law and 
 order, to commit the outrages of which 
 they must have been cognizant, and of 
 which cliarity itself could hardly suppose 
 that those who drew up this address were 
 
 
382 
 
 not aware — namely, that great tumultuous 
 bodies came to this town, and forcibly 
 compelled persons to desist from work. 
 I do not say this is the necessary infer- 
 ence. I would always make v'ery favourable 
 allowances for language used in excited 
 times. I would put the most favourable 
 construction upon it. It is possible that 
 all they meant was, (rejecting these words) 
 nothing else but calling on the ])eople out 
 on strike to this effect — "‘Now that you 
 are out continue out till the Charter be- 
 comes the law of the land.” If that be so 
 it would only bring the parties within the 
 minor charge — a doubtful charge, and not 
 that one accompanied by violence. I have 
 pointed out what seemed to me the only 
 observations I can make on those three ad- 
 dresses, which are matters mainly hear- 
 ing on the parties present at the confer- 
 ence, and against whom there is no other 
 evidence, excepting their being at the 
 conference. In this newspaper, not the 
 copy I am reading from, but in another, 
 there are statements of a great number 
 of outrages alluded to and read by the 
 Attorney-General, — instances of the very 
 outbreaks of which evidence has been 
 given, and other similar ones ; and 
 also a long article which breathes, un- 
 doubtedly% a very peaceful spirit. I shall 
 not trouble you with reading what 
 you heard yesterday, about the outrages 
 and turn-out in Dewsbury and other 
 parts of the neighbourhoods of INIanches- 
 ter. There is an article which one of the 
 defendants wished to have read, and I 
 am sure you will give attention to it, 
 because one of the defendants mentioned 
 it as having found its way into the same 
 paper, and should therefore be taken in 
 connection with those articles relied on 
 by the prosecution. This article appeared 
 in the third edition of the paper of the 
 preceding Saturday, (the 13th of August,) 
 and was copied into the paper of this 
 Saturday, (the 20th of August,) headed, 
 “ Further Progress.” [The learned Judge 
 read the whole of the editorial article, 
 which appeared in the third edition of 
 the J^orthern Staroi the 13th of August, 
 and also in the first edition of the 20th. 
 We have given it in our report of the 
 proceedings of the seventh day, at the 
 close of the evidence for the defence; 
 it is headed, “ Further Progress.”] Gen- 
 tlemen, 1 read the whole of that because 
 
 one of the defendants thought it material. 
 You see it is plain that the same observa- 
 tions which have been made with refer- 
 ence to the other documents also apply 
 to that. Does it, or does it not, seem a 
 necessary inference, that it means to en- 
 courage anything more than that they 
 should remain out till the Charter became 
 the law of the land. I do not mean to 
 decide, whether it has one or the other of 
 those meanings. Gentlemen, that is the 
 documentary evidence as relating to those 
 defendants. That is the evidence that 
 applies to those, the twenty-four defend- 
 ants who have been proved to be at that 
 meeting, and against whom no other 
 evidence has beeij given. Amongst 
 these Mr. O’Connor is the first defend- 
 ant. I am not aware of anything else 
 that affects him, beyond his being at that 
 meeting. The next of the defendants, as 
 I have got them on this list, who are 
 proved to have been at the meeting, are 
 Peter Murray, M’Douall, James Leach, 
 John Campbell, and Jonathan Bairstow. 
 ThAt may be stated, I think, as being all 
 which really affects them. They are 
 proved to be members of the Executive 
 Committee, and therefore may be taken 
 to be the parties who issued that address, 
 though it would not follow that every one 
 is responsible for an address issued in 
 their name ; but it will be for you to say, 
 whether it was not issued with their con- 
 currence and approbation. The resolu- 
 tion clearly approves of it, and though 
 merely approving is not yer se necessa- 
 rily identifying yourself with the senti- 
 ments, it is impossible not to say, that 
 issuing an address approving of a placard 
 is pretty much the same thing as issuing 
 the placard itself. That is the evidence 
 against Mr. O’Connor, M’Douall, Leach, 
 Campbell, and Bairstow. Against Bair- 
 stow, the young man who made a very 
 powerful address to you two or three days 
 ago, there is this additional circumstance: 
 he said, if the Government did not take 
 up the Executive Committee, in forty- 
 eight hours, they would not dare to do it. 
 I don’t think that amounts to much. It 
 showed that he believed that great alarm 
 would be excited ; but I don’t think it 
 implicates him in the conspiracy any 
 more than if he had said nothing of the 
 sort. The next that I have on my list 
 as amongst the conspirators there, so to 
 
call tljem, is M’Cartney. Against him 
 there is other evidence besides — (I am 
 sorry I have not quite the use of my tools 
 here, but it is difficult being so late out at 
 night.) — Against him there is further evi- 
 dence. He is proved by the witness Na- 
 thaniel Fryer, to have been at the Bridge- 
 water works and at Eccles in the afternoon 
 of the same day, namely, the 1 1th, a week 
 before the meeting of the 1 7th, when he 
 thus addressed the mob — ^^Fellow-slaves, 
 this is the beginning of the end ; a strug- 
 gle betwe.en rampant capital and prostrate 
 labour; the struggle is strictly political, 
 and all work shall cease till the Charter 
 becomes the law of the land.” I think he is 
 proved to have been one of the parties who 
 took part in the trades meeting, which took 
 place in Carpenter s Hall on the 15th of 
 August, when the chair was taken by 
 Alexander Hutchinson ; but he is not 
 proved to have been there on the 16th, 
 when the resolution was passed. Then, 
 as to John Aitken, there is nothing 
 against him but being there at the confe- 
 rence, Richard Ottley, the same. George 
 Julian Harney, the same. Richard Pil- 
 ling, the same. William Hill, the same. 
 Robert Brook, besides being there, has 
 against him the fact, that in his possession 
 were found those papers, which prove no- 
 thing but that he was at the meeting ; and 
 he is also proved to have made a most vio- 
 lent speech at Todmorden, after the meet- 
 ing, in which he talked of ten thousand 
 men and the soldiers. He certainly 
 seems to have uttered sentiments very in- 
 flammatory. There is John Hoyle ; 
 there is nothing against him except that* 
 he was there. Norman and Beesley are 
 also mentioned. Beesley was apprehend- 
 ed with seventeen copies of resolutions ■ 
 upon him. After all, having resolutions 
 amount to nothing, except as indicative of 
 what is proved by other testimony against 
 him. Samuel Pa.rkes, the same. Thomas 
 Railton, the same. Robert Ramsden, 
 the same. Mooney, the same, except the 
 ridiculous story about the double-bar- 
 relled guns ; — that may be left entirely out 
 of the question. John Leach, of Hyde. 
 Against him there is the fact not only 
 that he was at one of the meeting of the 
 delegates, but, you will recollect, that in 
 tl^ early evidence, he was proved to have 
 been at meetings without end, at Hyde 
 and other places, beginning by treating 
 
 it as a wage question, but using the most 
 inflammatory and vulgar language, as 
 to the quantity of provisions used by 
 the Queen, &c. I need not go into 
 this. I don’t think it would be useful 
 to go into detail, for you will pro- 
 bably recollect the style of his speeches. 
 He began by making speeches on the 
 wage question, and took part for that 
 against the Charter. About a tveek 
 after the turn-out commenced he went to 
 Hyde and Stockport, and in the latter 
 place headed a mob up to the work- 
 house to get the prisoners released. There 
 is no other evidence against him. Then, 
 as to David Morrison. There is against 
 him the evidence of Mr. Nasmyth as to 
 what took place at Eccles ; and Fryer 
 also mentioned him as having been pre- 
 sent at the meeting, and telling the work- 
 men that they thought they w'ere well off, 
 but they would soon find they were not. 
 Against John Arran there w^as nothing 
 but his being present. James Skeving- 
 ton, the same. Christopher Doyle, be- 
 sides being present, is proved to have 
 been one of the speakers at Stockport. He 
 was also at a meeting at Noblett’s house. 
 He w as proved to be at a meeting at Stock- 
 port by the witness Moore, and at ano- 
 ther meeting in Stockport by the witness 
 Crornpton. Crompton said — I took 
 notes of wdiat Doyle said. He said : — 
 
 “ Friends and fellow-workmen, w’e are not 
 met here this morning for any party object, but 
 for a national object, — an object upon which 
 depends your slavery or freedom. ‘ He then 
 went on with a great deal of abuse of the 
 government (I have not the particulars,) and 
 then said : perhaps you will want to know 
 ^from me how to get the Charter. You must 
 work no more till it becomes the law of the 
 land; and you that have money in the banks 
 and other places, must fetch it out, and stop the 
 supplies of the government. Then you will 
 make them _ glad to give you anything you 
 may want. You will, perhaps, want to know 
 how you are to get meat. Lord Kinnaird said, in 
 the House of Lords the other day, if he wanted 
 food he would take it where he could find it ; 
 now your tyrannical masters will have no ob- 
 jection to your doing what Lord Kinnaird said 
 he would do. I tell you, if you want food, 
 take it where you can find it, if your masters 
 will not relieve ou.” ‘ He proposed that 
 
384 
 
 there should be no more work till the Charter 
 became the law of the land. That resolution 
 was put to the meeting by the chairman, and 
 there was a unanimous show of hands in favour 
 of it. After the resolution was adopted, Doyle 
 said,’ ** I see you are all Chartists, and there’s a 
 meeting of Chartist delegates to day at Man- 
 chester, and you must elect a person to go 
 there.” ‘ He then proposed that Mr. Joseph 
 Taylor, the chairman, should be elected. There 
 was a show of hands, and he was elected a dele- 
 gate to go to Manchester. After he was elected 
 Taylor said he felt proud that they had elected 
 him as their representative.’ “ I tell you,” said 
 he, that you must stick firm one to another, 
 and work no more till the Charter becomes the 
 law of the land. I will go to Manchester, and 
 represent you there.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, that is the last, note 
 these names clown. They are the first 
 twenty-four. There are other names to 
 which I can speak afterwards — the 
 trades’ delegates. Now the cj[uestion 
 is whether the evidence satisfies you 
 that "they are guilty upon either, or 
 upon which, of the charges in this indict- 
 ment ? Does it satisfy you that they 
 either conspired to cause this forcible 
 turn-out and violence, so as to make the 
 Charter become the law of the land, or, 
 if you adopt that construction, that, there 
 being violence in existence, they conspired 
 to aid and encourage the parties in 
 carrying out that violence ? or you 
 may say that, as to all and some of 
 them, there is not necessarily such a 
 construction to be deduced from their 
 acts and documents ; that all they meant 
 was to encourage the parties who were 
 actually out, w'hether right or wu'ong, to 
 remain out till the Charter became the 
 law of the land. That w'ould bring them 
 within the minor charge — the charge 
 contained in the fifth count of the in- 
 dictment. If you think they are not 
 guilty, even of this, then you will acquit 
 them ; but I confess there is a difficulty 
 to me to suggest such a construction to , 
 you ; but it is what you have, a fair right 
 to do. You wdll consider it, and it is 
 the duty of jurors in considering acts, 
 where there is not a fair warraht to force 
 ymur conscience to say something — if 
 you do not see youv way as clear as day- 
 light — if the matter bears a double con- 
 struction, — it is y*our duty to give it that 
 
 construction which is most favourable to 
 the prisoners. If the fair construction is, 
 that they meant to encourage nothing 
 more than remaining out till the Charter 
 became the law of the land, then find 
 them guilty of the minor charge ; but if 
 you find, looking, as I have done W'ith 
 considerable anxiety — looking rather 
 with the ingenuity of a practised mind 
 than that of an ordinary man, that their 
 acts are capable of the other construction, 
 and that you have no doubt as to their 
 aiding and encouraging a forcible turn- 
 out, then ymu will find them guilty of 
 the larger charge in the indictment. If 
 you have a fair doubt you wdll give them 
 the benefit of that doubt, and act ac- 
 cordingly. Gentlemen, I will not take 
 your verdict now. I wull do as Lord 
 thief Justice Tindal did. You will de- 
 cide there, and when you do so, let me 
 know\ I do not w^ant you to give me 
 your verdict now, but to let me know 
 that you have decided. 
 
 One of the jurors asked for the counts 
 of the indictment. 
 
 The JUDGE Here is an abstract 
 of the counts. The fifth count is what I 
 call the minor count. The two last 
 counts are entirely gone, and the four 
 first you will see, substantially, are the 
 same thing. They charge the defend- 
 ants with encouraging violence to obtain 
 the Charter. The fifth count charges 
 them with encouraging them to keep out 
 without violence, for the obtainment of 
 the Charter. 
 
 A JUROR My Lord, w'e will not be 
 able to come to a decision, without some 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. BARON ROLFE banded the 
 jury an abstract of the counts of the in- 
 dictment. 
 
 The jury retired. 
 
 In a few minutes the foreman re- 
 turned and asked his Lordship a question 
 in a low tone of voice. 
 
 The JUDGE : — It would not be 
 proper that anything like a private con- 
 versation should pass between us. 
 
 The FOREMAN:— I will only trou- 
 ble you to tell me whether we can find 
 them guilty of conspiracy with violence^ 
 or without it ? 
 
 The JUDGE:- Yes. ^ 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — 
 Violence includes intimidation, my Lord. 
 
385 
 
 The JUDGE O, they understand 
 that. 
 
 The jury having deliberated for about 
 an hour, returned to Court, and signified 
 that they came to a decision on the evi- 
 dence respecting the, twenty-four de- 
 fendants whose names were submitted to 
 them. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I will now submit 
 to you the evidence as against Bernard 
 McCartney, John Leach, George Cande- 
 let, Frederick Augustus Taylor, David 
 Morrison, William Woodruffe, and Al- 
 bert Woolfenden. I put these together 
 because they were present at the trades’ 
 delegates meetings in Manchester. 
 M^Captney, John Leach, and Morrison 
 were in the other meeting also. I will 
 first read the evidence with regard to 
 that which applies to all of them in com- 
 mon. It is clear from the evidence of John 
 Hanley, who, in August last was reporter 
 to the Guardian, that these defendants 
 were at the meeting of trades delegates on 
 the iDth of August. With regard to one 
 of them (Candelet) he (the witness) cer- 
 tainly was too hasty, to put it no higher 
 than that, as to the meaning of wdiat was 
 said ; for really what Candelet did say 
 did not at all necessarily and fairly bear 
 that meaning. [His Lordship then read 
 the evidence of .John Hanley.] Candelet, 
 Taylor, Woodruffe and Woolfenden, were 
 both at the meetings of trades delegates 
 and meetings of the liirn-oiits. [His 
 Lordship read the evidence of William 
 Clayton and Joseph Little.] Candelet 
 seems to have been present at all the 
 meetings at Hyde, and to have, at every 
 meeting, advised the people to remain out 
 till the Charter became the law of the 
 land. The evidence against Taylor is 
 that he was at that meeting at Carpenters’ 
 Hall, where he certainly moved, or se- 
 conded one of the resolutions. John Ro- 
 binson Scott says Taylor was at a meet- 
 ing at Roy ton on the 13 th of August. 
 He addressed the meeting first about the 
 government in a very savage manner, and 
 he damned the villainous system. He 
 said, “ If I was the principal in this un- 
 dertaking I would never rest till I was at 
 the top of the tree, and would scale the 
 walls of that damned infernal place be- 
 fore this day six weeks.” The meeting 
 adjourned till the Monday following when 
 they again assembled athalf-past six in the 
 
 morning. Taylor was sent as a delegate 
 to Manchester. On the 16th there was 
 another meeting a Royton, and there is 
 evidence of Taylor’s speech on that oc- 
 casion : — 
 
 “ Ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived at 
 one of the most important Subjects ever brought 
 out to the public. There was a resolution passed 
 in Manchester, on Monday last, for the Charter 
 to become the law of the land ; and no doubt 
 but something serious will take place before long. 
 He understood that the magistrates were sitting 
 all day at the New Bailey Court House (Sal- 
 ford) ; and, about four o’clock in the afternoon, 
 Mr. Beswick, one of the Manchester police, and a 
 magistrate, entered the room (Carpenters’ Hall), 
 and told us our Meeting was illegal, on account 
 of the out-door pressure ; and our chairman re- 
 fused to break up the meeting. They instantly 
 left the room ; they allowed us ten minutes to 
 disperse, and no decision was come to at that 
 time ; for, first— one nihlled, then another, but 
 none would take hold. But I fearlessly tell you, 
 that I took hold of the grand question, to stand 
 for the Charter, which met with loud applause. 
 We had then only five minutes to disperse, and 
 we have a considerable portion of the work to be 
 done to-day ; and I consider that you have no 
 time to lose ; there is a considerable portion of 
 the work to be done to-day, and if you wish to 
 have a hand in this undertaking, you must say 
 something this morning ; you have not a mo- 
 ment to lose ; for the men must use the sword, 
 and the women will know where to direct them. 
 As soon as the delegate from Birmingham had 
 got the decision, away he runs to the train to 
 take the news, and, doubtless, they would come 
 forward in thousands to join our ranks, and be- 
 fore this day week there will not be one trade at 
 work ; but I fearlessly tell you that I was the 
 man that grappled the Charter at Manchester 
 yesterday, and I would like to witness a bloody 
 revolution, or resolution, I know not which.” 
 
 Whatever it was I should like to take it as 
 ‘ a bloodless ’ resolution, as, probably, no 
 one would really talk about a bloody revo- 
 lution. With regard to Woodruffe, the 
 evidence against him is, that he was 
 chairman of a meeting held in July, at 
 Ashton, where a person advised — 
 
 “ The cotton lords, particularly the Messrs. 
 Reyners, to keep within the precincts of their 
 own palaces, as dark nights were coming on, and 
 the reckoning day was at hand.” 
 
3S6 
 
 He was also at a meeting on the 12th of 
 August, in Charles- town. John Alex- 
 ander Stuart was in the Chair. From 
 sixty to eighty people were present. 
 Woodrode said, he had a resolution to 
 propose, to the effect, that it would faci- 
 litate the advance of {he wages of opera- 
 tives, if all labour should cease till that 
 advance were obtained. On the 14th he 
 . was at a meeting on Thacker’s-ground. 
 He was also at a meeting in Stamford- 
 street on the 13th of August. [His 
 Lordship then read the account of this 
 meeting and procession, from the evi- 
 dence of the witness Joseph Haigh.] I 
 do not see much in that account of the 
 procession. Now, according to my notes, 
 that is all the evidence against Wood- 
 roffe, except that he was one of the dele- 
 gates at Manchester. I think in these 
 meetings there is very little. There is, 
 however, this circumstance, that he is one 
 of the trades’ delegates at Manchester. 
 Whatever conclusion you may come to 
 respecting the Chartist delegate meeting, 
 certainly the evidence has altogether 
 failed to shevr that the Trades’ Delegates 
 were a combination or conspiracy for the 
 same purpose. Woolfenden is spoken to 
 h}’’ Henry Brierly as having been at a 
 camp meeting in Glossop, where he began 
 to lecture. — ‘ He hoped the people would 
 obtain the Charter, but he feared it would 
 not be obtained for sometime.’ I don’t 
 think that makes much. Many are desi - 
 rous of speaking on such occasions, and 
 to a person who has a natural fluency, 
 which enables him to make a great out- 
 pouring of words, it may be very gratify- 
 ing, though it may be very irksome to 
 those that hear him. I don’t think you 
 can infer much from anything he said at 
 that meeting. You can gather little from 
 it that looks like combination or conspi- 
 racy. He liked to get the Charter, but 
 he was much afraid it would be a long 
 time before it was obtained. Woolfenden 
 is also spoken to by the witness James 
 Buckley. That is the man on whose 
 testimony there has been some sort of 
 suspicion. He said there was a meeting 
 on the 12th of August, at the Haigh. 
 Woolfenden spoke much against shop- 
 keepers, and cotton masters, and the 
 Government. He was proved to have been 
 at some other meetings, but I do not 
 
 think he took any prominent part. 
 Against him the main evidence is, that 
 he was one of the parties attending the 
 trades’ delegates meeting at Manchester. 
 The speeches which he made at the meet- 
 ings which he attended, seem to me to 
 be characterized by great ignorance ; a 
 sort of self-sufficiency and conceit, rather 
 than anything tending to intimate any 
 previous combination, or conspiracy, such 
 as that charged in this indictment. Now, 
 gentlemen, that is the evidence against 
 these four parties; who were attending 
 various meetings, and two of them, Tay- 
 lor and Candelet, moving and seconding 
 resolutions at the trades’ delegates meet- 
 ing. It is now for j'ou to consider the 
 evidence affecting them. 
 
 The ATTORNEY- GENERAL 
 Has your Lordship mentioned the name 
 of Cooper ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Yes ; he is in the 
 list. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN We did 
 not hear the name. 
 
 The JUDGE: — He is one of the 
 twenty-four. 
 
 A JUROR: — Must we now decide 
 upon the evidence as to these four ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Yes, I think you had 
 
 better. If you think you can carry in 
 
 your minds the substance of the evi- 
 dence as to any more of them we will 
 tell you. 
 
 A JUROR : — My Lord, there are 
 three or four of us who have taken notes, 
 and I think we will have no difficulty in 
 giving a conscientious verdict. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Then there are two 
 or three more you may dispose of without 
 difficulty. I will now read the list of 
 those that remain, (I believe twenty- 
 four of them) against some of whom you 
 will And there is no evidence at all. 
 
 I’he ATTORNEY - GENERAL : — 
 Any suggestion from your Lordship 
 would induce me at once to consent to a 
 verdict. 
 
 The JUDGE : — David Ross ; there is 
 nothing against him. Now, you may 
 strike him out as not guilty. James 
 Taylor : that may be struck out. Joseph 
 Clarke was not at all mentioned. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— He went 
 to Turner’s. 
 
 The JUDGE It was a man named 
 
387 
 
 Clarke. It may be the defendant or 
 not. John Massey ; he is not men- 
 tioned. Thomas Browne Smith, Thomas 
 Frazer, James Rasmith, James Chippen- 
 dale, and John Lomax, have never been 
 mentioned. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN:— No. 
 
 The JUDGE Robert Lees; there 
 is a man named General Lees.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
 Lees is proved, by more, than one wit- 
 ness, to be known as General Lees.” 
 
 The JUDGE : — You are right in 
 pointing attention to that, for I have 
 omitted a note of it. In stating the case 
 fro and con, I would be glad to be 
 reminded of any such omission. Now, 
 gentlemen, I will call your attenticn to 
 one case which stands by itself; it is 
 that of Scholefield. Mr. O’Connor, 
 who, for the purpose of the present 
 argument I will consider to be one of 
 the conspirators, goes to Scholefield ’s 
 house. That is nothing at all; the 
 whole evidence is, that fc. O’Connor 
 went there unexpectedly. In the after- 
 noon Scholefield goes with a message 
 from him to Carpenter’s Hall. I shall 
 not go into detail about Hunt’s monu- 
 ment, it must be quite fresh in your 
 memory. There was to be a procession 
 and meeting in commemoration of Henry 
 Hunt, and Scholefield, in the most sen- 
 sible and rational way, did issue placards 
 to stop the procession and meeting. Mr. 
 O’Connor went to Noblett’s on the Tues- 
 day afternoon, and having gone there he 
 found he was followed by an immense 
 concourse of people. He consequently 
 keeps within, and, in doing so, exercises 
 a sound discretion. He sends Scholefield 
 to the tea party held in Carpenters’ 
 Hall in the evening : He goes there and 
 makes a sort of speech. He said, Your 
 day is coming, and when it comes it will 
 come with a vengeance.” He told them 
 to enjoy themselves, and remember what 
 passed sixteen years ago, and that after 
 sorrow comes pleasure. He said he 
 was leaving the meeting to go and see 
 Mr. O’Connor. He then goes back. A 
 meeting takes place in the chapel that 
 night. There is no doubt of that. I 
 cannot think but the probable explana- 
 tion is that this meeting was held to pre- 
 vent any gathering. It does not show 
 that there was any conspiracy. I do not 
 
 think there was anything wonderful in 
 it, they having assembled according to 
 arrangements which had taken place long 
 before. Nor is it strange that Scholefield 
 should be there in the evening. It cer- 
 tainly seems from the evidence that Scho- 
 lefield might be there. Young Schole- 
 field said in his cross-examination that 
 jMr. O’Connor went to the chapel, and 
 that his father went to Carpenter’s Hall. 
 When he retuimed he went into the sur- 
 gery and remained with witness till ten 
 o’clock, when he (witness) went to bed. 
 He does not say that his father did not 
 go into the chapel after that. He did not 
 see the executive placard. The evidence 
 amounts to no more than this, that Scho- 
 lefield might have gone in there after ten 
 o’clock that night. Now, the next day a 
 meeting is held in the chapel, and you 
 are to decide whether that should lead to 
 the conclusion that he approved of what 
 passed at that meeting. He, certainly, 
 cannot get over the fact that he lent them 
 his chapel. He knew they were coming 
 for a purpose which he thought to be a 
 lawful purpose, and accordingly he lends 
 them the use of his chapel. He lends 
 them a table. He passes in and out once 
 or twice during the day. This probably 
 is not conclusive evidence under the cir- 
 cumstances, perhaps not evidence at 
 all, to connect him with anything that 
 may have taken place at that meeting. 
 In my mind, it is extremely weak evi- 
 dence ; at the same time, you may come 
 to a different conclusion. The crime 
 charged, is combination or conspiracy to 
 upset the present order ol things, either 
 by violence or without it. Is the evi- 
 dence sufficient to fix such a charge upon 
 this defendant because some of the con- 
 spirators may come to Manchester — 
 though with no such object — and borrow 
 his chapel, where they are likely to be 
 out of the way ? I do not see that, be- 
 yond that, there is the least intention of 
 secrecy ; it appears to be quite out of the 
 scope of their object, except so far as was 
 necessary to prevent tumult. But then 
 he states that Turner was apprehended. 
 He came in knowing that the Executive 
 committee were there, and tells this. 
 Then, gentlemen, leaving out this great 
 list that was struck out, all the rest are 
 parties as to whom this general observa- 
 tion will apply ; that, if you convict them. 
 
338 
 
 it must be solely upon the ground of the 
 criminal acts in which the parties were 
 engaged. A participation in those acts 
 is certainly not at all conclusive proof of 
 any participation in the previous conspi- 
 racy. Indeed the more ignorant, vulgar, 
 and outrageous parties are, and the 
 coarser their speeches and conduct, to my 
 mind, I must own, the less probable it is 
 that they are carrying out any direct or 
 indirect plot in which they were more or 
 less participating. That, however, is a 
 matter for you to decide. The next de- 
 fendant to whom I shall direct your at- 
 tention, is Thomas Mahon. The first 
 witness that speaks to him is Brierly. 
 [ His Lordship then read the evidence of 
 Brierly, and remarked that the same evi- 
 dence would apply to Stephenson, Fen- 
 ton, Crossley, and Durham.] All those 
 meetings on the Haigb, arc Stalybridge 
 meetings, and all these parties attended 
 them ; some more, and some less. They 
 w'ere all encouraging the strike for w’ages, 
 and it is for you to say whether you be- 
 lieve, from their conduct, that they Avere 
 engaged in any such conspiracy as that 
 charged in this indictment. The next 
 'witness who speaks to these is Buckley, 
 to whom I have already adverted. He 
 speaks of meetings at Hyde, ivhere Cross- 
 ley, Fenton, and Durham were. They 
 addressed them on the wage question. 
 Some of the people were for the wage 
 question, and some for the Charter. 
 Then there is evidence given by Jamie- 
 son, about the granting of licenses to 
 parties to carry on their work. Stephen- 
 son, Fenton and Durham were proved 
 to be in the room where the licenses were 
 given. That proves their participation 
 in those acts. I believe that is, substan- 
 tially, all the evidence relating to those 
 persons. Fenton and Durham sat at the 
 Mosley Arms, Stalybridge, where licen- 
 ses were granted to the people to carry 
 on a portion of their works. Aitkin was 
 one of those who attended at that early 
 meeting where they spoke of the dark 
 nights coming on.” 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: — 
 Your Lordship was asking about Lees: 
 the witness Maiden speaks to Lees. 
 
 The JUDGE : —With regard to Chal- 
 lenger there is evidence that he and Ait- 
 kin went over to Preston. Samuel Ban- 
 
 nister, high constable of Preston, says 
 they attended a meeting in Preston on the 
 evening of the 12th of August. A reso- 
 lution was passed that the people of Pres- 
 ton would not go to work till the Charter 
 became the law of the land. Challenger 
 said the cotton lords of Preston were 
 the greatest tyrants in the country, 
 and Aitkin said, he had suffered 
 in the cause of the people, and had 
 already been imprisoned, but would do 
 anything more he could to assist them. 
 I don’t know, gentlemen, that there is 
 anything more material. That is the 
 substance of their evidence. The evi- 
 dence against Lees is that of Matthew 
 IMaiden, the constable of Ashton. Lees 
 was heading up a crowd to Barrow’s new 
 buildings, on the 18th of August, and 
 desired the bricklayers to desist from 
 work. Theie is no doubt that Lees was 
 taking an active part in a riot on the 18th 
 of August. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN :— Samuel 
 Turner is another, my Lord, who speaks 
 to Lees. 
 
 The JUDGE : — I can assure you it is 
 a very difficult matter, by any arrange- 
 ment, to get regularly through a thing so 
 complicated as this. I will put a query 
 under the name of Robert Lees, as there 
 may be a question whether he is the same 
 person here spoken of. [Reads Turner’s 
 evidence.] Lees has been guilty of very 
 criminal acts ; but, at the same time, it 
 is for you to say, whether they are such 
 acts as can conduct you to the belief that 
 they were the result of a conspiracy. It 
 is one thing to be participating in a riot, 
 and another to be participating in a 
 combination to cause a riot. I cannot 
 say whether it may not strike another in 
 a different light. Circumstances that 
 strike some as affording very little evi- 
 dence, strike others as affording very 
 strong evidence. I now come to John 
 Lewis, Thomas Storah, Patrick Murphy 
 Brophy, and William Booth. The 
 evidence against Lewis is that of Joe 
 Cooper. [See Read’s evidence.] Bro- 
 phy attended some of the early meet- 
 ings, but he does not appear to have taken 
 a very active part in them. He attended 
 some meetings at Ashton and Staly- 
 bridge, but it does not appear that he 
 used any violent language. He en- 
 
389 
 
 courages teetotalism, and seems rather a 
 peaceful man. He attended a'meeting in 
 Carpenter’s Hall, and, on the morning 
 of the 1 1th, was at a meeting in Granby- 
 row fields. He certainly did not tahe 
 a very active part in those proceedings. 
 Thomas Storah attended some of the 
 early meetings. He is spoken to by the 
 first witness. He is spoken to by Brierly 
 as having attended meetings at Ashton 
 and Stalybridge, where some of the work- 
 people assembled for the purpose of get- 
 ting their wages raised. He does not 
 seem to have taken any very active part 
 in the movement. Whether he was en- 
 gaged in any conspiracy, it is for you to 
 say. Then, there is Booth and Pilling. 
 Bootli is spoken to by the witness Little. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LE WIN Little, 
 
 Buckley, and Rhodes, my Lord. 
 
 The JUDGE: — Little, speaking of 
 the meeting of the 12th of August, says, 
 Leach, Booth, and Candelet were there. 
 Leach made one of his speeches. Booth 
 spoke next in nearly the same strain — 
 O, but then I must tell you what the 
 same strain is, — Samuel Sidebottom, an 
 auctioneer at Hyde, proposed that the 
 people should go to the masters and ask 
 for the wages of 1840. Booth spoke in 
 nearly the same strain, but the witness did 
 not take down his words. A meeting was 
 held in the Market-place at Hyde on the 
 15th, Muirhouse was in the chair. Leach 
 spoke at great length. He began to say 
 what large expenses the Queen had put 
 the country to, and a great deal of vulgar 
 language about her drinking so much 
 wine. But, gentlemen, I must tell you, 
 that you must not convict him for merely 
 using that language, because the more 
 vulgar and coarse his language is the 
 less probability is there — though guilty 
 of acts of sedition and excitement — the 
 less probability is there of his being 
 guilty of anything that would amount to 
 an arrangement for the purpose of carry- 
 ing out those ulterior designs. Buckley 
 speaks to a meeting on the ITth of August.^ 
 Booth was there and advised the meeting 
 to draw their money out of clubs and 
 banks. There was a meeting on the 
 Haigh on the 13th of August, at which 
 Booth was. Crossley, Durham, and 
 Fenton Vvcrc there. Stephenson and 
 Crossley wanted to give up having any 
 i]):‘ng to do with the Charter. Thopeopfe 
 
 of Hyde blackguarded them for having 
 any thing to do with it. Booth is also 
 spoken of by Thomas Rhodes, who re- 
 presents him as speaking at one of those 
 meetings about the expenses of the Royal 
 household. This confirms the other 
 witness. That is the evidence against 
 Booth. Now, there is one defendant 
 whom I accidentally omitted. It is 
 that man (Pilling) who gave us that 
 melancholy tale yesterday. He is re- 
 presented as speaking very strongly at 
 the Stockport meeting and at several 
 other places. The witness Oliver speaks 
 to him and Challenger. He said they 
 encouraged the people to remain out 
 till they obtained a fair day’s wages for a 
 fair day’s work, and until the Charter 
 became the law of the land. Pilling is 
 also spoken to by Turnei-. With regard 
 to Pilling, it seems to me that the gene- 
 ral tendency of his addresses, as described 
 by the witnesses, was very much in con- 
 formity with what you heard yesterday 
 from himself ; consisting more in describ- 
 ing the masters as hard-hearted towards 
 the work-people, and that they should get 
 more wages, rather than forming part of, 
 any conspiracy. I will make no apology 
 for omitting to read the evidence respect- 
 ing him. I think there is no reason to 
 go over it again. You have now the 
 case of all. Scholefield’s case stands by 
 itself. Other defendants have attended 
 those meetings, and taken more or less 
 an active part in them. Then there are 
 the defendants who acted as delegates at 
 Manchester; and then all those defend- 
 ants whose names are not struck out, and 
 who appear to have attended those vari- 
 ous meetings, and spoke wdth more or 
 less violence at them ; some being for' 
 political, and some for other objects. 
 Now, does the evidence as to all, or any 
 of them, satisfy you that they were jvir- 
 ties to some general conspiracy to ehT'ct 
 certain objects ? If it does, then by 
 no means hesitate, or shrink for a mo- 
 ment from declaring all of them guilty. 
 But if you think it can lairly be explained 
 in any other way, and that you have no 
 reason to suppose that the defendants 
 were parties to any general combination, 
 then it will be your duty to find them 
 not guilty. Bearing in mind that, if 
 you acquit them of conspiracy, you by 
 no means acquit them of punishment ; 
 € € 
 
390 
 
 for by the testimony nere, which is not 
 answered, some of the defendants are 
 certainly guilty of outrageous and scan- 
 dalous violence. But that is not the 
 question here now, hut whether they are 
 guilty of the offence of combining to ef- 
 fect a certain object. If you think they 
 are, then find them guilty; but if that 
 charge is not, to your mind, made out 
 by reasonable proof, then return a verdict 
 of not guilty. 
 
 Sir GREGORY LEWIN 1 believe 
 the jury has not the name of Chippen- 
 dale. 
 
 The JUDGE : — Yes, they have. 
 
 About six o’clock his Lordship finally 
 concluded, when the jury a second 
 time retired. After an absence from 
 court of about half an hour, they re- 
 turned into court, and returned their 
 verdict. 
 
 The following is a list of the prisoners, 
 together with the verdict pronounced on 
 each ; — 
 
 Aitkin, William, ‘ Guilty on the 5ih count.’ 
 
 Arthur, James, (alias M'.'^rthur), * Guilty on 
 the 4th count.’ 
 
 Arran, John, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Bairstow, Jonathan, ‘ Guilty on the 4th 
 count.’ 
 
 Brooke, Robert, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Beesley, William, * Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Brophy, Patrick, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Booth, William, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Campbell, John, ' Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Cooper, Thomas, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Clarke, Joseph, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Chippendale, James, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Challenger, Alexander or Sandy, ‘ Guilty on 
 the 5th count.’ 
 
 Candelet, George, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Crossley, John, ‘ Not Guilty.' 
 
 Durham, John, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Doyle, Christopher, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Fletcher, John, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Fraser, Thomas, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Fenton, James, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Grasbyj James, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Harney, George Julian, * Guilty on the 5th 
 count.’ 
 
 Hill, William, ‘ Guilty oh the 5th count.’ 
 
 Hoyle, John, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Leach, James, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Lomax, John, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Leach, John, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Lees, Robert, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Lewis, John, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 M’Douall, Peter Murray, ‘ Guilty on the 4th 
 count.’ 
 
 M‘Cartney, Bernard, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.'' 
 
 Massey, John, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Mahon, Thomas, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Mooney, James, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Morrison, David, ‘ Guilty on the 4th count.’ 
 
 Norman, John, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 O’Connor, Feargus, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Otley, Richard, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Parkes, Samuel, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Pilling, Richard, * Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Ross, David, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Railton, Thomas, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Ramsden, Robert, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Scholefield, James, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Smith, Thomas Browne, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Skevington, James, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 Stephenson, William, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Storah, Thomas, * Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Taylor, Frederick Augustus, ‘ Guilty on the 
 4th count.’ 
 
 Taylor, James, ’ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 Woolfenden, Albert, ‘ Not Guilty.’ 
 
 WoodrufFe, William, ‘ Guilty on the 5th count.’ 
 
 The following defendants had been 
 previously acquitted by consent : — 
 
 John AUinson, James Cartledge, George 
 Johnson, Thomas Pitt, William Scholefield, 
 John Thornton, and John Wilde. 
 
 The JUDGE presumed the jury meant 
 to say that those guilty on the fifth count 
 would be guilty on the fifth count only, 
 and that those guilty on the fourth would 
 be guilty on the fifth also. 
 
 The Foreman replied in the affirmative. 
 Mr. SERGEANT MURPHY thanked 
 the jury for the patient attention they had 
 paid to the case. 
 
 The jury were then discharged, and 
 the Court (at seven o’clock) adjourned. 
 
 END OF THE TRIAL. 
 
BROTHER CONSPIRATORS FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM. 
 
 The present number concludes a verbatim report of the trial of myself and fifty-eight 
 others, at Lancaster, upon the several charges set forth in the indictment. I had 
 reason to expect that the whole could be brought into four numbers, but my anxiety 
 that nothing should be concealed upon which the verdict was returned, precluded the 
 possibility of curtailing the work by a single sentence. As it is my intention to com- 
 plete the publication as formerly promised, with notes upon the evidence, and a 
 commentary upon those causes which led to results which might have cost myself 
 and my friends our lives — and which all but cost us our liberty — I shall abstain from 
 entering at present upon any view of that subject. 
 
 In next week’s number (with which will be presented a very splendid like- 
 ness of Baron Rolfe ; a man whose honour, talent, and impartiality I shall re- 
 verence and esteem as long as life remains), I' propose to submit my com- 
 ments upon the evidence, and also upon the causes which led to the outbreaks. 
 For the work in question I can only say, that for faithfulness it could not 
 be surpassed, and, having heard all, I can conscientiously declare, that I did not be- 
 lieve it possible for one man to perform such a task. This transaction, besides, the 
 mental annoyance to which it has subjected me, has put me to an expence of between 
 £300 and £500 so that my present prosecutors have rigidly acted upon the 
 politic advice of their predecessor. Lord Melbourne, who recommended the Staf- 
 fordshire magistrates, to ‘‘ruin the Chartists with expcnces," 
 
 The declaration of many of the judges of the land, and also of Sir W. Follet, 
 Solicitor-General, has armed me with so strong a case against the real offenders, that 
 if justice is to be had for those who illegally suffered with me, it shall he had, even 
 though I should in truth be ruined with expence." The matter, I am resolved, shall 
 not rest here. I feel that we have been sorely aggrieved ; and, while vengeance is no 
 part of my character, I will allow no means to remain untried, by which justice may 
 be had. 
 
 The country, notwithstanding the numerous publications and assertions relative to 
 the late disturbances, is still wholly ignorant of the depth of the conspiracy, the mode by 
 which it was to be worked, and the results which were anticipated from it. None how- 
 ever, save the willing blind, shall longer remain ignorant. The country narrowly 
 escaped a bloody civil war, and those who interposed and stopped it narrowly 
 escaped an ignominious death ; however, to the latest hour of my existence, I shall 
 rejoice at being mixed up, even as a conspirator, in an affair which has compelled 
 the enemies of Englishmen to bear testimony to their magnanimity and patriotism^ 
 and which furnishes a practical illustration of the regard in which the oppressed, 
 in the hour of excitement and destitution, hold the lives and properties of their 
 
 oppressors. Yes, my friends, as a conspirator, “ guilty of something little short of 
 
 high treason,” I most devoutly thank my God, that, in your hunger, you stole not ; 
 in your anger, you injured not ; in your wrath, you destroyed not ; and in your 
 
 vengeance, you killed not. With such men you will ever hnd me a willing 
 
 conspirator. 
 
 Your faithful Servant and Friend, 
 
 FEARGUS O eONNOR. 
 

 
 
 ' .{i-.- J \ 'r >0 • |fc '‘ 
 
 ■ •■' ’ 
 
 ,^.i^.',. uvv' ' ■<j^ ^ ^ 
 
 ‘ ; -If"' "^■’.. •. - ■ ^ '- ' 
 
 •4 
 
 ■ ^ • ^-r:- ' Si“ ‘ ' 
 
 .. .5 ^ :uv*: 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 There was a general feeling at Lancaster with persons of all classes — 
 Conspirators, Jurymen, League, and Spectators — that Chartism, after 
 the trial, was not in the same position as previously ; and there cer- 
 rainly was much to support such a conclusion. It is worth while to look 
 tather deeply into the circumstances. We are so apt to be unduly ex- 
 cited and needlessly to despond, that an impartial and candid review of 
 our position is at all times desirable ; the facts of the Lancaster trial 
 appear to afford a fair opportunity for this purpose. On them we can 
 stand and pause : the question how far they have influenced Chartism, 
 and how far Chartism influenced them, demand our deepest thought. 
 Chartism is now revolutionizing a world ; the process has already be- 
 gun ; its leaders, as they are called, have been, and are, but the willing 
 servants of a spirit, which commenced with Christianity, and will not 
 rest satisfied with any consummation save universal brotherhood. From 
 them we can survey our position— our strength, our weakness; the work 
 we have already done and what remains for us to do. In the year that 
 has passed our strength has been measured, our weapons have been 
 tried ; films that obscured our vision have been removed. We see more 
 clearly what we are and what they are with whom we struggle. These 
 considerations involve much curious as well as serious matter. 
 
 The history of the late strike in Staffordshire, Lancashire, &c., will be 
 entered upon hereafter. The League had determined to create simulta- 
 neous and overwhelming destitution — trusting that thereout would arise 
 a frenzy — that frenzy would lead to violence, intimidation, «&c. ; and by 
 all the circumstantial and resulting disorder and hubbub, it was hoped 
 that the government would be terrified into a partial opening of the 
 ports, and eventually compelled to a total repeal of the Corn-laws. 
 This was the plan — shrewd, large, and ingenious — and certainly the 
 circumstances appeared remarkably favourable for its developement. 
 The League were the Magistrates : they could let the thing go as 
 far as they thought fit and stop it when they thought fit : they could so 
 plant the police, that their own property should be protected while that 
 of others might be sacrificed as an example to the government.’' 
 As Leaguers, they could congregate together the starving masses whose 
 misery themselves had created — cheering them on even into the heart of 
 Manchester — and then, as magistrates, they could frighten the government 
 — sending for troops, sitting up all night, ordering the soldiers to march 
 about, making specials, and so forth. If the fire flagged the soldiers 
 
 D B 
 
392 
 
 could go to sleep, and Finnigan, and Falvey, and Acland, and Thomp- 
 son, could stir it up again ; could tell the people they “ had been quiet 
 too long,” and offer to lead them to magazines of plunder.” If any 
 dread were manifested of the military and magisterial power, the mob 
 could be informed that the magistrates had determined not to be made 
 the tools of the aristocracy, and had agreed that the militaiy should not 
 fire upon the people.” If, on the contrary, the thing became too hot, 
 the magistrates could immediately wake from their slumbers, recollect 
 their duty to their country and their Queen parade the military ; — 
 disperse the rioters and take all the credit of ‘‘ restoring order and tran- 
 quillity,” — Gadsby and Rawson could then take [up an address to 
 Her Most Gracious Majesty and be made into knights, and the Magis- 
 trates generally could receive the thanks of both houses of parliament. 
 And if any thing happened untoward ; if it become necessary f»r some- 
 body to be hanged or transported or prosecuted — there too the League were 
 safe. Cobden had boasted that they could break the law with impunity, 
 for that they were the administrators of the law :” if Leaguers were pro- 
 secuted, Leaguers as grand jurymen could ignore the bills, or as special 
 or petty jurymen acquit their brother agitators. And, if it should so 
 happen that Chartists should find their way into the dock, then again the 
 genuine Leaguer, who “ looks at the Corn-laws as a religious question,” 
 would be entranced with holy joy : he would be smitten all over with the 
 recollection of his paramount duty to his beloved sovereign^ With 
 George Wilson for a juryman, Feargus O’Connor’s chance of an ac- 
 quittal would have been remarkably small. 
 
 Now we have said that the plan was shrewd and ingenious — and so it 
 was : every way it appeared sure of success. If the revolt were * attribut- 
 ed to the influence of want — want arising from a permanent decline of 
 commerce — then the argument for a repeal of the Corn-laws would 
 course be irresistible. If, on the other hand, the League were charged 
 with creating the movement, they could point to it as a proof of their 
 power, at any moment, to throw society into a convulsion, and, by threat- 
 ening a periodical visitation of this sort, extort their favourite measure 
 from the fears of the legislature. There was the third probability— it 
 might be said that the Chartists did it,” and then too the Leaguers 
 could gratify their magnanimity, and wreak an exemplary vengeaiice on 
 their most powerful, consistent, most watchful, and untiring foe. 
 
 And how was it that it all failed ? All was arranged, prophecied, and 
 provided for ; no possible set of circumstances could be better adapted 
 to the work : and for some time all went as had been foretold— regu- 
 larly as clock-work. There wa^ no hitch in the machinery ; not a move- 
 ment but what had been predicted \ not an hour had been miscalculated. 
 The preparing” had begun — the threat to reduce 25 per cent before 
 Christmas— (Wilcox let it all out in Court — Johnson, had he been a 
 
393 
 
 witness, instead of a defendant, could have told much more). At the 
 appointed time Bailey had told his men to go and play for a month”— 
 then came the “ turn-out” at Stockport; then the march to Manchester; 
 then the specials ; then the military then the sittings up of the magis- 
 trates all night ; then more military — (then the dinings together on the 
 sly — poking their thick fists into each others’ ribs ; and the silly cackle 
 and chuckling sneeze — and the loud heer-laugh — of anticipated suc- 
 cessful roguery— the ‘‘doing of Parsley Peel”). Then more specials; 
 more soldiers ; a gas-lamj^ smashed — then a calling the soldiers up 
 and a quick march through the streets ; more “ sitting up,” and then — 
 what then ? 
 
 Why did it fail When a well contrived and well acted scheme of vil- 
 lainy meets with premature exposure, the first feeling of the defeated 
 “Jonathan” or Sir Giles” is that of disappointment at some sup- 
 posed want of foresight : the imputation on their professional skill is felt 
 as a more galling sore than tl^ir loss of plunder — as a disgrace in fact 
 to their education, parentage and craft. No charge however of this sort, 
 can, we feel assured, be made against the League : every possible prepa- 
 ration that the most ingenious pickpocket could devise had been made 
 months before ; and the people answered to the cry of staiTation as rea- 
 dily and lustily as if they had been mayors and aldemien. 
 
 Why, then, did the plan fail? — We are aware that certain Tory 
 members of the League had expressed but a qualified approbation of the 
 insurrection trick, fearing that it might drive Peel from the political 
 helm : they were afraid, in fact, to embarrass the Government. These 
 men had great personal influence ; they were better masters, fairer 
 dealers, gave more liberal wages, and used much less “ shoddy,” and of 
 a superior quality, in their goods than their shopocrat brethren of the 
 Whig school. They did not exactly refuse their co-operation, but they 
 were sulky upon it. There was another party — as much too warm as 
 their Tory brethren were too chilly: ill-used gentlemen “who owed 
 more than they were able to pay,” — (We speak gently, for our mind is 
 merciful) — a “ smash ” would enable these worthies to be sacrificed in the 
 general misfortune, instead of each going ofi in his own individual peculiar 
 smell ; and there were others who desired nothing so much as a blazing 
 ADVERTISEMENT of the liberality of their own particular insurance office ; 
 their machinery was of the old sort, and they were desirous of having the 
 latest improvements at a cheap rate, so that they might compete with 
 their neighbours. All ttiis was known, and a sort of jealousy was created: 
 we do not go into it deeply, for we have a wholesome horror of the libel 
 law. Still these drawbacks did not amount to much ; the Tory portion 
 were cajoled into a sort of negative acquiescence — they were to move 
 neither way ; while the others — those who wished to have all the latest 
 improvements — were frightened to a more moderate expression of their 
 
394 
 
 bopes. The dangers, then, were surmounted, and the League justly con- 
 sidered themselves the stronger — safer — for their timely discovery. 
 
 Wliy^ ihen^ did the plan fail ? — Rogues and chess-players commit one 
 blunder in common ; their anxiety to fortify their own position prevents 
 their being sufficiently accurate in calculating the forces which operate 
 against them. One fact had been overlooked ; what teas that ? Listen 
 to it, CoBDEN ; ponder on it. Potter; think on it. Brooks — print it on 
 your calicoes, and stiffen it, you manufacturers of Manchester ! 
 
 The people are enlightened ! (Tyranny trembles at the awful 
 truth!) They saw through the trick in far less time than it takes to tell 
 the roguery : the thing had been exposed over and over again ; not a 
 writer or speaker on the Chartist side but had simplified the fraud 
 beyond the possibility of doubt or misconception. They suffered the 
 League to lead themy«5^ so far as it suited them to follow ; they used 
 the men of calico as an article of convenience ; and then, when the 
 proper hour had come— when, as the Attorney-General said at Lancaster, 
 all seemed ripe ; ” when tens of thousands had flung down their 
 instruments of labor, and their taskmasters trembled at their energy ; ” 
 when, ‘‘ within fifty miles of Manchester every engine was at rest;” then 
 it was that, in the stern quietude of a voluntary pause — a pause, possibly, 
 (for we live in strange times), that may occur again — and again — and 
 again— the great truth was proclaimed, that for nothing short of 
 EQUAL universal POLITICAL POWER would the Working- classes ever 
 combine in any revolutionary movement. 
 
 And this truth— 77/5 People are enlightened— ‘ihe knowledge of it — 
 the proof it — its bold and public exhibition amid circumstances and 
 influences which, in a less enlightened hour, would have seduced the 
 creators of all Avealth from their allegiance to the sovereignty of their 
 OAvn order— is the great and grand fact of the year 1842; and Avorth, 
 even if it stood alone— aye, more than Avorth— all the torture and toil and 
 expence that has since resulted. Previously there might have been 
 doubts as to the faith of the Avorking classes to their Charter— the 
 principle of universal brotherhood. True, they had confuted the League 
 lecturers; had laughed to scorn and derision the ‘‘ large loaf and litde 
 loaf” humbug; had refused to be excited by the ‘‘Dead Cow” and 
 Murder ” Placards. But still there was doubt : they had never yet 
 been tried Avith a regular, real insurrection, Avhere they Avere to have all 
 their owm Avay — with real soldiers, who were not to fire, spectators of the 
 -drama which they Avere by no means to interrupt— Avith real magistrates, 
 full-grov/n Sir Thomases, Avalking through the streets, stealthily encou- 
 raging, and “ making believe,” not to see. Such a game had never yet 
 been tried; and it seemed to bear strong probabilities of success. Ijrel], 
 it has been tried, and that, too, under circumstances when even those 
 iwho confided most strongly in the People might have trembled for their 
 
395 
 
 Stability. It has been tried and failed I O, what a world of trouble that 
 failure hath saved us. No more ravings from IMassies, and Tauntons, 
 and Thompsons ; no more horrible and pathetic prophecies about thef 
 
 coming winter ; ” no more ‘‘ Dead Cow ” Placards ; no more blas- 
 phemous appeals to the Deity about “ curses,” and damnable,” and 
 
 thunders from the altar,” and ‘‘ live coals.” Did the trash-mongers 
 really believe that the working men of England would ever be cajoled — 
 bamboozled— by their hollow cant and hypocrisy ? Out upon the twad- 
 dlers !— their ‘‘dust” has blinded them ! 
 
 It is not, however, for the purpose of an idle sarcasm or triumph over 
 the League that we have thus gone rapidly over the ground: the League 
 might live and rant through its hour and die, as die it will, svithout 
 exciting a remark from us : their splutter is not unamusing, nor is it 
 altogether useless as a provocative of thought. But we have given this 
 hurried hurl at their misdeeds, because, with their results, they form, 
 in our opinion, one of the grandest and most startling facts in modern 
 history. The scenes in' the days of Priestly and Lord George Gordon^ 
 with the drunken horrors in our own time at the Bristol Reform riots, had 
 generated a conviction aj^proaching to certainty, that the people were 
 unable to resist the frenzy of an insurrectionary movement — that the 
 maddening influences of penury and starvation would scatter to the 
 winds their wisest resolves. Alas ! too true were the premises : it is 
 ours to shotv that they are neither necessary nor eternal. We point to 
 the fact with pride— defying all history to produce its parallel— of a people 
 like ours — so goaded— so trampled upon— with so many wrongs to 
 redress— so many incentives to successful violence— exercising so large 
 an amount of self controul, and restraining their wildest aspirations to 
 the one never-dying, all-absorbing determination to struggle for nothing^ 
 to war for nothing, to wish for nothing, to “ strike ” for nothing, but 
 EQUAL, UNIVERSAL, POLITICAL POWER ! 
 
 Further on will be found an affidavit of Mr. Feargus O’Connor, giv- 
 ing some few extracts from the speeches with which it was sought to 
 irritate the people to the required degree of madness. By observing the 
 dates, it will be seen that the doses in the first instance were compara- 
 tively mild — what are called feelers. As the jdot thickened, the physic 
 became stronger and more gingery : till as the time for action drew nigh 
 — in August last, and the weeks immediately preceding that month — the 
 recommendation to violence, intimidation, theft and assassination became 
 clear, decided, and unmistakable. We ask our readers to peruse this af- 
 fidavit attentively, and more than once. It teaches more lessons than 
 one. The mass of League sedition will be brought forward in mitigation 
 of punishment when the conspirators are brought up to receive sentence ; 
 and it is certainly a most terrific proof of the tremendous amount of guilt 
 that may be committed with impunity by persons in high places. How- 
 
396 
 
 ever, there is no reason to fear that the incendiary doses will he repeated. 
 The League have received a lesson that will long be recollected. Even if 
 they should determine, what really seems impossible, on getting up ano- 
 ther insurrection, there is ground for belief that the government, now in 
 the secret, would refuse to send the red coats necessary to keep up the 
 show : and, without military, an insurrection would seem too farcical. 
 Altogether then we may make up our minds that the ‘‘ rising and rioting 
 all over the country” plan will not be repeated for some time to come. 
 
 But there are other features besides the proof of the people’s to 
 
 their principles, and their determination not to rest satisfied with any 
 measure short of them, which are worth a cursory observation or two. 
 There are signs abroad — every hour they become less vague and shadowy 
 — of a more generous spirit than formerly, being extended to the bold 
 speculations of enquiry, and independence and freedom in opinion. The 
 principles of Chartism — how wonderful the change which a few years 
 have produced — may now be j^rofessed without exciting either horror or 
 dismay. For this improvement we are of course indebted somewhat to 
 that expansive extension of truth, which is the necessary co-incident of ci- 
 vilization ; but mainly it may be attributed to the improved conduct of 
 the Chartists themselves. We can afford to admit that the rough bearing 
 of some of the most honest advocates of Universal Liberty, together 
 with an occasional indulgence in language more exciting than discreet, 
 may with many persons have operated against the fair and impartial con- 
 sideration of our principles. This is probable— there are men who will 
 not listen to a speaker unless he smells of lavender; who, professing a 
 great veneration for the Bible, would not open it unless it were bound in 
 Bussia or Morocco; and, however contemptible such creatures may be, yet, 
 as they form a large portion of the aristocracy, and thus, both directly and 
 indirectly, influence the legislature, it is of course desirable that they should be 
 converted — softened and muddled — from error to truth. It was therefore^ 
 as well as for the more obvious general considerations, that the friends of 
 Chartism rejoiced at the standing — the bearing — assumed by the conspi. 
 rators during the whole trial. It may appear trivial to notice the details 
 of such a matter, but they operated most powerfully in extorting an 
 amount of respect and attention which in its turn supported the cause, of 
 whose humanizing operation it was itself the result. Having regard to 
 what the Chartists have been described to be, we might naturally have 
 expected that, during day and night of the trial, Lancaster would 
 have been patrolled with troops of the same military that enlivened Man- 
 chester in August ; that judge, jury, and lawyers would have been 
 guarded by ‘‘ specials” against the attacks of the “ infuriated mob” — 
 that the Court would have rung at intervals with the shouts and groans 
 of triumph and disgust as the evidence told for or against the popular 
 leaders. More than this, which we stay not to talk about, was ex- 
 
397 
 
 pected and prophecied. And how stood the fact ? Not a single watch- 
 man or policeman provoked a^disturbance ; though the excitement was 
 intense there was no appearance of disorder : no mark of disapproba- 
 tion or the reverse: quietly and orderly and respectfully, jurymen, bar- 
 risters, judge and conspirators moved amongst each other — no shouting — 
 no drunkenness — all was conducted with as much decorum and solemni- 
 ty as the christening of the Princess Royal. 
 
 Poor as the men were, all were well clad ; they had clubbed their poverty 
 together ; they were there to fall for liberty— the pride of Rome’s 
 proud Consul was theirs to fall with decency.” Their respectable ap- 
 pearance, forbearing spirit, and calm and patient demeanour, were a con- 
 stant topic of admiring observation. But we mention not these things 
 as peculiar to Lancaster — as such indeed they would be entitled to a 
 passing remark — but we give them here as a sample of the change that has 
 grown throughout the Chartist ranks. Much indeed, of what was called 
 enthusiasm has apparently subsided — the glare of the torch has gone out. 
 Processions and demonstrations, instead of being considered necessary “ to 
 keep up the steam,” are abandoned with the feeling that they are but lit- 
 tle worth — and flags and banners perhaps may yield to what seems to be 
 a general necessity. Be it so — they have done their work — and well ! 
 
 We may not conclude this panoramic view without a remark or two 
 on the Bar. The progression with barristers in their treatment of opinion, 
 and its high responsibilities and privileges, has indeed been great. 
 There are amongst us some who can recollect the trials of 1889-40 — 
 the cold sneer of denial of “ any sympathy with Chartist opinions” with 
 which all the speeches were then disgraced, followed by a course of 
 argument which first let down the Political Martyr to the moral rank of 
 a poacher or a shecpstealer, and then exhausted its emasculated squeak 
 on some technical deficiency in evidence or pleading. How changed the 
 tone ! Who that listened to the bold eloquence of Dundas and Baines, 
 Murphy, Atherton, and M^Oubrey, did not feel that the period was 
 joming when, as of old time, the bar might owe its dearest laurels 
 to its undaunted advocacy of liberty. But again we are reminded that 
 our space is nigh exhausted ; it would take, indeed, a long page to com- 
 ment on this one of the most significant signs of the times, — a sign, too, 
 that every hour is increasing in vigor. 
 
 The speeches of the Conspirators were a feature in the trial that will 
 not soon be forgotten. Carefully avoiding all tone or attitude of decla- 
 mation or defiance — appealing entirely to reason alone — they one and all 
 avowed, that firm faith in their principles, which at once and for ever 
 destroyed the supposition that treachery or tyranny could either cajole or 
 daunt them : to the dungeon they might go — they talked not of dying 
 there ; (there was no twaddle of laying their heads on the block,” or 
 of “ the purple stream of life forgetting to flow,” — all that went out with 
 
398 
 
 tl^e torch-light meetings;”) but quietly and calmly they avowed their 
 intention patiently to abide their doom— that the hour of their release should 
 witness a renewal of tlieir abiding in the cause they were martyrs to. 
 For its simple fervid eloquence the scene was affecting and impressive 
 beyond all power of description., 
 
 And the Judge— but we speak not of him. He is History. He 
 stands alone ! — the only Judge that ever earned the confidence of the 
 working classes. He stands out from his fellows — clear, clean, and dis- 
 tinct. His summing up to the jury, and his whole demeanour through 
 the trial, was a perfect model of patience, labour, and impartiality. And 
 yet it was not for any one of these, nor for all combined, that he is prin- 
 cipally to be regarded : his chief claim to our homage is the manner in 
 which he brought truth— rm/, wotlegal^ truth — to bear upon the evidence. 
 All the ancient rigmarole of three and four years ago was shattered in an 
 instant : the conspiracy charge was utterly blown away : there was no 
 reading long extracts from old books about the sinfulness and wicked- 
 ness, disloyalty and indecency, of saying anything calculated to excite a 
 tendency to something that might provoke a discussion which might 
 lead to remarks calculated to induce a belief that expressions would be 
 used which, in the opinion of loyal persons, would result in something 
 which was intended to bring the Queen, and Sir James Graham, the 
 Royal Babes, and all the Constituted Authorities, into contempt 1 All this 
 was declared to be moonshine ; the juiy were told to look at the whole 
 charge and judge of it by the principles of common sense and common 
 honesty. The feeling was — Who ever heard a judge talk in that strain 
 before t ” It was so plain and intelligible — no mystification— no pal- 
 tering in a double sense.” As somebody sitting behind us observed, He 
 is not like a judge;” 9ior is he — such judges as are usually sent to try 
 Chartists. However, ‘‘one swallow does not make a summer;” and 
 we must not suppose that the usual characteristics of prosecutions for 
 opinion are all at once to vanish ; there are, unfortunately, facts enough 
 the other way to prevent our adopting such an error. 
 
 And here the Printer has wanied us we must conclude. The subject? 
 is of a nature which leads us from one consideration to another till we 
 know not where to stop. Sufficient, however, has been said, to excite 
 attention to some of the more prominent features of this, the most extra- 
 ordinary trial of modern times. The affidavit which follows will explain 
 much, and with the “ Analysis of the Evidence ” and the “ Causes of the 
 Outbreak ” t will give that general view of the whole affair which is 
 necessary to a right understanding of the evidence. 
 
 It is a fair subject for congratulation, that such a record of our pro- 
 gress is in existence. It would be well for Chartism if every trial were 
 fought — rfought ow/--step by step — from beginning to endr—ras this has 
 been. But we shall learn wisdom by experience ! 
 
AFFIDAVIT OF FEARGUS O’CONNOR, ESQ. 
 
 €lttec«’s iSentJ. 
 
 A 
 
 THE QUEEN 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 FEARGUS O’CONNOR AND OTHERS. 
 
 FEARGUS O’CONNOR, of Ham- 
 mersmith,in the county of Middlesex, Esq. 
 maketh oath and saith, that he is one of 
 the defendants in the above indictment, 
 and that, on the 9th day of March last, 
 at Lancaster, in the county of I/ancaster, 
 he was, with several others of the defen- 
 dants, found guilty on the fifth count of 
 the said indictment. And this deponent 
 saith, that the evidence against hi^^i, and 
 all the other defendants, con.sisted of acts, 
 speeches, and hand-hills, alleged to have 
 been done, spoken and published betv/een 
 the 1st day of August and the 1st day of 
 October last, and that such evidence re- 
 lated principally to a general stoppage of 
 work, which occurred in Manchester, in 
 the county of Lancaster aforesaid, and 
 the neighbourhood thereof, in the month 
 of August last, in consequence of a re- 
 duction having been commenced and 
 threatened by the several manufacturers 
 carrying on trade in Manchester and its 
 neighbourhood aforesaid, and in conse- 
 quence, as stated in the said evidence, of 
 a general desire among the working clas- 
 ses that the document called the People’s 
 Charter should be passed into a law; and 
 that the said acts, speeches, and hand- I 
 bills were in furtherance of, and in con- J 
 nectioh with, the said desire for better/ 
 
 wages and political freedom. And this 
 deponent further saith, that, at and 
 about the. period to which the said evi- 
 dence as aforesaid relates, a very large 
 latitude of expression with regard to sub- 
 jects of political discussion was allowed 
 by the Queen’s government, and, in par- 
 ticular, that persons high in authority, 
 that is to say magistrates, borough- 
 reeves, MAYORS, ALDERMEN, MEMBERS 
 OF PARLIAMENT, and others entrusted 
 with the administration of the laws, were 
 permitted, without prosecution, interrup- 
 tion, remonstrance, check or observation, 
 to make use of language much more in- 
 flammatory, seditious and exciting than 
 any that by the present indictment, and 
 the evidence given at the said trial thereof, 
 was charged against this deponent and the 
 other defendants, or any of them, or than 
 has on any other occasion been charged 
 against this deponent. And this depo- 
 nent further saith, that there has been for 
 the last two years published at Manches- 
 ter aforesaid, a weekly newspaper or jour- 
 nal, called the Anti-bread Tax Circular, 
 at the expence and with the authority and 
 support of an association calling themselves 
 the Anti-corn-law League, and that, of the 
 said association, the following, amongst 
 others, justices of the peace for the Bo* 
 
400 
 
 rough of ?‘Iaucliester, arc active memhers, 
 and, as this deponent has heard and be- 
 lieves, niembers of the coimcil thereof, and 
 directing and superintending “its manage- 
 ment, that is to say. Sir Thomas 
 P oTTRK, ElKAI^AH AhMITAGE, JoHN 
 Brooks, Robert Hyde, A. Watkixs, 
 J. B. Smith, and C. J. T. Walker, 
 Esas., all of them persons of great 
 Avealth, and whose acts, speeches, pub- i 
 lications and example, from their double j 
 position and influence as members of the ! 
 council of the said Anti-corn-law League 
 and as magistrates as aforesaid, adminis- 
 tering the law and acting in the name of 
 the government, have very great power 
 and authority over the poorer classes 
 in Manchester aforesaid, and more es- 
 pecially as an example and definition 
 of the bounds and extent to which 
 political discussions may legally be carried. 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the sixty-second number of the said Anti- 
 hread Tax Circular, published on the 
 26th day of May, 1841, there is a lead- 
 ing article in which the follmving lan- 
 guage is used — 
 
 “ Fieschi compassed the death of fifteen per- 
 sons only, while the sliding invention of which 
 Sir Robert Peel Is the patron has subjected 
 hundreds of thousands to the lingering torments of 
 starvation. The sliding scale is a perfect scheme 
 of legalized murder and robbery.” 
 
 And that, in the said number of the 
 said Anti-bread Tax Circular, there is 
 another leading article, commencing with 
 the following language, that is to say : — 
 
 Murder. — “They that be slain with the 
 sword are better than they that be slain with 
 hunger; for these pine away, stricken through 
 for want of the fruits of the field. — La- 
 mentations, iv. 9. The Corn Law is the whole- 
 sale cause of the starvation and disease which 
 are ravaging the humble dwellings of our poorer 
 brethren. They who uphold that law are vir- 
 tually the murderers oi their fellow creatures: — 
 the riches of those who profit by it are stained 
 vrith the blood of human victims, and they who 
 look coldly on, and neglect the means in their 
 power to abolish the law, are equally the accom- 
 plices in the guilt of murder.” ' 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 in the eighty-second number of the said 
 Anti-bread Tax Circular, published on 
 the 10th day of February, 1842, there is 
 
 an ADDRESS, or leading article, from which 
 the folloAving is an extract, that is to say : — 
 
 “ \Ye ask our countrymen what is to be done 
 now ? We call on the trampled children of toil 
 for a sign ; we speak to the millions of undaunted 
 and dauntless hearts which, within these 
 islands, yet beat, responsive to the cry for 
 freedom and for justice ; are w^e still to cry for 
 freedom and for justice — are w^e still to bow 
 the neck to the hoof of the destroyer of our 
 country’s peace — to the desolation of the homes 
 of millions of our suffering countn,'raen ? We 
 have vanquished many a foe — we have scaled 
 the rugged heights where fame and glory sit 
 enthroned — we have made it an inheritance not 
 worthless to be born in Britain, and 
 
 “ Shall we who struck the lion down, shall we 
 Pay the wolf homage, profering lowly gaze 
 And servile knees” — 
 
 to men, mortal as ourselves, and whose only 
 claim to eminence and power is in the accident 
 that they were born in the possession of acres 
 and a title The engine of extortion is now- 
 creaking heavily; the rpiserable delusion is 
 nearly at an end. The duped victims of the 
 “veiled prophet” have beheld, in part, the 
 grim and ghastly lineaments of a fiend, which 
 avarice has so long proclaimed a God ; and no 
 change of name, no assumption of another title, 
 can save the relentless, but now expiring, foe of 
 man. The Corn-law is now to be repealed, not 
 because the gang of spoilers have repented, and 
 revived no longer to spoil, but because the 
 moral power of the mind of our country has 
 risen up to condemn it, and for fear 
 
 “ That men should bx-eak, in their sublime 
 despair. 
 
 The bonds which nature can no longer bear !” 
 The Corn-law is now to be repealed j and it 
 rests with the people of Britain to say, 
 whether the fetter shall be again rivetted upon 
 them, or broken asunder for ever, — whether 
 the industry of our country shall be free, or the 
 reign of injustice shall be yet further pro- 
 longed 1 We feel that we have a mission 
 to give the answer to this question; and we 
 reply, in the name of our country, in the name 
 of mercy, in the name of justice, the inhuman 
 monopoly of the food of twenty-seven millions 
 of human beings shall be now crushed utterly 
 and for ever ? We raise our warning voice to 
 the rulers of Britain — we would speak in tones 
 which shall penetrate the palace of our Sove- 
 reign, all guiltless as she is of the woes she may 
 
401 
 
 not heal — we would point the cold, calculating 
 eye of aristocracy, to the darkness of the pic- 
 ture which is faintly rising to the view, and 
 we would tell them that, in their mad attempt 
 to forge afresh the chain which has so long 
 galled and fretted a too long enduring people, 
 they dare a danger which they may not fully 
 know, but from which, assuredly, if they persist, 
 there is no escape." 
 
 And that, in the same number of the 
 said Anti-corn-law Circular, there are 
 also the following expressions, portion of 
 another leading article, that is to say : — 
 We proclaim to the landowners, to the aris- 
 tocracy, that they are the cause and the instru- 
 ment whereby lamentation reigns in our streets, 
 and clouds, which no mortal eye can penetrate, 
 hang over and around our national path. We 
 denounce them as the men, ‘ Who, sowing curses, 
 ask why curses grow !’ and, w'hilst we denounce, 
 WE PRAY that their hearts may be softened, their 
 understandings enlightened, and their consci- 
 ences awakened to a sense of justice due to the 
 suffering millions, jvho regard them as the au- 
 thors of their woes, lest, having ‘ Sown the 
 wind, they may have to reap the whirlwind.' " 
 And this deponent further saith, that the 
 said Anti-bread Tax Circular frequently 
 at the period immediately preceding the 
 late stoppage of work in Manchesterafore- 
 said, contained songs and verses calling for 
 the abhorrence and curses of the people on 
 the authors and encouragers of the Corn- 
 law, and exciting the masses of the peo- 
 ple to hatred of the government, and that 
 the following lines, amongst others, are 
 in the 79th number of the said Circular, 
 published on the 30th day of December, 
 1841, that is to say : — 
 
 “ DIED OF STARVATION." 
 coroner’s INdUEST. 
 
 I met Famine on my way. 
 
 Prowling for her human prey, 
 
 Clogg’d with filth, and clad in rags. 
 
 Ugliest of all ugly hags. 
 
 Lo ! a sceptre wreath’d of snakes. 
 
 In her withered hand she shakes ; 
 
 And I heard the hag proclaim. 
 
 Bread-tax is my sceptre’s name ! 
 
 On remorseless mission bent. 
 
 Maiming, murd’ring as she went. 
 
 Spreading death from street to street, 
 
 0 ! I heard the hag repeat. 
 
 (Shuddering while I heard and saw,) 
 
 “ Mine is Right, and Might, and Law I** 
 
 Then to solitude I flew — 
 
 Gracious heaven ! can this he true ? 
 
 On my trembling knees I fell, 
 
 God ! thou God of mercy ! tell. 
 
 Can the very fiends of hell. 
 
 In thy name, their pandects draw. 
 
 And declare the licence — law ? 
 
 Dare they in thy holy sight. 
 
 To proclaim their robbery Right ? 
 
 Rouse thee ! raise thine awful rod ! 
 
 Lord, how long ? How long ? 0 ! God ?" 
 
 And that the said verses purport to be 
 written by John Bowring, a doctor and 
 a member of parliament; and that, in 
 another number of the said circular, pub - 
 lished on the 5th day of May, 1842, only 
 three months before the said strike for 
 wages and the Charter in Manchester 
 arforesaid, and when the people, for want 
 of employment, were in deep distress, 
 are the following verses, that is to say : — 
 “ There is a cry throughout the land, 
 
 A fearful cry and full of dread ; 
 
 Woe to oppression’s heartless band ! 
 
 A starving people cry for ‘ bread ! 
 
 That cry was heard when g&llfcy France, 
 
 On the dread brink of ruin stood : 
 
 Yet ‘ sound the viol, speed the dance ! 
 
 ’Tis but the hungry cry for food !’ 
 
 I charge ye, England’s rulers, grant 
 The justice that her sons demand : 
 
 Or roused, the demon power of want, 
 
 Shall VAK\.(^thepike and wield the brand ." 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the last mentioned number of the said 
 circular, there is a leading article, en- 
 titled, The condition of England Ques- 
 tion,” contrasting, in very exciting lan- 
 guage, the different conditions of rich 
 and poor, and that the following is an 
 extract from such leading article, that is 
 to say : — 
 
 “ Thd dominant party do not inquire what 
 is the cause of this wide-wasting disease ; but, 
 knowing the existence of it, and fearing that un- 
 pleasant results may come out of it, they ask , 
 
 ‘ How much will keep them quiet ? ’ It is 
 within our own knowledge that this, or a similar 
 question, has been often put by these whose 
 names are near the highest in the roll of Britain’s 
 
 
402 
 
 bread-taxing nohilify. When the fearful dis- 
 tresses of the people were detailed to them, they 
 turned alike from a eonsideration of the cause 
 and of the remedy, and inquired, ‘ Are they 
 ■quiet ? ’ And it would appear, that, so long as 
 men will be plundered without resistance — so 
 long as men will starve in their cheerless homes, 
 whose every comfort the inhuman bread-tax had 
 destroyed— so long as men, and women, and 
 helpless children will pine away, and their wail 
 of despair is not heard in the halls of the great 
 and the noble, so long do the grasping mono- 
 polists flatter themselves that they may safely 
 deny to the millions the bread that they toil for. 
 And it is not amongst the aristocracy only that 
 the enquiry is, ‘ Are they quiet ? ' The almost 
 universal feeling is, that it is marvellous that the 
 patience of the sufferers is not long since 
 
 EXHAUSTED." 
 
 And that, in another leading article, in 
 the same number of the said circular, 
 there are the following expressions : — 
 
 “ There are even now evident signs that the 
 beginning of the end is upon us. The patience 
 of famishing millions appears to be well nigh 
 exhausted ; desperation is driving the hopeless 
 masses to lawless deeds ; the bayonet is called 
 into requisition against the breadless, and an 
 income-tax is proposed in relief of our impo- 
 verished trades and unemployed operatives." 
 
 And that in the same number of the said 
 circular are the following sentences . — 
 
 “ The cry of ‘give us bread’ is changing to 
 ‘let us take it;’ and all the reply which our 
 legislators can afford, is a new infernal machine, 
 — an income blister tax and a delusive tariff, 
 with, perchance, where the symptoms are vio- 
 lent and pressing, the addition of a troop of 
 horse, a few files of infantry, or a leash of Buck- 
 ingham blood-hounds, to keep down the rising 
 stomachs of the famishing people.’’ 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that the 
 -said Anti-bread Tax Circular is very 
 extensively circulated amongst all classes 
 of society, and particularly by the mill 
 owners amongst their workmen : and that, 
 in the said month of August last, and at 
 and about the period of the said stopjiage 
 of work at Manchester and its neighbour- 
 hood aforesaid, a very large number of 
 copies of the said Anti-bread Tax Circu- 
 lar were, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, distributed gratuitously amongxt 
 the labouring classes in Manchester and 
 
 its neighbourhood aforesaid, at the ex- 
 pense, and by and with the concurrence, 
 of the said Anti-corn-laxv League, And 
 this deponent further saith, that other 
 newspapers, at and about the same pe- 
 riod, made use of similar inflammatory 
 and seditious language, and, in particu- 
 lar, that the Stockport Chronicle, on the 
 18ih day of March, 1842, had a lead- 
 ing article in the words following, that is 
 to say : — 
 
 “ We have thought and reflected, seriously, 
 upon the various plans which have been pro- 
 pounded for the purpose of breaking up the 
 scoundrel combination of the food-producers ; 
 but we cannot think that any plan which w’e 
 have yet heard of, at all approaches, in point 
 of effect and practicability, the one which, 
 about two months ago, we recommended to the 
 consideration of the great employers of manu- 
 facturing labour; our proposal was, that all 
 able-bodied pauperism should be thrown upon 
 the land. Let no squeamish individuals shrink 
 from the course pointed out, from any false 
 notions of its apparent harshness. The people 
 sent to their settlements must not go crawl- 
 ing like ordinary paupers. They must go as if 
 they were marching to b-\ttle with their 
 oppressors, to take possession of magazines of 
 plunder, to storm the fortresses of oppres- 
 sion— and to quarter on a deadly enemy !’’ 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the Sun London new'spaper, of the 12th 
 day of February, 1842, there is a leading 
 article from wdiich the words following, 
 or to that effect, are extracted, that is to 
 say 
 
 “To prepare our readers for the great crisis 
 which is evidently approaching, when reason shall 
 be brought into violent conflict with the blind 
 obedience which has hitherto been preached as 
 a duty, we have occasionally adverted to the ab- 
 •surd assertion of the Tories, that unless every- 
 thing called a law be obeyed, whatever crimes it 
 may ordain, society will fall to pieces. So- 
 ciety is not held together by strife-begetting, 
 demoralizing, murderous laws, such as it has 
 pleased our selfish landlords to make for the pur- 
 pose of enriching themselves. Nor have such 
 barbarous enactments, rightly understood (though 
 the ceremonies have been gone through of crying 
 out “ the ayes,’’ or “ the contents have it," and 
 of reading a little Norman French, by which the 
 ministers for the time being give the nominal 
 sanction of the Sovereign to the bill to which 
 they have obtained the assent of the two houses) 
 t 
 
403 
 
 the proper and just authority of law. Mr. Jus- 
 tice Blackstone says : — * This law of nature 
 being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God 
 himself, — is of course superior in obligation to 
 any other. It is binding over all the globe, in 
 all countries, and at all times ; no human laws 
 are of any validity if contrary to this : and such 
 of them as are valid derive all their force and 
 authority, mediately or immediately, from this 
 original.’ Founding on this high legal authority, 
 we have no hesitation in affirming that the Corn- 
 law, which cuts off the commerce between na- 
 tions, which plunders one class of the community 
 to enrich another, and which starves a great mul- 
 titude of human beings, violating the tv/o express 
 commands, ‘ Thou shalt not steal,’ and ‘ Thou 
 shalt not murder,’ founding on the acknowledged 
 high authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone, we 
 unhesitatingly assert, that the Corn-law, which 
 violates both the revealed law of God and the 
 law of nature, is of no force or validity what- 
 ever. It follows, as a necessary consequence, 
 that it is wrong in the people to o5ey such a scan- 
 dalous embodyment of immoral selfishness of 
 the landowners. They have by their obstinate 
 adherence to an unjust law, brought man’s moral 
 duties and their enactment into conflict. The 
 energetic proceedings of the Conference yester- 
 day, (meaning the proceedings of the said Anti- 
 Corn-law Conference on the 11th day of Feb- 
 ruary, 1842,) have made this important truth 
 apparent, and will make it necessary for the 
 community to choose between obedience to the 
 moral law or obedience to the aristocracy. We 
 rejoice to believe that the bulk of the people are 
 ashamed of their long submission, and they will 
 OVER-RULE any decision of Parliament which 
 goes to perpetuate the Corn-laws.” 
 
 And this deponent further saitli, that in 
 the said Sun newspaper of the 7th day 
 of July last, being but one month before 
 tlie said stoppage of work at Manchester 
 and its neighbourhood as aforesaid, there 
 is the following language : — 
 
 “ The proceedings yesterday at the Anti- corn- 
 law Conference speak for themselves. Gentle- 
 men who declared they will pay no taxes till the 
 Corn-law be repealed, were vociferously cheered. 
 The recital ‘ that workmen have said it was not 
 words would move Parliament, but force, and 
 they would have it if they did not change 
 their system was heard with no disapproba- 
 tion. In the manufacturing districts men de- 
 clared that ‘ no good can be done until they 
 riot;’ and in the metropolis the information is 
 received with approbation. To-day and to-mor- 
 row it will B'e spread through the whole empire, 
 and the ideas of rising, of rioting, and of refusing 
 
 to pay taxes, will be presented at one and the 
 same time to many thousand persons. The 
 sanctity once belonging to the law, w^hich pre- 
 vented such conceptions, is at an end ; the minds 
 of the people are becoming familiarised with the 
 idea of resistance ; and, if their misery be not 
 relieved, it will not be long before corresponding- 
 deeds will spring from the idea.” 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the said Sun newspaper of the 5th day 
 of July last, there is the following lan- 
 guage or to that effect, that is to say : — 
 
 “ Under these painful and trying circumstan- 
 ces the Anti-corn-law League again assembles in 
 conference. We look on the proceedings as of 
 serious and solemn import. We earnestly pray 
 that they may be equal to the crisis which brings 
 them together. Half measures will no longer do. 
 Flattery and false language can deceive none but 
 themselves. If whilst they denounce the Corn- 
 law as unrighteous and iniquitous, they preach 
 obidience to such a law, they will need no enemy 
 to overcome them. If, while they meet in an 
 extraordinary co-nvention, to set aside as they 
 hope, the deliberate decision of the par- 
 liament, they shall profess a love and reverence 
 for the body whose decrees they deride and pro- 
 perly wish to upset, they will betray themselves. 
 They came to London to impugn the wisdom of 
 parliament ; they meet to show that it has done, 
 and is doing, a grievous wrong to the people, and 
 unless they express that fearlessly, and honestly, 
 they will do nothing. What resolutions they 
 may adopt is not for us to suggest ; but if they 
 are not now prepared to set the^nrighteous 
 bread-taxers at defiance, to stand firmly and ex- 
 clusively upon the justice of their cause, they 
 will not be equal to the occasion.^’ 
 
 And this deponent furtlier saitb that the 
 project of stopping the mills and turning 
 out the hands, for the purpose of driving 
 the labouring classes to frenzy and rebel- 
 lion, and thereby over-awing the Queen’s 
 government, was adopted by the manu- 
 facturers and capitalists in Mancliester 
 and its neighbourhood aforesaid, so early 
 as the year 1841, and continued as here- 
 tofore and hereinafter stated, to the com- 
 mencement and after the commencement 
 of the said stoppage of work in Manches- 
 ter and its neighbourhood aforesaid, and 
 that in the Morning iChronicle news-r 
 paper of the 20tli day of October, 1841 
 is the following language or to that elfuct, 
 lhatistosay; — 
 
404 
 
 “ From large manufacturers and capitalists in 
 other places, statements have also been received 
 to the effect that they have the power at once, if 
 they had the will to use the means, of putting an 
 end to the Corn-laws, and that they entertain 
 seriously the intention of adopting them. These 
 are to close all their mills, to send the 
 mass of the rural population, to whom they now 
 afford employment, home to their parishes, to be 
 supported out of landlord-paid poor rates,, and to 
 force the aristocracy to maintain the surplus 
 agricultural population themselves, since they 
 insist on depriving the commercial community of 
 the only means by which they can do it.” 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the said Anti-bread-tax Circular of the 
 4th day of November, 1841, are the fol- 
 lowing w'ords, that is to say : — 
 
 “ There is an increasing distrust spreading as 
 to the possibility of abolishing the corn mono- 
 poly by peaceful means.” 
 
 And that in the same number of the said 
 Anti-hread-tax Circular, the following 
 words are said to have been spoken at a 
 large public meeting at Nottingham in 
 the county of Nottingham, that is to 
 say 
 
 He feared the coming of the time when six 
 millions of people would arise determined to be 
 free with all the world.” 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that in 
 the month of June last, he had a public 
 discussion with James Acland one of the 
 hired lecturers of the said Anti-corn-law 
 League at Halifax in the county of York, 
 when the said James Acland informed 
 this deponent that the people would either 
 have the Charter or a repeal of the Corn- 
 laws within three w^eeks, as the mill- 
 owners had come to the determination of 
 closing all their mills, and turning all 
 their hands out. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that, 
 during the months immediately preced- 
 ing the said late stoppage of work in Man- 
 chester aforesaid and its neighbourhood, 
 several persons, called Anti-corn-laiv 
 Lecturers, went about through the coun- 
 try endeavouring to .excite the masses to 
 violence, and, in particular, that a person 
 named Finnigan, a lecturer (employed 
 by the said Anti-eorn-law League, was very 
 active and violent, and that, in one of his 
 speeches at Manchester aforesaid, on the 
 27th of July last, being but nine days be- 
 
 fore the said stoppage of work at Man- 
 chester and neighbourhood aforesaid, the 
 said Finnigan made use of the following 
 language, or to that effect, as this de- 
 ponent has heard and believes, that is to 
 say 
 
 “ If the government imagine that, because 
 the peace of Manchester has not been disturbed 
 hitherto, it is an indication of the people’s 
 intention to remain quiet, they are, indeed, 
 mistaken, as, like the volcano, they will, if 
 JUSTICE is not done to them, hurst forth at a 
 time when least expected, and on the govern- 
 ment will be the responsibility of what may 
 follow.” 
 
 And that, in the midst of other inflam- 
 matory language, the said Finnigan at 
 the meeting aforesaid, told the people 
 that hruie force (meaning, as this de- 
 ponent believes, the government and con- 
 stitution of the country) must be op- 
 posed by brute force, and that the said 
 Finnigan also said, at the time and place 
 aforesaid, that Mr. Holland Hoole, ■who 
 v/as a magistrate, had stated, that, in 
 case of an outbreak he would not call on 
 the military. And deponent saith, that, 
 at a meeting also held in Manchester 
 aforesaid, on the 29th day of July last, ^ 
 being but seven days before the com- 
 mencement of the said stoppage of work 
 at Manchester and its neighbouhood afore- 
 said, another lecturer, named Falvey, 
 also employed by the said Anti-corn-law 
 League, used, as this deponent has heard 
 and believes, w^ords to the following effect, 
 that is to say : — 
 
 “ That the repeal of the Corn-laws rested 
 with the people, and that, if they were only 
 firm and determined, nothing could resist them : 
 that death was preferable to starvation, and 
 that Manchester had been quiet too long, and 
 that he feared, so long as it remained quiet, 
 nothing could be done.” 
 
 And deponent saith, that the said 
 Finnigan and Falvey are, as he has 
 heard and believes, employed and paid 
 by the Anti-corn-law^ League, and that 
 the said two last meetings were held in 
 the most turbulent parts of Manchester 
 aforesaid, less then ten days as aforesaid, 
 before the said stoppage of work at Man- 
 chester aforesaid and its neighbourhood, 
 for which this deponent was trie^, as afore- 
 said, at Lancaster aforesaid j that they were 
 
405 
 
 called by placards printed by one Gadsby, 
 the authorized printer of the said Anti- 
 Iread Tax Circular, and employed by the 
 said Anti-Corn-law League ; and that the 
 people, to whom the said speeches were 
 addressed, were in a state of very great 
 poverty and distress ; that the said two 
 speeches were printed and extensively 
 circulated amongst the poorer classes in 
 Manchester aforesaid, and that the said 
 speeches were never denied nor qualified, 
 either by the speakers or by the said ma- 
 gistrates of Manchester, members of the 
 council of the Anti-Corn-law League so 
 employing them as aforesaid. And this 
 deponent further saith, that he has heard, 
 and believes, that neither the said Finni- 
 GAN nor the said FALVEYhave been prose- 
 cuted for the said speeches, nor received 
 any warning or caution from the magistrates 
 or any other persons in authority. And 
 this deponent further saith, that the fact 
 of the statements and speeches hereinbe- 
 fore mentioned being printed and spoken 
 with the toleration of the magistrate^ of 
 Manchester aforesaid, and with the ap- 
 probation and support of the said Anti- 
 corn-law League, of which said League, 
 several of the said Magistrates of Man- 
 chester were then, and still are, members 
 of the council as aforesaid, and without 
 any prosecution, interruption, or warning 
 by the Queen’s government, naturally 
 and necessarily induced the belief, that 
 as extensive a latitude of political discus- 
 sion would be allowed to other persons ; 
 and that no prosecution would be com- 
 menced against any speeches or publica- 
 tions which did not exceed those herein- 
 before mentioned in commenting upon, 
 or complaining of, the present system of 
 society. And this deponent further 
 saith, that he has never used or been 
 charged with using language at all ap- 
 proaching in violence or sedition that 
 which has hereinbefore been stated. And 
 this deponent further saith, that the said 
 members of the council of the Anti-Corn- 
 law League have been permitted for a 
 long time past to make, and to sanction - 
 by their presence and approbation, 
 speeches and addresses of a very violent ' 
 tendency without the slightest punish- 
 ment, restraint, or observation, and that, 
 in or about the month of February, 1842. 
 at a meeting of the conference of the said 
 Anti-Corn-law League, the Rev, Mr. 
 
 , Mass IE, an active member of the said 
 • League, made, as this deponent has 
 ! heard and believes, a speech of which 
 i the following is a portion, that is to 
 say 
 
 “ They were astonished at the patience of the 
 people — so was he ! He had read the page of 
 history, and had looked at the bloody scenes 
 that had occurred at the close of the last century 
 upon the soil of France. He saw that, at the 
 time, the first cry of the people was, ‘ Give us 
 bread and none of your gabble.' They were led 
 by forms in women’s guise, but of masculine 
 energy, and called out in the Court of the Tuil- 
 leries for immediate food ; for that they were 
 dying, and, dying, would not endure it” 
 
 And that the said speech was reported in 
 the Morning Chronicle newspaper of the 
 12th day of the said month of February 
 1842, and never, as this deponent has heard 
 and believes,either contradicted or qualified. 
 And this deponent saith that, on the 8th 
 day of February 1842, the day appointed 
 for Sir Robert Peel’s motion on the Corn- 
 laws, 600 delegates or deputies were, as this 
 deponent has heard and believes, sent up to 
 London under the direction of the said 
 Anti-corn-law League, from the various 
 provincial associations of the said League, 
 and assembled at the Crown and Anchor 
 Tavern in the Strand, in London afore- 
 said, and that one of the said delegates, Mr. 
 Taunton of Coventry, at the meeting 
 of the said delegates or deputies, at the 
 said Crown and Anchor Tavern, on the 
 following day, the 9th day of February, 
 1842, being the day appointed, as afore- 
 said, for Sir Robert Peel’s motion on the 
 corn-laws — made a speech, of which the 
 following, as this deponent has ]\eard 
 and believes, is a portion, that is to 
 say : — 
 
 “ Let them remember that there were periods 
 of patience, that to those who were starved out 
 of existence society had violated its duties. The 
 social compact supposed social security and 
 social justice ; and, if the laws did not give that 
 justice and that security, the compact was broken 
 and allegiance to it dissolved. The Legislature 
 seldom yielded anything save but to fear ; they 
 should not, therefore, be too demure in their 
 demands. It was only when murmurs ran from 
 mouth to mouth, and the passionate whiteness 
 of indignation and insulted human nature was 
 seen oa every face— when men gathered toge- 
 
406 
 
 ther, united as one man and in one cause — when 1 the 
 millions discovered their moral strengtl^^nd 
 determination — then it was that hypocrites in 
 
 power became honest — then it \Vas that the 
 tyrant prepared himself to grant concessions. 
 But, if the Legislature opposed the people, they 
 would commeuce an agitation all over the 
 country for the thorough and complete purging 
 of that corrupt house.” 
 
 And tliat the said speech, as this depo- 
 nent has heard and believes, was received 
 with tremendous cheers; and that there 
 were present at its delivery several county 
 and borough magistrates, not one of 
 whom, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, offered to it the slightest disap- 
 probation or interruption. And this de- 
 ponent further saith, that, at a subsequent 
 meeting, held on the same day at Brown’s 
 Coffee House, in Palace-yard, Westmin- 
 ster, composed of the said delegates, or 
 deputies, the folowing resolution was pas- 
 sed by tbe said delegates or deputies, that 
 is to say: — 
 
 “ That, ill the opinion of this meeting, the 
 measure just announced by Her IMajesty’s go- 
 vernment on the subject of the Corn Laws, so 
 far from holding out the slightest prospect of 
 any relief of the distress of the country, is an 
 insult to a patient and a suffering people, and 
 the deputies view such a proposal as an indication 
 that the landlord-aristocracy of this country are 
 destitute of all sympathy for the poor, and are 
 resolved, if permitted by an outraged people, to 
 persist in a course of selfish policy which will in- 
 volve the destruction of every interest in the 
 country.” 
 
 And that the said speech of ]\Ir. Taun- 
 ton, of Coventry, and the said resolution 
 of tbe said delegates, w'cre reported in the 
 Morniijg Chronicle newspaper of the 
 next day, the lOtli day of February, 1842. 
 And this deponent further saith, that on 
 the 11th day of February, 1842, there 
 was another meeting of the said delegates 
 at the said Crown and Anchor Tavern ; 
 and that, at the said meeting, Richard 
 CoBDEN,Esq., spoke very violently, as this 
 deponent has heard and believes, against 
 the said Corn-law, and threatened the 
 government with the exhibition of phy- 
 sical force, for the purpose of terrifying 
 the government to a repeaei of the said 
 Coin-law; and, in particular, that he used 
 
 following language, as this deponent 
 has heard and believes, that is to say : — 
 
 ” That three weeks would try the mettle of 
 his countrymen. Why, would they submit to 
 be ST.-^RVED, and put upon short allowance, by 
 thirty or forty thousand men? He was sure 
 that if they knew how insignificant yhoih. morally 
 and physically, those thirty thousand or forty 
 thousand aristocrats and squires were, they 
 would not fear them. But, though really in- 
 significant, they were not conscious of any weak- 
 ness ; they were as confident in their strength 
 as they had been five years since ; they would 
 not shrink one atom ; and, until these men were 
 FRIGHTENED, the people would never obtain 
 justice. Were they prepared to make sacrifices, 
 and to undergo sufferings, to carry this question ? 
 
 I he time was hot far off when they might be 
 called upon to make sacrifices, and to undergo 
 sufferings. The time might soon come when 
 they might be called upon to enquire, as Chris- 
 tian men, whether an oligarchy which has 
 usurped the government, placed its foot on the 
 crown, and trampled down the people — how far 
 such an oligarchical usurpation was deserving of 
 their moral and religious support. As soon as 
 the bill should become the law of the land, by 
 the physical force of a brute majority against 
 reason, then would the time come when he 
 should feel it his duty to secede, as far as he 
 could do, morally, from giving all voluntary sup- 
 port, whether pecuniary or morally, to such a 
 government. The administrators of the law 
 might enforce the law — he could not resist the 
 law — but there must be somebody to administer 
 the law, and somebody to enforce the law ; and 
 he thought that, three weeks hence, the whole 
 people would thoroughly understand the real 
 bearings of the bread-tax question, that they 
 would not want physical force w’hile they were 
 unanimous.” 
 
 And that, at the said meeting on the said 
 11th day of F^;bruary, 1842, Joseph 
 Sturge, of Birmingham, in the county 
 of Warwick, who, as this deponent 
 has heard and believes, is a mem- 
 ber of the said Anti-Corn-law League, 
 and who is not, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes, a Chartist, made use 
 of the following language or to that 
 effect, as this deponent has , heard and 
 believes, that is to say : — 
 
 “ He would not hesitate for a single moment 
 to say, that the laws supported by the aristo- 
 
407 
 
 cracy were such that the great«st despot in 
 Europe could not support them. And he thought 
 that it was on the 9th day of February when 
 this proposition was made in the House of 
 Commons, that the contest lagan between the 
 aristocracy and the people.” 
 
 And that the said speeches of the said 
 HiCHARD CoBDEN and Joseph Sturge 
 w^ere received with loud cheers ; and parti- 
 cularly those portions thereof which pro- 
 phecied, or recommended, or alluded to, 
 physical force and violence as a means 
 of obtaining a repeal of the Corn-law ; 
 and that there were present at the de- 
 livery of such speeches, several members 
 of Parliament andMAGiSTRATES, who vo- 
 ciferously cheered and signified their ap- 
 probation of the same, and that none of 
 those present at such meeting expressed, 
 as this deponent has heard and believes, 
 any disapprobation or dissent. And this 
 deponent further saith, that at the said 
 conference of delegates, William Rat.h- 
 BONE Gregg, a leading member of the 
 said League, made the following observa- 
 tions, as this deponent heard and believes, 
 that is to sa^^ : — 
 
 “ Gentlemen, what we are to do at the present 
 crisis I confess I do not very clearly see ; but 
 I hope that our delegates will be able to devise 
 some means of compelling justice from the nig- 
 gard and reluctant hands of government. There 
 is but one remedy else in our hands, and it is one 
 which most certainly will be acted upon unless 
 prevented by a timely remedy. If the present 
 Corn laws continue, or are only so altered that 
 the present depressed state of trade becomes per- 
 manent, not less than 500,000 persons, half a 
 million of people, must be sent back to the agri- 
 cultural districts, to be maintained by the land- 
 lords ; and they would very speedily eat up the 
 whole rental of the land.” 
 
 And that, at the said meeting, the follow- 
 ing observations were made by one Duffy, 
 a lecturer then high in the confidence 
 and estimation of the said League, that 
 is to say : — 
 
 Let him remind Sir Robert Peel, that not ten 
 years had elapsed since the masters of Paris 
 closed their shops, shut up their places of la- 
 bour, and threw the population into the streets, 
 which sent a tyrant king about his business. If 
 the master-manufacturers of Manchester, of 
 Sheffield, and of Birmingham, those great hives 
 of industry, acting with all concord, and in the 
 
 1 true spirit of Christian feeling and goo 1 citizen- 
 ship, were to close their mills and shops, and to 
 tell the people, ‘ We cannot employ you, because 
 we cannot reap any fruit from your labour — we 
 cannot secure to capital, skill, ingenuity, and la- 
 bour their just reward f the great body of peo- 
 ple thus thrown out of food aud employment in 
 the face of Heaven, \vould scon vindicate their 
 rights and send the Tories to the right about.” 
 
 And this deponent further saitb, that, in 
 the 84th number of the said Anti-corn-law 
 Circular, published on the iOth day of 
 March 1842, there is an Address to the 
 people of Great Britain from the Execu- 
 tive committee of delegates to the anti- 
 corn-law conference, from which the fol- 
 lowing are extracts, that is to say : — 
 
 “ Famine must capitulate with monopoly, and 
 submit to the injustice which relaxes at tlut 
 point only, where it apprehends that enormous 
 prices would ensure the re-action of frantic des- 
 peration. . . . You pay fifty millions for govern- 
 ment, and that very payment is converted into 
 machinery for extorting fifty millions more to 
 sustain the ascendancy of a landed aristocracy. 
 You purchase government, and are cheated of 
 your bargain ; you receive misgovernment in- 
 stead, and the fraud robs yon of your rights, and 
 multiplies your sufferings. It is said that your- 
 selves have sanctioned (he system under which 
 you groan. The whole world knows better. The 
 present House of Commons is notoriously not a 
 free, fair, and equal representation of the peo- 
 ple. The cost of a majority in it, for the cause 
 of monopoly at the last general election, is said 
 to have been a million and a half of pounds ster- 
 ling. The exact amount is of no conse- 
 quence ; such outlay is no profit to the commu- 
 nity ; it is the profitable insurance of rapacious 
 monopoly; no trade is benefitted thereby, but 
 that which thrives on the corruption of soul and 
 body. Public morals are debased that public 
 money may be plundered. Your commerce, 
 your manufactures, your profits, your employ- 
 ments, your wages, your means of subsistence, 
 are bartered by the profligate to the profligate weal- 
 thy. You are sold ; the rights of industry, capital 
 and enterprize are sold; your own food and 
 your children’s prospects are sold ; and the un- 
 holy largain is called Representation ! Let 
 the transaction stand in its true colours.” 
 
 And that, after some other language in 
 the same style and tone, the said Address 
 proceeds thus 
 
 e e 
 
40S 
 
 “ But their will is law. The monopolists are j 
 masters of the legislature and the government ; 
 and they are determined to work out to the ut- 
 termost their experiment upon the extent of the 
 nation's resources, and of the nation’s endn- 
 rQncey 
 
 Anti ibis deponent suitli, that the follotv- 
 ing is the list of the said Executive com- 
 mittee from whom the said address 
 purports to emanate, and which is 
 published in the 83rd number of the said 
 circular, that is to say : — Mr. J ames 
 Wilson, Colonel Thompson, Mr. P. A. 
 Taylor (by which said P. A. Taylor the 
 said address is signed by order of the 
 said conference) Messrs. Sidney Smith, 
 Scohle, and J. P. Black, hl.D., T.on- 
 don ; hlessrs. J. Kei'shaw, William Raw- 
 son, W. Evans, E. Armitage, A. Prentice, 
 S. Lees, and Rev. J. W. Massie, Man- 
 chester ; Mr. J. Stansfield, Leeds ; 
 Messrs. J. Milligan, and T G. Clayton, 
 Bradford ; M. J. Dixon, Carlisle; Air. 
 H. Ashworth, Bolton ; Air. Joseph Sturge, 
 Birmingham ; Mr. Ball, Coventry ; 
 Messrs. D. APLaran and J. Aytoun, 
 Edinburgh; Mr. W. Buchanan, Glas- 
 gow; Rev. J. Burder, and hlr. .T. C. 
 Symons, Stroud; Air. W. Biggs, 
 Leicester; Mr. J. Akroyd, Halifax; Mr. 
 J. Bailey, Huddersfield ; Rev. W. Wil- 
 liams and G. Evans, Esrp, Carnarvon ; 
 W. Ibbotson Esq., and Rev. R. ’S. Bailev, 
 Sheffield; Rev. W. Roaf, Wigan; W. 
 Alorris, Esq., Halifax; Alessrs. E.Wat- 
 kins,andC. Edward Rawlins, Alanchester; 
 Rev. H. Ranton, Kelso ; Rev. W. Lowe, 
 Forfar; several of whom are magistrates, 
 mayors and aldermen, entrusted with the 
 administration of the law, of great wealth, 
 and whose example is of powerful influence. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that, 
 on the 1st day of Alarch, 1842, a meet- 
 ing of the merchants, manufacturers, and 
 others, of Manchester aforesaid and its 
 vicinity, ’va*; held at Alanchester aforesaid, 
 and that, at the said meeting were present 
 the before mentioned John Bkooks, Sir 
 Thomas Potter, Mr. Ashworth, and 
 other magistrates of Alanchester aforesaid, 
 and that, at the said meeting, a resolution 
 was unanimously passed, declaring, that 
 Sir Robert Peel’s proposed modification of 
 the corn-law was a bitter mockery and 
 cruel insult, unworthy of any statesman 
 to propose and of the neople to accept,” 
 
 I and that, at the said meeting, the said 
 John Brooks made a speech, in which, 
 speaking of the aristocracy, he used the 
 following language, that is to say : — 
 
 “ Is it not monstrous that they should legis- 
 late for one class, that class themselves, and 
 at the expence of the manufacturing and com- 
 mercial people, and of all the other classes ?” 
 And that at the said meeting, the said Rev. 
 Mr. AIassie, dissenting minister, made a 
 speech in which he used the following 
 language, that is to say : — 
 
 “ It was to endeavour to alienate the working- 
 people from the manufacturers ; to make an 
 impression upon the people that the manufac- 
 turers received their wealth from the blood, and 
 bones, and sinews of the working-people, wliilc 
 these aristocrats themselves lived upon the 
 plunder which, by these laws, they wrung from 
 both the manufacturing and the working 
 classes, making the former the instruments to 
 extract it from the latter.” 
 
 And that, in concluding the said meet- 
 in g, J o h n B r i g h t , o f Ro did ale, the ch air- 
 man thereof, a man of great influence and 
 much wealth, used the ftillowing lan- 
 guage, or to the following effect, as this 
 Deponent has heard and believes, that is to 
 say: — 
 
 “ He knew how the people, in this district, 
 had slumbered; and it was only because the 
 aristocracy knew that they were not all awake 
 that they dared to insult and trample upon 
 them.” And ; 
 
 ” He believed he might state, that some pro- 
 ject, of a very comprehensive nature would be 
 submitted to the manufacturing classes of Lan- 
 cashire, and the adjoining counties, before long ; 
 such a plan as, if fully carried out, would, at 
 any rate, strike terror into the hearts of those 
 who had lived, and were living, upon the 
 plunder of the people.” 
 
 And this deponent further saiih, that at 
 a meeting of the said Anti-corn-law 
 liCaguc, at Alanchester aforesaid, held on 
 the 22nd day of March, 1842, a Protest 
 was proposed by the Rev. Air. AIassie 
 aforesaid, and passed unanimously, con- 
 demning the Corn-law Bill then intro- 
 duced by Sir Robert Peel ; from which 
 said protest the following is an extract, 
 that is to say : — 
 
 “ We do hereby solemnly protest against so 
 cruel a mockery of perishing millions — so anti- 
 
409 
 
 national a scheme for the destruction of the 
 commercial interests of this commercial coun- 
 try — and so blasphemous a violation of the law 
 
 of God And such legislative robbery 
 
 as, by the taxation of the bread-eaters for the 
 l)enefit of the landowners, starves the honest 
 children of industry, to gratify the luxurious 
 cravings of a heartless and pampered oligarchy.*' 
 And that at the said meeting the said 
 John Brooks, magistrate of Manchester, 
 as aforesaid, was chairman, and, as this 
 deponent has heard and believes, ex- 
 pressed no disapprobation thereof, or of 
 the said protest : and that the said 
 meeting and protest were published in 
 the 85th number of the said Anti-hread 
 Tax Circular; and that, in the said 
 85th number of the said circular, is a 
 leading article intitled, The Income Tax 
 and the Bread Tax,” from which the fol- 
 lowing is an extract, that is to say : — 
 
 “ The Parliament may be considered a 
 landowner’s club, or trades’ union assembly, 
 passing laws to enrich themselves by the im- 
 poverishment of the millions they pretend to 
 represent.” 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that a 
 conference of the members of the said 
 Anti-corn-law League met at Herbert’s 
 Hotel, Palace Yard, Westminster, on the 
 5th day of July last, and that they con- 
 tinued their sittings from day to day till 
 the Istdayif Augustlast,and that, amongst 
 the said conference of delegates 'were 
 present, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, Alderman Shuttleworth, 
 Alderman Kershaw, x\lderman 
 Brooks, and xAlderman Armitage, of 
 Manchester aforesaid ; and Sir Ralph 
 Pendlebury and several other magis- 
 trates ; and that at the meeting of the said 
 conference, between the said 5th day 
 of July and 1st day of August last, 
 several violent and inflammatory speeches 
 were made by the various speakers, 
 that is to say, one by Mr. Grundy 
 in the words following or to the follow- 
 ing effect, that is to say : — 
 
 “ He judged of men by their actions, and he 
 was satisfied that Sir Robert Peel, and his party, 
 cared not for the starvation of the people, so 
 long as they could drain them of their re- 
 sources. It was high time for the people of 
 this country to coalesce and demand, by firm 
 remonstrance, and uplifted hands, the restora- j 
 tion of their rights. The country was dissa- 
 
 tisfied with the milk and water system they 
 had so long pursued.” 
 
 And that, by another speaker, Mr. T- 
 Moore, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, the following language, or lo 
 that effect, was used : — 
 
 ” The land was full of abundance. All that 
 stood between a perishing people and plenty, 
 was the inhuman and tyrannical laws of the 
 country, supported by a few, for their own profit.” 
 
 And that another speaker, the Rev. Mr, 
 HawkEs, at the said conference, used the 
 following language, or to that effect, that 
 is to say : — 
 
 “He believed that in the manufacturing 
 districts they were on the verge of dis- 
 turbances which would not be repressed ex- 
 cept by shedding blood, because the obstinacy 
 of their governors led them to look on these 
 things with calm and unruffled eyes, and they 
 would employ the force in their hands, the 
 police and soldiery of the country, to repress 
 tumult, rather than take other means to repress 
 it. . , . Let those persons take care how they 
 continue to counteract the benefits of Provi- 
 dence. Let them look to what had been the 
 fate of other countries, where the rights of the 
 people were thus held back. Let them look to 
 the example of France in the last century — of 
 old Rome— of Greece — and many other coun- 
 tries. But the lust of Mammon had a more 
 powerful influence on the minds of the aristo- 
 cracy than the experience of history. The 
 Duke of Richmond had, on a former occasion, 
 said, that, if the Corn-laws were repealed, he 
 would flee to a foreign land. He (Mr. Haw'kes) 
 would say to the Duke, ‘ unless you repeal the 
 Corn-laws you shall be compelled to flee.’ He 
 (Mr. IlaAvkes) wondered if it had occurred to 
 the Duke to think, that both himself and the 
 members of his order would have to flee if 
 they uwuld save their lives fl 
 And that, in following immediately after 
 the said speech, and in commenting 
 thereon, the Rev. Dr. Perry, as this de- 
 ponent has heard and believes, used the 
 following language, or to that effect, that 
 is to say : — 
 
 “ Now, he must say, that self-preservation 
 w^as the first law of nature, and that he who 
 neglected that law, who acted not up to that 
 dictate, and did not preserve his life, was 
 guilty of the crime which all were forbidden 
 
410 
 
 to commit — murder. Sooner than suffer himself ! company, said, that if one hundred persons cast 
 
 cr his children to starve, he (Dr. Perry) would 
 take from the table of the Prime Minister." 
 And that George Thompson, a lecturer 
 employed by the said Anti- corn-law' 
 League, thus expressed himself, as this 
 deponent has heard and believes, at the 
 said last-mentioned conference : — 
 
 “ But still the question returns, what have 
 we realized ? and we are forced to reply — no- 
 thing. In effect, the Government and Parlia- 
 ment have said, ‘ We know the people are 
 starving, but we will give them no bread ; W'e 
 admit and admire their patience, and will re- 
 ward it by leaving them to die.’ . . . We have 
 stood between the hungry and those who created 
 the famine ; and if at last the aristocracy of this 
 kingdom rush upon their own doom, their 
 hlood be upon their own heads, and the blood 
 of those who may fall in the struggle for that 
 bread which God had provided, but which they 
 have withheld." 
 
 And that at the said last-mentioned con- 
 ference, Holland Hoole, Esq., the 
 Boroughreeve of Salford, aforesaid, in 
 Manchester, used the follo^ving language, 
 or to that effect, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes : — 
 
 “ The strong probability was, that there would 
 be an outbreak throughout a large extent of the 
 manufacturing districts in the ensuing winter, 
 unless remedial measures were adopted.* He 
 felt it hard to state, that a number of the district- 
 magistrates, apprehending this outbreak, were 
 determined to resign their commissions, and not 
 to permit themselves to be the tools of the aris- 
 tocracy." 
 
 And that, at the said last-mentioned con- 
 ference, the following language, or to that 
 effect, was used, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes, by Mr. Whitehead, 
 of Leeds, that is to say : — 
 
 “ He saw no difference between the man who 
 met another on the highway and presented a 
 pistol at his breast — he saw not the slightest 
 difference between that man and the Govern- 
 ment, who, for selfish purposes, were prepared to 
 sacrifice millions of their fellow- subjects." 
 
 And that, at the said last-mentioned con- 
 ference, the following language, or to that 
 effect, was used, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes, by the Rev. Mr. Bailey 
 of Sheffield:— 
 
 " He heard of a gentleman, who, in private 
 
 lots, and the lot should fall upon him, he would 
 take the lot to deprive Sir Robert Peel of lifi. 
 He felt convinced that no such attempt ought 
 to be made under any pretence whatever ; but 
 he was persuaded of this, that when he, Sir 
 Robert Peel, went to his grave, there would be 
 but few to shed one tear over it.’’ 
 
 And that, by the said Rev. Mr. Bailey, 
 the following language, at the said last- 
 mentioned conference, w'as used, as he, 
 this deponent, has heard and believes, 
 that is to say : — 
 
 “ It was not words they said would move Par- 
 liament, but Force they should have if they 
 did not change their system." 
 
 And that, at the said conference the fol- 
 lowing language was used by Mr. Gas- 
 kill, of Warrington, that is to say: — 
 
 “ In the M'hole range of history nothing more 
 horrible could be found than the death of Ugo- 
 lino ; and in what did the conduct of the tvrant 
 who starved him to death differ from that of the 
 English aristocracy } The Italian was actuated 
 by a feeling of revenge— the English aristocnicy 
 by a sordid feeling of selfish interest. The Italian 
 left his single victim to starwe ; the English 
 aristocracy starved the whole nation. It had 
 been proposed by one whom he would call Mr. 
 Gallows Knight, (meaning, as this deponent be- 
 lieves, Mr. Gaily Knight,) to hang the prophets, 
 but he would have the landlords to beware in 
 time." 
 
 And that, at the said conference, the fol- 
 lowing language, or to that effect, was 
 used, as this deponent has heard and be- 
 lieves, by Mr. Taunton, of Coventiy, 
 that is to say : — 
 
 ' "He felt reluctant to present himself again to 
 the conference, believing, as he did, that the cal- 
 lous-hearted aristocracy were determined, to goad 
 the people to rebellion, in order to govern by the 
 sword. * * He was astonished at the apathy 
 of the metropolis on this subject. Would the 
 people never learn to rely on their own energy, 
 and demand to be fed themselves, while they feed 
 others. It appeared to him that the time was 
 passed for talking. The time was come to no 
 something, and he thought they ought to proceed 
 at once to appoint a committee of public safety 
 in the metropolis.” 
 
 And that, at the said last-mentioned con- 
 ference, the following language, or to that 
 effect, was used, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes, by Mr. William- 
 
411 
 
 Nelstrop, the mayor of Stockport, that 
 is to say : — 
 
 ‘‘ I wish the government to know, I wish Sir 
 Robert Peel to know, I wish her Majesty’s Minis- 
 ters to know, that the inhabitants of this borough 
 have endured their unparalleled distress with 
 unparalleled patience. There is, however, a 
 point beyond which human endurance cannot 
 go ; and, unless some means are taken to 
 relieve the distress of the poor of Stockport, I 
 wish the country to know, I wish Sir Robert 
 Peel to know, I wish the government to know, 
 that I cannot, and will not, be responsible for 
 the consequences which i.jay follow from the 
 present state of things." 
 
 And that, at the said last-mentioned con- 
 ference, the before-mentioned John Bow- 
 ring, member of Parliament, author of 
 the verses commencing Starvation” and 
 ending God,” used the following lan- 
 guage, or to that effect, as this deponent 
 heard and believes, of the House of Com- 
 mons : — 
 
 “No eloquence, no, not even the trumpet of 
 an Archangel, he believed, would produce any 
 effect on that assembly ; and he feared that they 
 must look now only to the hunger and starvation 
 of the people as the means of forcing them to 
 do justice." 
 
 And that, at the said conference, several 
 letters were read, in one of which are the 
 following expressions : — 
 
 . “ The League and Anti-monopoly associations, 
 with the assistance of the colliers, have the power 
 of compelling the aristocracy, in less than one 
 month, to abolish the Corn-laws altogether, and 
 to compel them also to grant the People’s Char- 
 ter. Let the colliers in all parts of England 
 cease work for a month, and the thing is done ; 
 they have only to insist on the measures before 
 they go to work again. This is the most simple 
 and efficient measure that could be adopted to get 
 all we want, without spilling a drop of blood, or 
 causing any commotion of any kind. The city 
 of London would be without fuel, and all 
 other concerns must come to a stand till it was 
 
 SETTLED." 
 
 And in another of which letters are the 
 following expressions : — 
 
 ‘ They (the working men) are now daily ap- 
 proaching a stage of suffering, which will, very 
 likely, produce what may convince Sir Robert 
 Peel and his colleagues that the distress is real." 
 
 And in another of which letters are the 
 following expressions : — 
 
 “ The powers that be will never yield to the 
 
 claims of justice and humanity until compeUed 
 by an oppressed and injured people." 
 
 And in another of which letters are the 
 following expressions : — 
 
 “ The shopkeepers and tradesmen have ^ven 
 up all hopes of improving their condition by 
 remonstrances and petitioning, memorializing and 
 deputationizing, and bending the slavish knee to 
 tyrants who convert the statements of the people’s 
 condition into food for amusement and ridicule, 
 who brutishly laugh at the tattered garments 
 of the poor, and who mock their heartbreaking 
 representations in giving them stones when they 
 ask for bread. The shopkeepers have unani- 
 mously declared that their only hope rests ia 
 circumstances which are fast approaching to a 
 crisis. Those of Birmingham resolved, last 
 evening, with furrowed brows and cheeks flushed 
 with the glow of patriotic indignation, that they 
 would hereafter stand with folded arms, and 
 watch until that period when Englishmen know- 
 ing their rights will dare to maintain them. 
 What hope is there ? None, at leaA the men of 
 Birmingham cannot see any. With such dismal 
 prospects, then, and with so little chance of 
 success, my fellow-townsmen have retired, for 
 the present, in gloomy despair; but ready at 
 a moment’s notice to join in raptures any great 
 national movement which may be made with a 
 fair prospect of success." 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that at 
 the said last-mentioned conference the 
 said Richard Cobden made a speech, 
 from which, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, the following is a correct extract, 
 that is to say : — 
 
 “ Whatever they could do to embarrass the, go- 
 vernment they were bound to do. They owed 
 them no respect ; they were entitled to none. 
 The government was based upon corruption, and 
 the offspring of vice, corruption, intimidation, and 
 bribery. The majority of the House of Commons 
 was supported by the violation of morality and 
 religion. He said for such a government they 
 should entertain no respect whatever. He would 
 assist the Anti-Corn-law League all in his power 
 to embarrass the government." 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that the 
 chairman of the said conference was Mr. 
 P. A. Taylor, and that, in opening the 
 said conference, at its commencement, the 
 said P. A. Taylor, as this deponent has 
 heard and believes, used the following 
 language, or to that effect : — 
 
412 
 
 " The cry of suffering and distress xrould make 
 itself heard, and if that distress were not speedi- 
 ly relieved, he believed that that distress - would 
 make itself heard in a voice of thunder, and 
 would frighten the government and the legisla- 
 ture from its propriety.'' 
 
 And that the said P. A. Taylor regularly 
 presided from day to day at the sittings 
 of the said last-mentioned conference, 
 from the said 5th day of July last, to the 
 said 1st day of August last, being the 
 month immediately preceding the late 
 strike for wages and the Charter as afore- 
 said, at and in the neighbourhood of 
 Manchester aforesaid, and that at the 
 close of the said conference on the said 
 1st day of August, the said P. A. Tay- | 
 YOR, as this deponent has heard and be- ! 
 lieves, addressed the said last-mentioned | 
 conference in the following language, or | 
 to that effect, that is to say : — j 
 
 Everything that could be done to represent 
 to the government the condition of trade, and 
 the destitution of the people, has been attempted 
 at various interviews with its members, and the ' 
 result has been, nothing. They have been told 
 by individuals from all parts of the country, and 
 engaged in every description of manufacture, 
 that their trade is declining, tlieir capital dimin- 
 ishing, and their unemployed work people starv- 
 ing ; that foreign countries are offering us food, 
 
 ^ for want of which the people are perishing, in 
 exchange for those manufactures for which there 
 is otherwise no demand. They have been con- 
 jured in vain. They seemed resolved upon main- 
 taining the iniquitous Corn-law, which aggran- 
 dizes their own wealth and deprives the people 
 of employment and food, and keeping the peace 
 -of the country, by repressing the frantic attempts 
 of the famishing to supply themselves and chil- 
 dren with food, by force. Our duty is done: 
 we have exposed the evil, suggested the remedy, 
 denounced the wrong, and teamed the Govern- 
 inent of the consequences of persisting in that 
 wrong ; and it remains for us to return to our 
 constituents, and tell them that all our efforts to 
 obtain justice for them have failed, and that we 
 can hold out to them no prospect of improve- 
 ment, and no hope of relief. It is fearful to con- 
 template the future ; that a great and highly 
 civilized nation will finally suffer its prosperity 
 to be blighted, and its progress obstructed by a 
 faction of landowners is not to be believed. 
 That the millions of industrious and intelligent ar- 
 tizans who ought to be the glory of our country — 
 as they have been the creators of its wealth — will 
 quietly submit to the destitution they are now 
 
 enduring, and to the utter ruin which seems 
 rapidly approaching, to gratify the grasping 
 rapacity of a landlord-legislature, is neither to 
 ! be anticipated nor desired. I trust they will use 
 no violence, but not submit to be starved ; that 
 they will respect property and life, but not suffer 
 their children to perish by fiimine ; and if, when 
 the time arrives, that private property has be- 
 i come a nuisance, the struggle for existence is 
 j repressed by bloodshed ; by whatever name that 
 I bloodshed may be characterized in a Briilsfi 
 court of judicature, in the eye of reason, of 
 justice, of posterity, and of God, it will receive 
 its true appellation, and be stamped with the 
 guilt of MURDER. I have only to say, an ad'- 
 dress will be submitted to you for your ap- 
 proval, and this conference will then be dis- 
 solved.” 
 
 And tins deponent furtlier said), that 
 afterwards, that is to say, on the 1st day 
 of August last, an address, entitled ‘‘ The 
 Conference of the National Anti-corn-law 
 I/eague to the people of the United King- 
 dom,” was, as this deponent has heard 
 and believes, proposed and seconded and 
 carried; and that the said address con- 
 tains the following expressions, that is to 
 say : — 
 
 j “We are about to separate. We would ad- 
 dress you upon the position of our cause. In 
 February last, we assembled in this metropolis 
 to urge upon the government and the legislature 
 the necessity of repealing the Corn-laws. The 
 band of monopolists who have usurped the legis- 
 lative power disregarded our remonstrances, and 
 laughed at our warnings. They triumphed for a 
 brief season, and agiin sanctioned the miseries of 
 
 famine by statute The time for argument 
 
 Js past : our opponents seek safety in a morose 
 and obstinate silence. The question is now nar- 
 rowed to one of might against right.... 
 would say to you, look to your representatives : 
 the majority of them have basely sold you. ^ e 
 have warned the government ; we have instruc- 
 ted the people, w-e depend upon your intelligence 
 and upon the fears of the monopolists. Provi- 
 dence has given plenty. A few men of wealth 
 and title have opposed their mandate to the 
 will of heaven. “ Shall mortal man be more 
 just than God 
 
 And that the said addi-ess was signed 
 by the said P. A. Taylor, as chairman 
 of the said conference, and was sup- 
 ported by Joseph Hume, C. P. Vil- 
 LiERs, Richard Cobden, and Daniel 
 O’Connell Esqrs. and members ot 
 
413 
 
 Piirlianient aiKl by other persons of in- 
 fluence. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 on the 8th day of July, 1842, a sj)eec]) 
 was delivered, as this deponent has heard 
 and believes, by the said Richard Cob- 
 DEN, and that the said speech contained 
 the following words : — 
 
 “ It is my firm belief that, within six months, 
 we shall have populous districts in the north in a 
 state of social dissolution. You may talk of re- 
 pressing the people by the military ; but what 
 military force would be equal to such an emer- 
 gency. The military will not avail. I do not be- 
 lieve that the people will break out unless they 
 are absolutely deprived of food : il you are not 
 prepared with a remedy, thev will be justi- 
 fied in taking food FOR THEMSELVES AND 
 THEIR FAMILIES.” 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 the said speech was immediately after- 
 wards, that is to say less than one month 
 before the commencement of the said 
 stoppage of work at Manchester and its 
 neighbourhood aforesaid, published at 
 Manchester aforesaid, by the said Gadsb v 
 the printer and publisher of the said 
 Anti-Corn-laio League, and that more 
 than EIGHT THOUSAND copies of such 
 speech were, as deponent has lieard and 
 believes, published by the said Gadsby ; 
 and that several thousands of such speech 
 AV’ere, as this deponent has heard and be- 
 lieves, gratiutously distributed amongst 
 the distressed and destitute working 
 classes in Manchester and its neighbour- 
 hood aforesaid. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 he has heard and believes that none 
 of ihe said magistrates, mayors, al- 
 dermen, borough reeves, members of 
 parliament, and others, making, pub- 
 lishing, and sanctioning the said herein- 
 before mentioned speeches and publica- 
 tions, have been removed from their 
 office as administrators of the law; and 
 that the same speeches and publications 
 have been repeatedly brought under the 
 notice of the ministers and law-officers 
 of the Queen’s government. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that no 
 oiotice or intimation was at any time 
 given to the working classes, as he, this 
 
 deponent has heard an 1 believes, that tlie 
 licence, so as hereinbefore stated, permit- 
 ted to the said mayors, magistrates, alder 
 men, boroughreeves, memiicrs of parlia- 
 ment, and other persons of influence, for- 
 tune, and station, would not be permitted 
 to the said work'ng -classes, and thattlicy, 
 the said working classes, would be prose- 
 cuted and imprisoned if they followed 
 the examjde so set to them, by tlu jier- 
 sons so placed in authority over them ; 
 nor, as this deponent has heard and 
 believes, was any notice ever given to the 
 said working classes that the government 
 intended to make any diflerence in their 
 treatment of language directed to obtain- 
 ing tlie repeal of the Corn-laws, and lan- 
 guage directed to obtaining political free- 
 dom for the people. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 prosecutions for sedition are never, or 
 very rarely, instituted but with the sanc- 
 tion or by the direction of the Queen’s 
 government, and thatr therefore, the work- 
 ing classes have no means of judging the 
 extent of comment or criticism or com- 
 plaint which is practically legal, that is to 
 S3y, which can be adopted without in- 
 curring legal penalties except by ob- 
 serving the extent to which the said go- 
 vernment permits political discussion and 
 strong or exciting language to be carried 
 withoiiL interruption or prosecution. 
 
 And this deponent further saith, that 
 all the before-mentioned numbers of the 
 Anti-hread Tax Circular, from which 
 the hereinbefore stated speeches, senten- 
 ces, language and paragraphs have been 
 extracted, were at, and immediately pre- 
 vious and subsequent to, the said stoppage 
 of work at Manchester and its neighbour- 
 hood aforesaid, extensively and gratuit- 
 ously circulated amongst the working 
 classes in Manchester and its neighbour- 
 hood aforesaid, by the direction and at the 
 expense, as tliis deponent has heard and 
 believes, of the members of the Anti-corn- 
 law League, and that the said working 
 classes were at the time of such gratuitous, 
 circulation of the said numbers of the 
 said Anii-hread lax Circular, in the 
 deepest poverty, misery and destitution. 
 
^ t?.-z i . ■ " ■ ■ ^ 
 
 v"' ' ^' '\ ■ " 
 
 uy,^-j ^..dk,.- ■ - 
 
 ■iCb?, 
 
 ^ r^- 
 
 KJ. ■'" 
 ’ • ■■r’ 
 
 g'lra j; 
 
 ' :- 
 
 ' 
 
 ■•. •..cr 
 
 
 V J- r 
 
 
 t-:\(jrmmAo^' 
 
 ^t( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' -SM' ■ 
 
 ‘fSv., ‘ 
 
 
 ’ * <T'- ; ’ ‘•^ ;i, . ' ' t '„ .'., 'tfi ii 
 
 1 >lc.* 
 
 ■’44-?' 
 
 
 iot4*4f».-!? 
 
 7T -.'.r't- 7 .-'HL^v?;',^ ^*TI4,. 
 
 
 |«a!T t/. 
 
 
 
 ?>% 
 
 J. at ''i •«.:.' •■'•■*€^7 
 
 vt>: 
 
 i’ , - 
 
 r ■ 
 
 
 ' ‘-•> f f*» •>’ 
 
 
 7**?' 
 
 
 
 '■ ■ ■ ’'X-.-Kie^'*^^''^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 
 '..•sr ■ 
 
 ~r iiA}^ \a 
 
 
 :hn- h 'ft .^‘*'^'n,w^?7■ 
 
 :'f'5:.7f; 
 
 
 l :^. ;'^ r'5^ '. 
 
 ;\v^^?r;- ,,iv; 
 
 i. > 
 
 ,-:*■>' ‘'•- 
 
 
 
 .?*Aj 
 
 
 
 mmr- •■: _ 
 
 ' . ,<%;. 2 fi s^ir -♦-:, 
 
 f 4 ,,- ■- 
 
 fit S, 0:ii? ^ -s.''"*, 
 
 ' • •' ’? iT'-'v//. ■/ ■. ... 1 r> 
 
 
 ,.£ •?■■- 
 
 ^,4!/St'L-;7- 
 
 • ..a ., t;^ .^.'if?-.; I'^rm 
 
 " if: ^Ui. 
 
 /' -■ -, -■ ■ _' . fTOrh 0 l 4 : 3 >tfcpC!r ^ 
 
 '■ ^4‘ ^f1<.--;.%’M7?'»f:fC' Ti^vlrnl^rr i* 
 
 O'V M,: :• ■■ • ^'•- y Ji^-ii'*.*^’ s^-VrS 
 
 'gf.i 7 sij? iM-‘‘'/-‘^‘bH^^?7- .r''i.*;r^5 
 
 wj p^mfc .*ni. ki .v 
 
 ,j:ui^..-imfxjm Q^ b^^^p[<|-A3f£ ^■;^-r£H*{uf .'.,lt t /i.^J'^; ;ii 'JrV...'f- 
 
 • is rf-fo*! 
 
 jf.o' me* o'^^^:vTi^^'tj- ;^;/; .;;||i. ■'; , 
 
 i«,i^..!f7u:^|,v.».^J; 10 ii;tn''v,-^'fi-. ;67 h y^ii hveXU^j'ji^. fiVk^^^^ \jism:r^!^^S T>7a» 
 
 ^i*^^}4;li5> - i'.fi\'*udi ItB^tra-rM *^4 ^^T V. i>IfR<;rfe odvY. to 
 
 V. 
 
CAUSES OF THE OUTBREAK 
 
 The foregoing affidavit, sworn by Cooper, and which, had he failed in arresting 
 judgment on the fifth count, I was prepared to submit as my affidavit, will consider- 
 ably limit my enquiry into the causes of the outbreak of last autumn. However, 
 the national, nay the universal, catastrophe that was averted, the great danger from 
 which the cause of Chartism was saved, and the personal peril which its best friends 
 so narrowly escaped, demand from me a full, a searching, and complete investiga- 
 tion of the whole question. 
 
 I am aware that it has been suggested, hinted, rumoured, and industriously circu- 
 lated, that some of the conference delegates acted with bad faith and with malice 
 aforethought. This charge, however, come from what quarter it may, I unhesita- 
 ^ingly stamp with the name of slander. 1 think T should have been as likely as 
 any other person to have discovered the lurking treachery had it existed ; but, alas ! 
 ^t is the damning sin of politicians to lay personal claim to all the good that arises 
 from the projects of others, and to denounce with unsparing bitterness the miscarriage 
 of undertakings in which they were participants. I set out then with the reiteration 
 of my public and private declaration — that there existed no treachery in the delegate 
 conference — nay, I go so far as to aver that neither Cartledge or Griffin entered that 
 conference with any evil design, however revenge and the hope of gain may have 
 subsequently operated upon the one, and a hope of self-preservation upon the other. 
 These remarks do not refer to opinions conscientiously entertained and published 
 under honest conviction ; but they do apply to the more cowardly and dangerous 
 mode of inventing calumny and whispering it in private societies, until, like a snow- 
 ball, it gains strength in its course and ultimately becomes an accepted truism, the 
 accused having no means of justification. 
 
 It was necessary to make these preliminary observations in order that the confe- 
 rence, by whose boldness and sagacity Chartism was saved from the conspiracy of 
 the League, should stand fairly before the country. In developing the origin of the 
 outbreak, it will be necessary to direct the public mind to a calm consideration of 
 he machinery by which the League and their hirelings proposed to accomplish their 
 double purpose ; first, a total repeal of the Corn-laws by a physical revolution ; and, 
 secondly, the formation of an administration out of the free trade ranks : for, how- 
 ever they may have professed in Scotland and elsewhere a disregard of the political 
 Creed of those who should repeal the Corn-laws, yet be assured that, as the Reform 
 
416 
 
 Bill led to tlie formation of an administration from the ranks of the reform party, so 
 would the free-traders seek the same means for securing the practical carrying out of 
 free trade principles. If the Charter was carried to-morrow, as a matter of course 
 the country would look for a Chartist government; and as it ever has been, so 
 it ever will be, that the political party in the ascendant will*barry their power 
 to the formation of a government .from their own ranks, however plausibly 
 they may withhold a portion of their design while struggling for the attainment 
 of any substantive measure. The one, indeed the only, stumbling-block in the 
 way of the League to effect the latter object, was the bold and unequivocal 
 refusal of Lord John Russell to make an unprincipled agitation the road to politi- 
 cal power — and much as I have had reason to quarrel with many acts of Lord 
 John Russell, I have no hesitation in honestly declaring that he has satisfied my 
 mind that there is a price at which he would not purchase power. 
 
 The schemes by which the desired object was to be achieved have been openly 
 published in the newspapers of all shades of politics ; in the liberal press with enco- 
 mium, in the Tory papers for unfriendly comment ; however, there never has 
 been a fair analysis published of the manner in which the machinery was to be 
 arranged and the uses to which it was to be applied for the attainment of their first 
 and primary object, a repeal of the Corn-laws hy violence. I think, however, that, 
 I shall be enabled to throw some new light upon that subject, by merely pointing 
 to the speeches of some of the open conspirators, and to the overt acts of those who 
 warred upon us in mask. 
 
 My principal object in my present undertaking is to justify the innocent and to 
 saddle upon the guilty the weight of their own crime. As I shall be compelled to 
 introduce the part which the delegates who assembled at Birmingham were destined 
 to take in the struggle for a repeal of the Corn-laws, but, more especially, the use 
 that it was intended to make of the Chartist body in that conference, which was 
 originally to have assembled under the auspices of Mr. Sturge, prior to tiie out- 
 breaks, this may he the most fitting place to develope one feature of the case which 
 has'^not yet been subjected to comment. In searching for the most assailable points 
 through which a total cessation of labour might be effected, it fell to the lot of the 
 League to propose a plan by which all labour might be suspended by a coup de 
 main.” Argument had failed ; discussion was not permitted ; the organized 
 body of Chartists were not to be entrapped by the glib philosophy of hired, in- 
 terested, and unprincipled demagogues, and, consequently, a project was proposed> 
 by which the whole labour of the country should be suspended by compulsion^ 
 That project was the stoppage of all mining operations. Let me here transcribe 
 from the affidavit, the exact terms in which this project was couched. 
 
 The League and the And-inonopolist Association, with the assistance of the 
 colliers, have the power of compelling the aristocracy, in less than one month, to 
 abolish the Corn-laws altogether and to compet. them also to grant the People's 
 Charter.” Let the colliers in all parts of England cease ivork for a month, and 
 the thing is done ; they have only to insist on the measures before they go to work 
 again. This is the most simjjle an^ eficient measure that could he adopted to get 
 all we want, without spilling a drop of blood, or causing any commotion of any 
 kind. The city of London would be without fuel, and all other concerns must 
 COME TO A STAND till it ivas Settled” 
 
417 
 
 Now I ask, in the name of justice, in the ["name of decency, in the 
 name of common sense, how such an announcement from such a quarter 
 was leYt wholly unnoticed, while those who never used such language have 
 been made the victims of government wmth and persecution ? The Chartists 
 approve the continuance of a cessation from work by those who have been driven 
 from work, but do not recommend a single man to leave his employment, while 
 the League conspirators publish a scheme for compelling all to cease labour. 
 
 Let us now argue upon this part of the subject. Every man v/ho 
 has taken an active part in Chartist agitation is aware that the, non-adoption 
 of Chartist principles by the colliers has long been a source of deep regret; 
 in fact, that the colliers were not only not friendly to Chartist principles ; but, 
 on the contrary, were opposed to them, or heard them expounded with apparent 
 indifference. Very shortly, however, after the commencement of the above 
 project, we find a vigorous agitation started in the mining districts, and at the head 
 of which are some of the disciples of Mr. Joseph Sturge. As a matter of course 
 it would not have been prudent to state openly to the colliers that the object in in- 
 ducing them to cease from labour, was that thereby a repeal of the corn-laws may 
 be effected. But the plan was so to inflame their minds by a species of fanatical 
 hypocrisy and declamation, that they should threaten in the first instance, to see 
 what effect that would produce. This plot was carried to a certain length in parts 
 of Staffordshire by the preachers of Sturgism, when the most zealous in the Chartist 
 cause took advantage of the existing excitement and mixed up the question of the 
 Charter with the general question of wages, that upon which the Sturge biblical 
 rascals had inflamed them. However the League plot succeeded to a point beyond 
 what the conspirators had originally intended as a first experiment. The Chartists 
 begin to see through the trick, the masters seize the passing opportunity of making 
 a reduction in the wages of their impoverished workmen— all becomes confusion : 
 the masters, many of whom arc magistrates, become alarmed at their own monster, 
 and forthwith, the League and their fanatics skulk off and declare the whole to be a 
 Chartist conspiracy, employing coercion to cause a cessation from labour, in order 
 to compel her Majesty to change her measures. Was ever concoction more hellish, 
 or design more palpable, mean, and cowardly ? Did the charge of conspiracy against 
 the League rest here it might be considered weak, but when we couple this fact with 
 those which occurred simultaneously in the very heart of the manufacturing districts 
 it gives to the whole plot a most circumstantial importance. When, however, we' 
 take a fair, a full, and an impartial retrospect, one panoramic view of that which 
 now presents itself, as a whole, we need no such aid as single acts or individual de- 
 claration. And if it is rightly held that, in cases of murder, ‘circumstantial testi- 
 mony when wove into one perfect web of evidence can be made so strong, conclusive, 
 and convincing, as to justify the taking of life, by what law, I would ask, were we 
 excluded from establishing our own innocence, by proving the guilt of others, that 
 very guilt being charged on us ? In medical jurisprudence nothing is more common 
 than to prove the innocence of the accused upon mere presumption, while in our 
 case the presumption was adopted by the highest legal authorities in both houses 
 of parliament, and by the almost unanimous opinion of all classes, as well as by 
 the Press of the country; and yet were we precluded, not only from setting it up as 
 part of our defence, but furthermore from making it a ground for a mitigation o^ 
 punishment. 
 
418 
 
 Having said so much by way of introduction, I shall now proceed to the con- 
 sideration of the whole question. Sir Robert Peel’s tariff had the effect of dividing 
 the repealers into two distinct parties. Those of the commercial middle classes upon 
 the one hand, who saw more than compensation for the income tax in the reduced 
 prices of all consumable and wearable articles ; and those to whom such reduction 
 is insignificant as compared with their gigantic notions of profits, derived from 
 an extended trade, improved machinery to meet it, and reduced wages to work it. 
 This latter class was further divided into sections — men who had full stocks and 
 heavy balances against them, to whom general confusion would have been a 
 welcome change, and those whose accounts very much depended upon the prospects 
 of the former section. That is, the two sections of manufacturers were very much 
 in the situation of debtor and creditor ; the security of the one materially depending 
 upon the stability of the other. Thus were good and bad forced by artificial 
 circumstances into the same boat ; while the small manufacturers, ruined as if by 
 magic, saw nothing but beggary staring them in the face, to whom the reduced 
 price of consumable articles was as nothing, and who were ready for any change, 
 no matter fiow brought about, that held out a prospect of opening a market, so 
 long as they could hope to have a share in it. From this division in the ranks of the 
 free traders, we can fairly trace the increased excitement and altered tone of the 
 League. They were compelled to make up in threats and big words what they 
 had lost in numerical strength ; and I have not the least hesitation in saying, that, 
 had it not been for the tariff, the League could and would have forced Sir Robert 
 Peel to concede a total repeal of the Corn-laws, or would have compelled him to 
 abandon office and leave the w’ork to Lord Palmerston and his friends, with 
 Lord Melbourne at their head, who, notwithstanding many former declarations, 
 would have braved all and ev^ery thing for the restoration to his snuggery and easy 
 chair ” at the palace. After this division we hear of the League-fund, of committees 
 of public safety, of assassinations, of risings and riotings throughout the country, 
 of stoppage of mills, and so forth, while we find the working class unanimous, 
 or nearly so, in resisting the means used by the League for the achievement of 
 their darling object. That I, at least, foresaw the immediate effect which the tariff 
 would have upon the League, is placed beyond contradiction. In addition to my 
 opinions published immediately at the time, my recorded speeches bear irrefutable 
 proof of the fact. I traversed north and south Lancashire, Yorkshire, Notting- 
 hamshire, and other great manufacturing counties, announcing to hundreds of 
 thousands of working men the fact that the League had determined upon a revo- 
 lution to repeal the Corn-laws, and imploring the people to fold their arms and not 
 to be led by any excitement into a single violation of the law ; I pointed out the 
 manner in which the revolution was to be commenced, and so far succeeded in 
 developing the plot of the League, that, as early as the month of June, I was 
 denounced upon the hustings at Bingley as a Tory spy, jDaid to keep the working 
 people quiet. It will be in the recollection of thousands who attended that meeting, 
 that I answered, Why pay me ^or such honorable service, which I am ready to 
 spend my own money in performing ” When Mr. Acland informed me, at Halifax, 
 that we should have the Charter or a repeal of the Corn-laws in three weeks, and 
 that the means by which the change was to be effected was to be a simultaneous 
 turn-out of all the hands, I announced the project to the world, and I, in con- 
 
419 
 
 junction with other Chartist leaders, came to the resolution of cautioning the people 
 against the snare that had been laid for them. Before I enter upon the general 
 question of the mode of excitement resorted to by the League, and the hope of 
 impunity which the authorities in the large manufacturing towns held out to their 
 most violent partisans and lecturers, I shall comment firstly upon that portion of the 
 sworn evidence at Lancaster which confirms the charge that the League intended to 
 produce a general revolution, and I shall then explain how the Manchester conspi- 
 rators checked its progress. 
 
 In handling a mighty subject of this kind, it is not sufficient to say "Read 
 the Quarterly Review containing an account of the doings of the League it 
 is not enough that the reasoning mind is irresistibly led to a conclusion, upon 
 mere circumstantial evidence, that they were the originators of the outbreak. 
 No ; it is more satisfactory to lay before the reader real facts as bearing immediately 
 upon the case. This is my position. I contend that in July the League decided 
 upon a turn-out of the hands to effect a repeal of the Corn-laws, that the authorities, 
 being many of them manufacturers, not only tolerated violence as a means of 
 maturing the project, but that, so long as it continued to be an agitation for the 
 repeal of the Corn-laws, they aided, comforted and abetted in the conspiracy, 
 and that no means were used, no arrests made, or caution given, by the Law 
 authorities, until the people on strike resolved upon turning the agitation to the 
 attainment of the Charter. That they not only tamely looked on but openly 
 encouraged the most flagrant acts of violence that were committed throughout 
 the disturbances, and that it was not till after their expectations of making it an 
 agitation for their own measure had failed that they used those powers at their dis- 
 posal for the suppression of violence, and that then the parties hired by them, and 
 known to them to have been the most guilty, were unmolested, and, up to this moment 
 have escaped punishment or censure. 
 
 I shall proceed then to my proof from the sworn evidence of some of the wit- 
 nesses produced upon the trial at Lancaster. Rhodes, the son-in-law of Shipley, 
 swore that on the 9th of August, their hands, that is the hands of Rhodes and 
 Shipley, to the number of 200, w^ere turned out by about 150 of those on strike. 
 This act ^i^s committed four days after Bailey had turned his hands out, and while 
 others were under notice of a reduction, and when the League were in full expecta- 
 tion of thereby swelling the ranks of the revolutionists. Between the 9th and the 
 15th, many meetings of turn-outs were held, and were addressed by manufacturers 
 and their agents, all of which are tolerated by the authorities; on the 15th of August, 
 an important meeting of trades’ delegates, numbering over 300, declares for the 
 Charter; on the 16th, the same body is dispersed at the point of the bayonet, 
 having published an address as bold and manly as that of the Executive. And 
 then the hope of turning the agitation to repeal purposes having vanished, the au- 
 thorities set to work to screen themselves from the charge of neglect of duty, by 
 a vigorous exercise of power in a wu'ong direction. Between the 9tli and the 20th, 
 all the acts of outrage that did occur took place, and, as sworn to by every one of 
 the witnesses, the hands, after the 20th, began to return to their work. That is, 
 the masters again opened their mills, when the Chartists had succeeded in routing 
 them from their position. On the 26th, after all hope had fled from their mind, 
 Rhodes and Shipley’s men returned to work, and were attacked by six hundred of 
 
420 
 
 the turn-outs at noon, and whom they succeeded in resisting and heating off. 
 They were again attacked in the evening with an increased force, amounting to 
 about one thousand, as sworn to by Rhodes and Shipley, and that force also the 
 hands,' about one hundred and fifty in number, resisted and beat off; Shipley, a 
 decrepit old sinner, boasting that he had shot one or two 4'ilh arms that he had 
 for the purpose of defending his works, when the League plot had failed. Now, 
 can stronger evidence be adduced in proof of the fact that the turn out of the hands 
 in the beginning of August was a conspiracy, with the intent of compelling the 
 Queen to change her measures ? But the case does not rest here ^ we have the evi- 
 dence of Sir Thomas Potter, an active magistrate and a zealous repealer, informing 
 us that some parties — who, doubtless, were not in the conspiracy — applied for pro- 
 tection, or the means of defending their hands, and that the advice given to such 
 applicants by the authorities was', not to resist ; and observe, this advice was given 
 before the Chartists interfered. But, as 1 mean to carry the fire into the enemy’s 
 camp, and to charge the government with a perfect knowledge of all that has trans- 
 pired, I here insert Sir Thomas Potter’s cross-examination by the Attorney- 
 General at length. 
 
 You are one of the magistrates ? Yes, a borough magistrate as well as a county 
 magistrate. I think we have already got it that the magistrates issued a proclama- 
 tion ? Yes. A sort of joint proclamation ? Yes, we issued a proclamation in con- 
 junction. What number of special constables were sworn in in Manchester ? I 
 don’t just recollect. You can give me some notion of the number — how many 
 scores or hundreds ? At what period do you mean ? At any time after the 7tli 
 or 8th of August, down to the 16th or 17th ? I don’t know that I can speak with 
 any degree of certainty, but I should think about 500. Do you know how many 
 troops were in Manchester? We had, during the first week, about 500; but a de- 
 putation of the magistrates waited upon the Secretary for the Home Department, and 
 we had a considerable reinforcement. How many ? I cannot say. When did you 
 apply for more ? The deputation went off on the Saturday. What Saturday ? 
 
 ^‘The JUDGE : — The 13th ? Witness ; — No, my Lord — I think it was Saturday 
 — wait — Tuesday was the' 9th. Yes, I think it was Saturday the 13th. 
 
 ‘‘The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — How many more did you get ? I really can- 
 not tell, exactly ; we had a detachment of the guards, and some cavalry ; perhaps 
 about 1500, but I cannot speak with accuracy. I want no particular accuracy. 
 Was it beyond 1500 altogether ? I think so. Did you yourself persofttilly attend 
 as a magistrate at the Town Hall ? Oh yes. Are you able to tell me whether the 
 magistrates attended day and night ? Yes; I can tell you that they attended day 
 and night. For how long ? Oh, I think it was three or four weeks. Two or three 
 magistrates were lodged at the adjacent hotel — indeed, next door— in readiness to be 
 called up at any hour. How many weeks ? I think it would be full four weeks. 
 Where was the commander-in-chief of the district at the time ? He was at the York 
 Hotel, close by the Town Hall. Were the magistrates in attendance ? Yes. Did 
 the special constables attend at the Town Hall? Yes. Day and night.? I don’t 
 know whether they w^ere all night, though I think they were. Was there not a re- 
 lay of them relieving each other, so that there should be a party in constant attend- 
 ance day and night ? I believe there was. For how long.? For at least a month. 
 Did you see anything of what occurred in Manchester on Tuesday the 9th, and 
 Wednesday the lOlh of August ? On Tuesday the 9th, I was at my warehouse the 
 whole of the day, but I heard of these things — I don’t want to know. Sir Thomas, 
 what you heard, I want to ki ow whether you saw anything of the state of Manches- 
 ter, the public streets, the shops, and warehouses, during those two days ? I saw no- 
 thing particular on the 9th. On Wednesday there seemed to be a great deal of ex- 
 citement. Were not all the shops shut ? 1 don’t think many of the shops were shut 
 
421 
 
 on the Wednesday. Then were they on the Tuesday or the Thursday ? No, cer- 
 tainly not on the Tuesday. 
 
 ‘‘ The JUDGE : — I thought you said you were in the warehouse all the Tues- 
 day ? So I was, my lord. 
 
 ** The JUDGE : — 'riien you don’t know ? Witness : — I believe the shops were 
 not shut up, hut I don’t know of my own knowledge. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — I want to know whether you were present 
 •at any of the violence, or at the stoppage of any of the mills ? No, I was not; I 
 was the oldest magistrate, and they kept me principally at the Town Hall, with the 
 exception that I once w'ent at the head of the troops to the railroad. What was that 
 for ? We heard that they were attempting to destroy the railroad. A troop of 
 cavalry was called out, and I went with them ; but another magistrate soon came 
 and relieved me. I suppose you went for the purpose of authorising the firing of 
 the troops, if necessary ? Yes. What time did that happen ? I don’t know ; but I 
 think it must have been a week after. Do you remember the day of the week ? I 
 don’t. It could not be Tuesday the 9th, or Wednesday ? Oh, no ; it was not that 
 week, but the following. And did you go with the troops ? A"es. How many ? 
 There was a troop of horse, about forty I suppose. And have you no recollection. 
 Sir Thomas ? Don’t understand me, that, in putting the question, I have any other 
 feeling than the greatest respect ; you cannot imagine that I have any other 
 feeling ? Oh certainly not. But you cannot tell what day you went with the forty 
 troopers to protect the railway ? I really cannot ; it was some lime the following 
 week. Who bad the command of the troops in Manchester ? Do you mean when 
 the reinforcements came ? Yes. Sir Thomas Arbuthnot and Sir William Warre. 
 Now, 1 want to know, whether you were present at any meeting of the magistrates 
 when any persons came to demand or to request assistance ? Yes ; I believe I was. 
 Were you present at any time when the magistrates advised them to stop their 
 works for the present, and not to make any resistance, or anything of that sort. Yes; 
 I think there was a general advice of that sort given. There was a general advice 
 given not to resist ? Yes. Why was that advice given, sir ? 
 
 ^^Mr. O’CONNOR : — I have no objectmn, my Lord, to the fullest developement 
 of the case ; but is this evidence ? 
 
 - The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Then I will ask it. I will put it plump to 
 him. Was not the state of the town such that you did not dare to advise the parties 
 to resist?— Were you not afraid of bloodshed and tumult ? Witness: — Individually, 
 I was never afraid. I don’t impute to you personal fear, sir; but I ask you, 
 whether the town was not in that state that the magistrates advised them to yield to 
 the mob, in order to prevent tumult and confusion ? Why, the fact is, they had no 
 difficulty ;. for the parties seemed quite ready to be turned out, or to turn-out. 
 There was no force necessary, that is very well known. Come, Sir Thomas, that is 
 no answer to my question. 
 
 “ Mr. O’CONNOR : — I dare say it is not the one you wanted. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : — You were telling me yon were present when 
 the people came for assistance, and they were advised not to resist, I ask you, why 
 was that advice given ? I cannot say why. I recollect a young man came asking 
 advice whether he should fire upon the mob. He said he had cannon, and could 
 destroy so many ; and I know we advised him to do no such thing. Did not you, 
 or the magistrates, recommend the persons not to resist the attempts of the mob ? 
 { don’t remember any particular recommendation ; but I know it was our opinion 
 that it was better not to resist. And was it not to prevent bloodshed ? I think not. 
 I don’t think that the magistrates were at all under the influence of fear. Then will 
 you tell me, why you recommended them not to resist ? I believe, in some cases, as 
 at Mr. Birley’s mill, they did resist effiectually. Was that any reason why you 
 should recommend them not to resist? I don’t know whether we did recommend them 
 not to resist. Why, sir, I ask you whether, at every mill that effectually resisted, 
 was not the advice by the magistrates to give up resistance ? Not in my hearing; 
 certainly not. Do you remember Messrs. Stirling and iieckton making an appli- 
 
422 
 
 cation ? I was not present when they made any, though I believe they did make 
 one. 
 
 « Mr. O’CONNOR -.—That will do. Sir Thomas.” 
 
 I now select the following question, put by the Attorney-General in his cross- 
 examination, as direct proof that the Government were in possession of the whole 
 facts of the case. He asks, Now, I want to know, luhether you were present at 
 any meeting of the magistrates when any 'persons came to demand or to request 
 assistance P ” Answer — Yes, I believe I was.” Were you present at any 
 time when the magistrates advised them to stop their work for the present and not 
 to make any resistance, or something of that sort P ” Answer— Yes, T think 
 THERE WAS A GENERAL ADVICE OF THAT SORT GIVEN.” There wds d general 
 advice given not to resist P ” “ Yes.” Subsequently, it will be seen, that, when 
 
 the Attorney-General plumped it to him,” Sir Thomas Potter says, he was not 
 called upon, and that the fact teas, there was no disposition to resist. Now, will 
 any sane man, in this civilized country, contend for one moment that even-handed 
 justice has been dealt out. When we find the first law ofiicer of the Crown con- 
 ducting a prosecution against working men, and resisting the production of evidence 
 which would unquestionably have satisfied the jury as to who the real offenders 
 were ; and then, when driven to it, compelled, in his cross-examination of a 
 magistrate, to admit that he was in possession of facts which led to the outbreak, 
 but dare not censure the wrong doers ? 
 
 I now come to a consideration of the part taken by the conspirators in this alarm- 
 ing outbreak. Either the doctrine must be set up that, as a political party, we, the 
 Chai'tists, had no right to interfere, or every good man upon .reflection must admit, 
 that our interference at the moment, had the most wholesome, salutary, and healing 
 effect. It is a fact which none will deny, that the longer a strike continues, the 
 more likely it is to acquire an augmentation to its numbers, and thereby become 
 more dangerous and appalling, while it is proved, beyond a possibility of doubt, that 
 those who looked to such a frightful state of things for the accomplishment of tijeir object 
 had the power to augment or diminish the number of the turn-outs, and that they did 
 augment their numbers from the 5th of August to that period when they discovered that 
 the force created for one purpose would be used for another, and to which they had no 
 inclining. That no remonstrance was conveyed to the Hunt’s monument commit- 
 tee, that no proclamation was issued, that no arrests were made, that no disapproba- 
 tion was expressed, that no precaution was used, while the machinery for revolution 
 was being organised ; but that the moment the tide of tongues turned the public 
 mind to another object, then we hear of hasty communications between the Hunt’s 
 committee and the magistrates, then we hear of royal proclamations and proclama- 
 tions from the authorities; then we hear of that vigorous exercise of power, which, if 
 merely threatened in the outset, would have arrested the evil on its first appearance. 
 If, on the other hand, as the wisest of the judges of the land have declared, we have a 
 right to advocate Chartism, let us now see whether or not the conspirators ihade' a dis- 
 creet use of that right. Suppose the delegates had met and had separated without taking 
 notice or ad vantage of passing events, wdiat, I would ask, in such case would haive been . 
 the value of the right conceded by the judges, and then comes the question as to the 
 use we did make of the occasion., ^e had an open rheetingi A dUserter from our 
 ranks admitted as a reporter for any portion of the press hO chose to communicate 
 
423 
 
 with. Strangers and .youths are admitted to our deliberations. We publish every act 
 done in conference. Upon the appearance of the following number of the Northern 
 Star, published on the 20th, the masters, deprived of their forces, open their mills, and 
 invite their hands to return to work for the first time since the turn-out. No further 
 violation of law or act of outrage takes place. The disappointed masters instantly 
 put the law in full force against all but the instigators in order to screen the really 
 guilty parties ; a government agent is sent down to enquire into the whole affair ; he 
 very naturally goes to the guilty authorities, overt acts are the things to which his at- 
 tention is directed; these are said to have been committed by the hands who are all 
 Chartists, and thus is the name of Chartist outbreak given to the most foul and dam- 
 nable conspiracy that ever was hatched against the Chartist cause. Had the dele- 
 gates passed a resolution recommending the hands to remain ouL until the Corn- 
 laws were repealed, no power at the disposal of government, no power, save that of 
 the Almighty ruler of events, could have averted a bloody revolution ; the end of 
 which would have been weeping and wailing upon the part of the confiding people^ 
 and the establishment of a capitalist-malthusian dynasty, more cruel, bloody, and 
 tyrannical than the worst species of military despotism, under which no slave’s con- 
 dition would be one half as good as that of a common soldier. To prevent that state 
 of things I was a willing conspirator ; and, should the dread necessity arise again, I 
 will again conspire for a like purpose. 
 
 What, then, was the result of Chartist interference, and what was the question 
 debated by the delegates, and what was the cause assigned for the part they took ? 
 The result of their interference was to paralyze the hand of faction, to force open 
 the factory door that had been closed against those to whose fury the capi- 
 talists looked as a means of terrifying government and all opposed to their darling 
 measure, relied upon by some as a means of increasing their already over abundant 
 and unjustly acquired wealth, and by others, whose outward and visible signs be- 
 spoke solidity and security, but whose bankers’ books and liabilities betokened ap- 
 proaching ruin, which could only be an’ested by a crash in which all would be levelled, 
 as a means of hiding that condition to which gambling in human existence, assisted 
 by fraudulent loans of confiding shareholders’ money, had brought them. When 
 those appliances were wrenched from their hands, fury, indignation, and disappoint- 
 ment succeed sanguine hope and promised gain, and those worst of all malignities 
 are directed with double purpose against the saviours of their country; firstly, as 
 a means of revenge, and secondly, in the hope of screening the really guilty, by 
 accusing the really innocent. It is a remarkable fact, that failure after failure of the 
 most prominent revolutionists followed the declaration of the people to abandon the 
 League project; and is it wonderful then, that the penalty for frustrating such rn 
 nnholy mode of balancing accounts should have been imprisonment, torture, trans- 
 portation, or even death. The very moment that the concoctors of rebellion discovered 
 the weakness of their physical forces, they turned to the moral protection of the law. 
 As magistrates they appear to have awakened from a long slumber ; as masters they 
 appear to have learned the impossibility of keeping the torrent, which they them- 
 selves had created, within the prescribed bounds, which in their weakness they 
 had assigned to it; as men they see the flood of opinion rising to overwhelm them, 
 they then open the flood gates which they had closed against the tide, the waters grad- 
 ually subside, the elements of discord pass away, society is restored to its forme i* 
 
 T 7 
 
424 
 
 calm, but their disappointment must have its sacrifice, and the League, fearful of the 
 failure of their own project proving the weakness of their forCe, and in the hope of 
 shewing the imbecility of the Chardsts, thunder forth their anathemas against the 
 verv men who flew to the rescue, and invoke, first, military aid to repress, and 
 then legal persecution to punish them. 
 
 Such were the immediate results of Chartist interference. Next, what was the 
 question debated by the delegates. This could have been proved from the notes of 
 Griffin, the only reporter who took a full report of the proceedings, had the Attorney- 
 General examined him to the contents of those notes, but he dare not; and then, in 
 his reply, stoically turns upon me and asks, why I did not examine him to those 
 notes; as well might he have said, ‘‘ There, is the indictment upon which I charge 
 you all with the several offences set forth, there is a list of the witnesses for the prose- 
 cution, examine them, if you please, to prove your innocence, or else the jury must 
 presume your guilt.” Every advocate for the defendants very properly abstained 
 from a course which, from such a witness, might have extracted a fresh lie. And 
 was it our business to make out the prosecutor’s case ? But the fair presumption is, 
 that, had these notes made against the defendants, they would have been tread at 
 length, as there appeared no impatience on the part of the Crown to hear the pot 
 hooks and hangers of hired and illiterate spies, spelt, read, and translated when a 
 single word prejudicial to a single defendant could be extracted. But here I shall 
 take the opportunity of proving, from the very omission, the fact that the whole 
 prosecution was a conspiracy, of which the Attorney-General must have been 
 cognizant, and that the indictment was purposely framed with a desire of implicating 
 the innocent by the acts of those against whom something in the shape of evidence 
 might be extorted. Why, then, were not Griffin’s notes read at full length ? For 
 this simple reason, — because the Attorney-General knew that those notes would have 
 insured my acquittal. Why, then, did I not examine to those notes ? Because I was 
 in the same boat, with a crew with whom I had embarked on an honorable expe- 
 dition, and I would sacrifice life itself before I would inculpate the meanest to 
 exculpate myself. Suppose I had examined Griffin to those notes, how did I know 
 what he might have added to the prejudice of some of the defendants, and what 
 would have been my feelings had I succeeded in accomplishing that which the 
 Attorney-General failed to effect, namely, to prove the guilt of any by the examina- 
 tion in chief of the “’traitor” Griffin — aye “Traitor ’’—the Just Judge gave him 
 the name, and his performances stood sponsors. But had these notes been indeed 
 a fair report of the proceedings, and had I desired to establish my own innocence 
 at the hazard of impugning others, what, I ask, could I have proved ? Why, that 
 I not only discountenanced, but censured every strong expression used in debate ; 
 and that, when the traitor Cartledge proposed the arrest of the magistrates and 
 masters as hostages, and -recourse to violence, I not only rebuked hini, but, 
 as every delegate will remember, I told him that I doubted the prudence of 
 ‘admitting such men to our deliberations. It is natural then to conclude, that 
 this would have appeared upon the notes of his brother traitor and would 
 not have much served the character of Cartledge with the jury. — "What then, 
 in the absence of those notes, was the question discussed by the delegates ? 
 It was this : — How revolution might be averted, and how, at the same time, events 
 might bh fairly turned to the advantage of Chartism — and after long and calm dis- 
 
425 
 
 cussion, it was decided that the League had fomented the outbreak, not more from a 
 desire to repeal the Corn-laws, than to get rid of their hands, rendered unremunera- 
 ting until the surplus produce should be disposed of, and with the further intention 
 of embarking the Chartists in an undertaking from the failure of which they 
 calculated the annihilation of our cause, and to the success of which they looked for 
 the ascendancy of their party, and the accomplishment of their object. In shorty 
 with them the odds were, heads we toin, harps you lose." Such was the 
 character of the debate, and now I am to disclose the reasons assigned for the part 
 they took in the affair. 
 
 Of course the very election of the delegates is prima facie proof of their know- 
 ledge ol those political events then passing. They, many of them, indeed a large 
 majority, came from the very districts then disturbed, and one and all appeared to 
 be fully impressed with a belief, that, if not stopped, hunger, destitution, insult and 
 deprivation of every kind would drive the people to madness and despair, and the 
 more certainly if deserted by old and tried leaders, in whom they had every reason 
 to place the most unbounded confidence. It was with this view that the only 
 resolution passed was drawn up ; it was with this view that the address of the dele- 
 gates published in the Northern Star of the 20th was adopted. These documents 
 had the salutary effect of proving to the Chartist community, that, in the hour of 
 danger, their friends were at hand, and that, in the midst of chaos, they still adhered 
 to their own principles as the best and only means of restoring society to that state 
 in which the power of the disturber would be weak and pointless — such then 
 was the result of our interference — such was the character of our debate, and such 
 were the reasons for our interference, and, if the end did not justify the means, I am 
 no judge of what is right or what is wrong. But as our cause has survived the 
 shock of the power of united factions, and yet ffourishes amid their approaching ruin, 
 public opinion will justify what malice has persecuted, and will teach to the world 
 the moral lesson that bayonets and edicts contending against thought and opinion, 
 are engaged in hopeless warfare, for even the man who falls a victim to the point of 
 the one, or the tyranny of the other, leaves a spirit behind, which binds the living 
 in a faster union — more than compensating for a single loss. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to the several matters contained in the affidavit — 
 let us also bear in mind the several phases, which, according to circumstances the 
 turn-outs assumed — ^let us carry in our own minds the conduct of all parties as a 
 whole, and from those sources I undertake to prove to every sane man, that the 
 revolution was intended, and that the Chartists resisted it — that the government knew 
 that it was intended, but was afraid to use means for its suppression until that division 
 brought about by the conference delegates had disunited the parties supposed by the 
 government to have been associated for one common object ; the rich oppressor 
 upon one side, and the poor oppressed upon the other. 
 
 We have learned the character of those speeches made in the League Conferences, 
 held in London and at Manchester ; we have seen the predictions of prophets, with 
 power to fulfil their own forebodings, verified ; we have seen the exact machinery 
 upon which they relied brought into perfect operation at the required moment, and 
 remaining in active operation for the • predicted time ; and now let us ask, with 
 such facts before us, coupled with others to which I shall brieffy refer — was it pos- 
 sible that other results than those which unfortunately did spring from such a combi- 
 
428 
 
 nation of circumstances could have occurred. The circumstance^ then to which I 
 propose to direct your attention are these ; — The most influential men of the League 
 after the failure of Mr.Villiers’ motion in the House of Commons, ranged themselves 
 in open hostility to the law and the government— their speeches were published by the 
 whole press of the country— they were accompanied by comments the most exciting 
 and inflammatory, and were circulated gratuitously amongst the most distressed por- 
 tion of the working classes. In those speeches the revolutionists pointed out the 
 means by which all authority might be successfully assailed, and, indeed, one reverend 
 gentleman (Mr, Spencer) in his zeal went so far as to recommend the introduction into 
 London of some thousands of starving operatives from the north of England, to play 
 the part of sturdy stmnge beggars, for the purpose of intimidating the monopolists. 
 Jf we then follow those men to their several localities after the conference had broken 
 up, we And them, in their individual characters, at times labouring zealously in 
 their vocations as conspirators, freely distributing those inflammatory and sedi- 
 tious notions (which had been concocted in conference) amongst the poor 
 and impoverished operatives. A mayor tells them, in his own locality, that if 
 they are hungry they have a right to steal, and that if they are shot in their 
 theft, the act is murder. A member of parliament tells them that they have 
 suffered too long, and that a few weeks will try the mettle of his country- 
 men. A Scotch provost informs them that if risings and riotings take place 
 he, as a Christian magistrate, would not feel himself justified in using the force at hi* 
 disposal for their suppression — a man of eminence amongst them tells them that 
 risings and riotings must take place — W'hile their most popular, and by far their 
 most powerful organ, the Sun” announces the declaration as one which will be 
 received throughout the country with joy, and will be responded to with cheers— 
 the three bloody days in Paris, which destroyed monarchy and established a des- 
 potism in that country, are pointed to as worthy of imitation — the weakness of 
 government, if simultaneously assailed by masters and men, is industriously 
 pointed out. The whole body of landlords against whom the fire of popular wTath 
 is to be directed, are marked for vengeance — they are designated as murderers, plun- 
 derers, and tyrants — their accumulated property is represented as a nuisance and spoil 
 stolen from the nation— and that to burn or otherwise destroy it would be no crime — 
 the assassination of the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be the organ of the mono- 
 polists, is a thing familiarly spoken of and applauded —the necessity for letting loose 
 the w'hqle of the labouring population so that they may march, not in peace, but in 
 battle, is trumpeted forth. The hope of juries of their own order visiting those 
 atrocities with impunity is held out to the actors— their agents throughout the coun- 
 try are tuned to the same key and sound the same note of preparation ; and, not 
 satisfied with the most inflammatory declarations, and the publication of those in 
 full, we find a printing press at their service used for the purpose of giving circula- 
 tion to the most seditious portions of their harangues, wdth a view of impressing 
 hem more forcibly upon the inflamed minds of paupers rendered desperate by 
 want. , 
 
 Will any man in his senses say that the government w’as unaw'are of those cir- 
 cumstances, or ignorant of the results to which they must inevitably lead ? or will 
 any man say that the actors in the conspiracy were ignorant of tlie impression which 
 such publications must make upoli the minds of starving men ? Why then, it may 
 
427 
 
 be asked, did ifot the government put a stop to those transactioiis in the outset ? or 
 whj, if the strong arm of the law became necessay for their suppression, was it not 
 directed against the real offenders ? or why are the innocent still hunted and perse- 
 cuted after the declaration made by Mr. Justice Patteson, and acquiesced in by the 
 Lord Chief Justice of England, that the language used by the League was highly 
 seditious and punishable by the law ?” With what colour of justice can the first law 
 officer of the crown still persevere in his crusade against honest, innocent working 
 men after his declaration that the language used by the League was seditious and 
 illegal, while those parties remain unpunished ? What is the sophistry of the 
 Attorney-General ? ** Oh,” says he, but those parties are not before the Court. 
 To this I answer, — ‘"But if any should be, they are the parties who ought to he 
 before the Court.” 
 
 The next question which arises is, why are they not there, and whose duty was 
 to bring them there ? They are not there because the Attorney-General is afraid to 
 bring them there, he has failed in the performance of that duty, and, however he 
 may have succeeded in getting a nominal verdict of guilty against some poor 
 working men for acts of which he knew others had been guilty, yet, thank God, 
 there is a tribunal too large to he packed — and too pure to he purchased — 
 to whom the persecuted may yet appeal, and that appeal will be responded 
 to by both rich and poor, when the whole case shall be laid before them de- 
 nuded of legal ingenuity and stript of political craft. But beyond such con- 
 siderations I have proof, irrefutable proof of the fact, that when Mr. Gregory 
 went down to Manchester, as agent for the Crown, he there learned the whole facts 
 of the case; and further, that he went there with an impression that I had been the 
 author of what is called the Executive Placard, and that, after several days of search- 
 ing inquiry, he acknowledged to more than one person that he had discovered his error 
 upon that as well as many other points ; and, nevertheless, he either withheld 
 those facts from the knowledge of the prosecutors, or, if he communicated them, the 
 Government is guilty of persevering in a prosecution for which they were aware 
 there was not the slightest foundation. This crusade, however, against Chartism, 
 has now terminated, after an expenditure of between 20,000f. and 30,000/., and will 
 the country be satisfied that it has had that amount in justice : and in what position 
 does this strong Government now find itself — beaten in law by a handful of poor 
 working men, and despised by all for its truckling weakness to a party of whose 
 guilt it was cognizant, hut whose power it dreaded. . If the evil even stopped 
 here it w’ould not be so great, hut we must look to the after results likely to 
 arise from this persecution of the innocent and impunity to the guilty. Every 
 man must he aware that however immediate failure may cause a temporary 
 despondency amongst free traders, that that body is too powerful to be 
 driven from its purpose, and that it will naturally look to the impunity of the past 
 as an inducement to try the same means once more for effecting their purpose. 
 VViiat is the fair presumption now? Why, naturalh’, that at any given moment 
 society may be disturbed by a similar course of action ; the hands may be again 
 turned out when stocks are heavy, and the same results wdiich followed the last 
 experiment, w'ould fiow from one of a similar kind ; while tile hojie of the Conspi- 
 rators may be strengthened by past impunity. They liaVd ohly to create the dis- 
 turbance, and the people, being Chartists, will be necessarily compelled to take part 
 
428 ' 
 
 in them, when, should a second failure take place, the vengeance of the law will be 
 again directed against the offended, while the offenders will, as before, escape with 
 impunity ; and yet we are told that there is not one law for the rich and another 
 law for the poor — nor in truth is there — for there is strong law for the poor, and no 
 law but caprice for the rich. There is one feature in this case which fully illustrates 
 the fact, it is the case of Mr. Conspirator Southam, and to which I shall here refer ; 
 and, fortunately for me, this case is taken out of the mild sophistry of the Attorney- 
 General, for here we had a wealthy master and a Leaguer within the trammels of 
 the law ; and let us see what has become of him ? He is the very man who 
 proposed the invasion of Manchester. 
 
 Now then, I ask, was any sentiment as strong as that uttered by any one of the 
 tried conspirators — Was any language of theirs equally calculated to produce riot, 
 tumult and even revolution ? Here is a volunteer leader ready to place himself at 
 the head of an excited and exasperated people to lead them to Manchester, provided 
 that their object was a repeal of the Corn-laws. What, I ask, has become of this 
 Quixotic demagogue ? — Has he been torn from his family — has he been consigned 
 to the tender mercies of the jailor — is his lot a felon’s cell — is he branded as a 
 conspirator — and upon his apprehension, and after the strongest evidence bad been 
 adduced against him, was he remanded, and re-remanded to a filthy cell, until the 
 street-sweepers of Manchester could procure evidence against him — or was he 
 obliged to find bail in £2000 amount for his appearance ? No, no ; no such thing, 
 he was bound in some £200 bail ; his case was quickly disposed of ; he is at home 
 with his family, and ready at the word of command once more to lead his starving 
 slaves in their attack upon the lives or property of others, provided his own, and 
 those of his order, stand in no danger ; and then we are to be told that there is not 
 one law for the rich and another law for the poor ! 
 
 Having thus very briefly shown that the conduct of the League was sure to lead 
 to some terrible result, that they anticipated that result, that the government were 
 in full possession of every word spoken, and of every act done, by that body, and 
 that the government either did learn, or should have learned, from their professional 
 plenipotentiary, that I and my friends were wholly innocent of the offences laid to 
 our charge — I shall now carry the fire into the enemies’ camp, and convict the 
 government upon proof so complete and clear, that nothing but disregard of po- 
 pular opinion and reliance upon physical force can save them from the conse- 
 quences of their inattention, their carelessness, their cowardice, and their injustice. 
 That the outbreak was a great national calamity no man will deny ; that its cha- 
 racter was not at all heightened by the public journals is a fact that I am ready to 
 admit ; and that a solemn enquiry into the origin, the progress and causes of such 
 an event should be laid before a competent tribunal, none but the really guilty will 
 deny. Whether O’CJpnnor said, Take advantage of passing events to push our 
 cause,” — or whether Cartledge brought a placard to McDouall to be printed, and 
 corrected if necessary — Whether James Leach had a copy of that placard, like all 
 other newsvendors, at Iris door, and whether the bill poster who stuck it there left 
 another in his shop while he was absent — Whether Doyle was with a party of turn- 
 outs while those a half-mile behind him did some damage to the locks of the 
 canal-^'V^hether Mooney, having said that the Chartists were prepared to cairy 
 the Charter by physical force, having a double barrelled gun and three single 
 
429 
 
 ones — Whether Arthur sat in Scholefield’s chapel without once opening his lips — 
 Whether Broohe wrote short notes of what really did occur at that meeting — Whe- 
 ther Pilling said, I’ll drub,” or “ I’ll drum the Oldham boys to-morrow” — 
 Whether he said Hoole or Dick, or Fool or Dick — Whether Jamieson’s men were 
 making a black jacket or a brown jacket when the committee of public safety inter- 
 fered and gave a decree in favour of the mourning — Whether those who were shot 
 at Preston were hit in the front or hack — Whether Griffin was induced by bribes 
 and the hope of exposing me, and Cartledge by hope of saving himself — Whether 
 Scholefield, in going through his chapel to his back premises went for his raven or his 
 jackdaw — Whether such transactions should have been inquired into some way or 
 other is not the question. What I contend is, that a great national investigation 
 should not have been put upon so paltry, slender, and complicated an issue, and 
 that, as the Courts will not allow the right of property to be tried by tfti action for 
 assault, neither should the crown have allowed a great national question to have 
 been decided by the persecution of a few minor actors in the great drama — where 
 all the appliances of persecution were on the one side, and all the adverse circum- 
 stances upon the other. What then was the clue that government had to the trans- 
 action, beyond what the published evidence furnished. 
 
 Besides the compilation of the most striking facts laid before them in their mos 
 powerful and favoured organ, The Quarterly Review, and [which remain uncontra- 
 dicted to this moment, they had the opinion of Lord Brougham that the establish- 
 ment of the truth or falsehood of those allegations should constitute a portion of the 
 duty of the Crown at Lancaster. They had the implied admission of the Secretary 
 of State for the Home Department to the same effect, when, in his place in parlia- 
 ment, he said, that at the approaching trials at Lancaster, the whole case would be 
 gone into. They further had the congratulations of Lord Stanhope very laudably 
 expressed in his place in the House of Lords, as to the temper and forbearance ex- 
 hibited by the working classes while on strike. They had the declaration of Lord 
 Francis Egerton in his place in parliament, that the League were charged with being 
 the originators of the outbreak. They had the declaration of Mr. Fielderi in his 
 place, that the Poor-law’ Amendment Bill” was the cause of the revolution. They 
 had the declaration of Mr. Ferrand in his place, that machinery was the cause, and 
 they had the declaration of Mr. Cobden, that the conservative landlords of Lanca- 
 shire were the cause ; add 1o which, the disagreement existing between the leading 
 journals as to w’ho the guilty parties were ; the anti-monopolist journals charging it 
 upon the landlords, while the monopolist prints laid it at the door of the employers ; 
 but until I was arrested, not a tongue charged the Chartists with the offence, although 
 every act done by our party was published without reserve in the Northern Star 
 newspaper, and although the executive placard had been published in every paper 
 in the kingdom, with the exception of the Northern Star, and although the States* 
 man and the Weekly Chronicle bestowed much labour of love in endeavouring to 
 prove, not only that I approved of that document, but that I actually drew it up with 
 my own hand : and to those two liberal prints we are pre-eminently indebted for the 
 measure of persecution we have suffered. Here, says the Attorney-General to Gre- 
 gory, here we have the fact admitted in a Chartist paper ; hut Gregory learned at 
 jVTanchester that it was false. But [even beyond these innumerable charges, what 
 further proof have we of the'fact that [the government was cognizant of the whole 
 
430 
 
 transaction, and merely resorted to persecution of Chartist leaders to cover 
 their own disgrace ? If all the facts that I have stated are not sufficient to saddle the 
 charge of cowardice upon the government, that which I am now about to add will 
 prove, not only that they knew who the real offenders were, but that they actually 
 threw the shield of their protection over them. 
 
 I have before stated that there existed a strong desire upon the part of all classes, 
 with the exception of the government and the League, that a full, fair, and searching 
 enquiry should be had into those causes which had all but led to civil war. And 
 now let us see who resisted all appeals for such an enquiry. ’ Night after night, at 
 the commencement of the session, government was taunted with having created po- 
 verty by their acts of commission and omission, and that the increasing poverty led 
 to increased insecurity. They resisted all application for enquiry, which would be 
 likely to bring the state of tb$ people fairly before tlie country, but furthermore they 
 actually resisted a motion for an enquiry into the origin of those very outbreaks, for 
 creating which we were persecuted. I would ask any sane man then ; any man lov- 
 ing peace and order and justice, whether the mock trial at Lancaster, or a full en- 
 quiry before a committee of the House of Commons, would have been the best mode 
 of arriving at the truth, and whether such course would not have been more credita- 
 ble to ministers and more satisfactoiy to the nation at large ; and does not the refu- 
 sal of government to sanction such inquiry at once and for ever establish the belief 
 that they had a perfect knowledge of all that was likely to transpire before that com- 
 mittee, and that they resisted it lest they should be brought in contact with the beastly 
 League, who would find favour in the sight of juries of their own order and kidney* 
 The Chartists prayed hard and incessantly for such enquiry. I used my every ex- 
 ertion to procure it, hut all to no purpose ; the fears of the landlords must be alarmed 
 by a Chartist scare-crow,” and the guilt of the League must be screened from dread 
 of their power. 
 
 Let us now consider, what evidence would have been presented to that committee 
 had it been granted, in addition to those notorious facts which I have already stated, 
 and which, of themselves, were more than ample not only to justify, but to demand, 
 enquiry the most open, full, and searching. We would have proved that the League, 
 in conjunction with some shopkeepers, hired delegates to traverse north Lancashire, 
 for the purpose of inflaming the people’s minds, and to prepare them for a turn-out 
 to carry a repeal of the Corn-laws ; that they were furnished with the most inflam- 
 matory, sanguinary, and bloody placards; that they called at the house of the 
 conspirator Leach, and that Leach most vehemently implored them to abandon their 
 design. That the League and the shopkeepers entered into a subscription to support 
 the turn-outs as long as they remained out for a repeal of the Corn-law’s. That the 
 Attorney -General had one of those placards placed in his hands, and that he 
 hnows it was beyond comparison moie violent than the Executive Placard. That 
 the League gave instructions to those itinerating firebrands, as to the mode of 
 insuring a repeal of the Corn-laws by a turn-out, which must lead to physical 
 aggression. These things Avould have been proved by thousands. What further 
 evidence could I have brought to hear upon the general question ? This — that early 
 in June I learned the intentions of the League, that those intentions were to have 
 been carried out firstly in North Lancashire, cowai d-like away from their own works, 
 and where the poor hand-loom weavers of Burnley, of Colne, of Padiham, of 
 
431 
 
 Accrington, Prestooj and otli^r towns, Wotild have futnkhed willing soldiers for the 
 experimental war. That I Cautioned the operatives of North and South Lancashire 
 against the project, that I apprised them of the design, and told them that we did 
 not stand so much in danger from Tory spies (as the Tories did not want an ouU 
 break) as we did from spies bought from our own ranks by the League for the 
 purpoise of creating confusion : that letter remains (with the date) in print. That 
 about the end of June, or the beginning of July, I made a tour of north Lancashire,, 
 at the risk of my life, to save my party from the snares that had been set for them.. 
 That I discovered, while in that district, that a delegate meeting had been projected 
 by strangers, for the purpose of denouncing and throwing overboard our Executive 
 Committee, and of coming out some fine morning with Pot-sticks and clubs to fight 
 for the Charter. This I, in conjunction wiili a few others, discovered and put a 
 stop to ; thus saving thousands from death and thousands from persecution. I 
 admit that some of our very best and most zealous friends were likely to be caught 
 in this trap ; and this is the danger the bold and zealous are in, not the danger of 
 their own actions, but that arising from the intrigues of others; while we seldom 
 find that a single projector waits the firing of the train which he lias laid. It was 
 so in this case. The concoctors were to come from a distance, and to return to a 
 distance when others had undertaken their work, as in 1839, the valiant leader to 
 whom poor Holbery owes his death, when asked to remain to see the fulfilment of 
 his project, replied , — ** 0, no, a good general should never put his person in 
 danger," — He fled, and poor Holbery died his victim. 
 
 When I returned to Manchester, after my tour in North Lancashire,! met McDouall 
 and Leach, and spoke to them as follows : — ** I tell you what, we must look after 
 North Lancashire. What do you think — [ had a free-trade resolution submitted to 
 me last night, which it was intended to propose to an immense meeting that I 
 addressed. When I read it, I instantly said, if any man dares to propose that I 
 will move the Charter as an amendment, and denounce him from the platform 
 whatever the consequence maybe. It was then abandoned.” I continued, ‘^And iiow^ 
 I tell you both, that spies are abroad, that poor Beesley has manfully resisted them, 
 with the assistance of some of our best friends ; but they will be sacrificed if we 
 are not upon the alert, for the League conspiracy is gaining ground in North 
 Lancashire. I recommended a delegate being instantly dispatched to North 
 Lancashire, and M'Doiiall said he would go himself, and he did go ; and to the 
 truth of these assertions any man in North Lancashire can testify; and that I was 
 openly charged with being a Tory spy, paid to keep the people from fighting. But 
 if I had told the people to fight, or encouraged them to fight, I would have been at 
 their head. Now, not one single man engaged in that conspiracy has been prose- 
 cuted, althougli they are all well known to the authorities ; while poor Mooney and 
 Tattersal have been selected as victims, because they were iinbribable. Nay, jnore> 
 those rascals were able not only to deceive but actually had daring and im- 
 pudence enough to charge the innocent with their own sins. But beyond all 
 this, I would have had Sir Chai les Shaw examined before that committee, and I would 
 undertake to say that that officer would have irrefutably established this fact, that he 
 was hunted (rom Manchester, because he would not lend himself to the furtherance 
 of the League-plot. Why, I ask, has he, tlie most important of all the authorities, 
 never been examined up to this hour ? Why ’'was he not examined upon the trial 
 
432 
 
 of the victims at Lancaster ? Because he would have proved that the authorities of 
 Manchester were one and all in league with the free-traders, and that they concocted, 
 encouraged, and created the war. Why was not Maude, the stipendiary magistrate, 
 examined, the very man who took the head of the invading procession, and who 
 directed their movements ? The mind sickens at the hare contemplation of such 
 acts of treachery, cowardice, and truckling of a strong government — which has 
 evinced its strength in the weakness of its case, notwithstanding the all-grasping 
 comprehensiveness, and great legal perspicuity, evinced in its net — the monster 
 
 INDICTMENT.” 
 
 Before I dismiss this part of my subject, I shall give a practical illustration, if no^ 
 of the fact that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor, that 
 there is, however, one measure of justice for the political friend, and another measure 
 for the political foe. 
 
 Here let me observe, that I entirely agree with Mr. Justice Patteson, when be 
 remarked, that that court did not initiate proceedings, but merely pronounced judg- 
 ment upon matters brought before it ; and it is to those who have made wrong selec- 
 tions of those parties that I attribute the greatest evil of which society has reason to 
 complain. In proof of this fact, I could multiply instance upon instance, but I shall 
 content myself with the following illustration, as it is analagous to the case 
 Turner, who printed the executive placard. It will he in the recollection of all who 
 read newspapers, that in the spring of last year, I announced my intention of deli- 
 vering an address in the Hall of Science in Manchester — that throughout the day, 
 upon the night of which that address was to be delivered, the walls of Manchester 
 were covered with bills inciting the people to attend in their thousands and murder 
 me — that one man, of the name of Price, accepted the offer of five pounds to knock 
 me off the platform, beneath which a chosen band of assassins were ranged, armed 
 with hatchets, pokers, bludgeons, stones, and other missiles — that the moment I pre- 
 sented myself, the attempt was made amid bowlings the most tremendous to effect 
 this bloody purpose. The five pound assassin made a rush at me behind, to ensure 
 the blood-money. I was fortunate enough, how^ever, to be too powerful for him — I 
 knocked him off the platform, and, in less than five minutes, myself and about fif- 
 teen determined men, amid showers of missiles and shouts of execration, succeeded 
 In ejecting about seventy assassins from the platform— »the whole 4>rniture of the 
 building was cut to atoms with hatchets — stones and pokers were flying in all direc- 
 tions — the gas pipes were torn up — I was knocked down four times — and at last 
 carried off bleeding violently from the temple. Thirty-seven others were mangled 
 in a most shocking manner — ribs, arms, and heads were broken. The police, though 
 in the neighbourhood in large numbers, never attempted to interfere; and now for 
 my illustration. Upon the following morning I applied to Mr. Maude, the stipen- 
 diary magistrate then sitting upon the bench, to send a policeman, as the law war- 
 ranted him, to the printer’s for the manuscript of the mmderous placard. I told him 
 I could trace it to the secretary of a Free Trade association, and that I could prove 
 that from 500 to 1000 ruffians held received drink, and from one shilling to two 
 shillings and sixpence a head, to assassinate me — but no — this officer of justice — the 
 stipendiary magistrate who headed the invading army into Manchester — who re?- 
 manded and re-remanded Leach and others — who routedTurner’sshop — and by whose 
 authority, I believe. Turner s types and printing machinery are still withheld from 
 
433 
 
 him — this Corn-law repeal magistrate had the impudence to tell me to my face, 
 that he had no power to act in the case. Now then, have I not established the fact 
 that there is one law for the Corn-law repealer, and another law for the Chartist ? 
 
 Having so far entered upon the consideration of those causes which led to the 
 disturbances of last autumn, I shall now proceed to review the whole question in its 
 more general bearing. Here, again, then, I am obliged to refer to matters con- 
 cerning which I had before WTitten, but which, however, have been, up to this time 
 little heeded,' but which, henceforth, will bear a prominent part in the history of this 
 country. 
 
 Now, bear with me, and follow me closely — mark well my every assertion, and 
 say whether or not I was an unfaithful sentinel, or a false prophet. 
 
 You will recollect the shock that society received w'hen Sir Robert Peel first 
 introduced his Commercial Tariff and his plan for laying a tax upon income. You 
 will remember that the whole press of the country, without a single exception, from 
 a desire to please the middle classes by defending them against the Income Tax, 
 and to please the aristocracy by defending them against the Property Tax, were 
 filled with reprobation of those two measures. You will also recollect that a large 
 party in the House of Commons were anxious to postpone the discussion until after 
 the Easter recess of 1842 — that Mr. Wakley read a letter of mine in the House of 
 ^Commons from the Korthern Star newspaper, directing attention to that clause in 
 he Tariff' which admitted live stock at various duties — this clause I then selected 
 as embodying the whole question of Corn-law repeal, and as calculated to unsettle, 
 that it may re-adjust, every other interest in this country. From that position I have 
 never swerved to this day ; but, on the contrary, all those circumstances which have 
 since transpired have but tended to strengthen me in that conviction. 
 
 In the following week’s Star I announced that the agricultural interest, being 
 thinly scattered over the face of the country, would be listless, dull, and apathetic for 
 a season, but that the next opposition which Sir Robert Peel would have to 
 encounter would be the opposition of the farmers and landlords of (his country. 
 For the truth of this assertion let those events speak which are now daily occurring 
 in the country. I further announced at the time, that if the Tariff succeeded 
 Government would be mild ; but if, on the other hand, it did not succeed, perse- 
 cution would4)e the order of the day ; and I further added, that the free traders 
 would leave no means untried to frustrate the measure. Now, all these things I 
 foretold, and all have come to pass; but having said so much about that all-important 
 provision of the Tariff, by which live stock and store provisions, formerly prohibited, 
 are now admitted into this country at a mere nominal duty, you will naturally 
 expect me to reason upon the subject. 
 
 In the first place, then^ the greatest advantage which the English farmer had was 
 the many chances open to him for the payment of his rent: if wheat was cheap, 
 pork, mutton, or beef may have returned remunerating prices ; but the English 
 market, the wealthy market of the world, being now open to every description of live 
 stock and provisions, the English farmer will henceforth be deprived of those various 
 chances. This circumstance will very naturally tend to the abstraction of capital 
 from agricultural pursuits, cause an increase of agricultural paupers, and a co- 
 temporaneous increase in saving-bank deposits, and a lowering of the interest of 
 money. To these two latter circumstances, which above all ohers^'prove general 
 
434 
 
 distress, the mind of the country will, for a time, he directed, as a proof of great 
 national prosperity. Tliis subterfuge, which, for a season, may serve the purpose of 
 a cunning minister, wull not, however, satisfy the country in the end. I shall now 
 state the sophistry by which the danger to the farmer of the admission of live stock 
 w^as met by the minister, was acquiesced in by the agricultural interest, and is still 
 argued by professional writers. The minister said, We have returns from all the 
 cattle-breeding countries in the world, and we find that in none IS THERE an 
 overplus.” MIND, IS THERE ? 
 
 The landlords, to whom the consolation of the convicted murderer, A long day, 
 my lord,” is everything, therefore saw no immediate danger from the introduction 
 of live stock, wdiile they knew that the process of producing wheat W'as quick as 
 compared with that of producing a fat ox, or an in-calf three year old heifer; thus 
 they w^ere gulled. 
 
 The first shock of importations of various descriptions of live stock w^as then to be 
 met, and the fears of the landlords and faYmers were to be soothed upon that point 
 by professional writers. And now let us see how that was done. 
 
 Simultaneously with this shock, the breeders and feeders of cattle, not seeing the 
 time it would take to bring this provision into full operation, were seized with a 
 panic, and very foolishly glutted the markets with stock, of wdiich there was really 
 no over-abundance. Now this fact I state fairly, in order to shew that no fair cal- 
 culation as to the working of the Tariff can be made from this incidental fall of 
 prices. But how further did the professional writers meet the general question, and 
 calculate, from the condition of the first importation of live stock, what the permanent 
 effect of the measure was likely to be. ** Oh ! oh ! ” said they, the one section to 
 appease the fears of the landlords, and the other section to arouse the indignation of 
 the Cotton Lords; ^'Here, then, is the first experiment : cattle, imported from Spain 
 and other countries in Europe, sold for 10/. and 11/. in the English market, and 
 subject to an expence of 4/. or 5/.” Now, nothing could be more absurd — nothing 
 could be more fallacious or ignorant than this mode of arguing. Every man of 
 common sense must have known that a cow must be served, that a cow must calve, 
 that the produce must be matured, and that mercantile arrangements, such as the 
 fitting up vessels for the cheap transmission of stock, must be all perfected before 
 this law could be brought into full operation. 
 
 Every man must be aware, that the first importation would consist* of the sweep- 
 ings of all countries, that speculations would be made, and that greater costs would 
 be incurred in merely trying a first experiment, than in carrying oh a general 
 process aided by great competition. How,” said the professional writers, “ is.it 
 possible that the exporter of live stock can afford to sell a beast for 11/. and to pay 
 4/. 10s. for expences.” Very’ true all this ; but although a lifting Spanish ** pile,” 
 an old runt ” of a cast Spanish plough ox, worth only 11/., cannot bear an expense 
 of 4/. 10a-., yet, as the duty^ upon cattle is not an ad valorem duty, but an equal tdx 
 upon all; when arrangements are perfected, the fat ox of ten hundred weight, with 
 expense of transmission reduced by competition fih’in 4/. 10;?. to 3/., ^vill very easily 
 bear the expense. It is hard, it is true, to pay 4/. 10^. expense upon 1 17. of bad 
 goods as store, while ten hundred weight of butchers’ meat, w’orth 30/. or over, w’ould 
 very well beat an expense; of 3/, In’ the one case tbe'expense would be ten per cent, 
 upon the good article, and in the other case it w^ould be over forty -one per cent, upon 
 
435 
 
 the bad article. Thus, I think, I have satisfactorily explained what th^ ultimate 
 effect of this provisioh will be. But I n^ay go further ; prior to the enactment of 
 Sir Robert Reel’s Tariff, the duty upon both tallow and raw hides amounted to a 
 total prohibition, the drtty upon tallow* and rawhides being very high, whereas the 
 duty is now exceedingly low, (See Tariff.) 
 
 And now I pray your attention to one of the gieatest commercial blunders ever 
 yet committed — I contend for it— that, when the plan is in perfect operation, 
 oil-cake, which we now import from Holland in a raw state, will then come over 
 manufactured into beef, hides, and tallow. I further contend, that a well-fatted ox 
 will bring in him, upon him, and about him, in tallow, hide, horns, hoofs, bones, 
 and tail, to the value of the duty of 1/. or upwards, and which will pay no duty 
 at all, but which will be comprised in the simple twenty shillings paid for his 
 admission. Thus then, we find, that the ox unsaddled with any portion of 
 national debt, army, navy, or church, comes in to open competition with those 
 of England, Scotland, and Ireland, upon whose every hair there hangs some 
 general tux or local burden. I shall presently shew how this part of my subject 
 bears essentially upon the whole question of free-trade, of manufactures, and of 
 agriculture. I shall further shew, that, ultimately, this measure will have the effect 
 of throwing into wheat cultivation one-third more land than is at present used for 
 that purpose — I shall shew that it will have the effect of thereby opening a compe- 
 titive labour market, which, of all other things, the tender-hearted, free-trader, weep- 
 ing advocate of the pauperized multitude dreads. I shall further be able to prove, 
 and if I cannot establish it beyond mere argument now, the next three years’ pro- 
 gressive movement towards the completion of the project will verify it to the letter. 
 This then is my assertion, that in less than three years from this date, no single 
 foreign corn grower will be able, without loss, to export one single quarter of foreign 
 grain to this country of any species, sort, or kind. It may be, and very probably 
 will occur, that more wheat, more oats, more barley, more rye, more peas, more 
 beans, more turnips, potatoes, and artificial grasses will be grown abroad, but 
 all these, save the wheat, will be sent over here in beef, mutton, pork, 
 milch cows, cheese, tallow, hides, mules, and Spanish asses ; while the over produce of 
 wheat will be consumed by the increased number of persons engaged in the trade 
 of fatting cattle. Upon the other hand, with our national engagements, we will 
 have no protection except that which will be derived from the better cultivation 
 of our own • soil, whereby we may beat foreigners in the production of wheat, 
 and ultimately the landlords, who are the legislators, and whose estates are debtors, 
 must and will bring about a state of things which will relieve their oxen of that pon- 
 derous weight of national debt, and their pigs of that unholy weight of religious im- 
 post, which shames both out of the society of the free-born ox and the unchristian pig. 
 
 I now proceed to shew the bearing which this law has upon the whole ques- 
 tion of free trade. So long as the thing which required labour to produce it was ad- 
 mitted free, and^hereby the agricultural labourer was thrown out of employment, would 
 be compelled to augment that reserve of paupers, upon which master manufacturers 
 were enabled to fall back, as a means of reducing the wages of their slaves — they 
 were satisfied. Never did they raise their voices for the admission of that which was 
 produced without labour abroad, nor never yet have they contended for a system 
 
436 
 
 which would be calculated to raise the price of labour at home, or to make the starv- 
 ing operative independent of their own whim in their own artificial market. Hence we 
 find that a measure which promises to this country ten times as large an amount of 
 free-trade as their paltry measure would afford, is either passed over in silence, or 
 meets with their virtuous indignation. 
 
 When that Tariff about which I am now writing, was first propounded, I then 
 characterized it as the most bold — the most manly — the most sweeping, embracing, 
 and statesmanlike measure that was ever yet propounded to any legislative assembly. 
 I designated it as a measure calculated to produce order out of chaos, justice out of 
 misrule, and security out of insolvency. . I designated it as a measure which would 
 be unpalatable to those who merely contended for that species of free-trade which 
 was likely to subserve the purposes of the speculator and the adventurer. I desig- 
 nated it as a more sweeping measure than a Chartist parliament, tender of all exist- 
 ing interests, would be likely in the outset to enact. I designated it as a measure 
 which would reduce the rent of land to the continental standard, as a measure 
 which w^ould call for the total extinction, or nearly so, of the national debt and a stand- 
 ing army. I designated it as a measure calculated to sow the seeds of dissension be- 
 tween the state and the law-church. That I was right in my estimate of this mon- 
 ster enactment, will be proved when the first fleet laden with foreign stock arrives in 
 the Downs as the first instalment of Sir Robert Peel’s free-trade experiment. I say 
 nothing here of the Canadian Corn-bill, another pustula” of that small-pox with 
 which in less than three years the face of English agriculture will be pitted. 
 
 I have now shown, and I think successfully, that a consideration of the trials of 
 Lancaster could not have been fairly discussed, without fully entering into the whole 
 question of free-trade. 
 
 1 have shown you that what ought to be a national investigation has terminated 
 in a paltry pauper prosecution. . And however the government, the aristocracy, the 
 millocracy, the moneyocracy, and the shopocracy may glory in their triumph over 
 the mobocracy, I tell them to beware how they try a similar experiment. For my- 
 self, I may truly add, that the whole subject will form one of the brightest recollec- 
 tions of mv life — the remembrance that I was associated with millions of oppressed 
 and starving men not lacking courage, but so far free from vindictiveness, that they 
 passed through a revolution without damage to life or property, or without making a 
 brutal use of that gigantic power which for^ nine days at least they had at their 
 command. 
 
 It will teach those who would accumulate wealth at the expense of human life, 
 that the English working classes are not fitting instruments for them : while the re- 
 sult of the Trials at Lancaster, will have the beneficial tendency of inspiring the poor 
 and oppressed with a becoming respect for the law^s of the country when impartially 
 administered. Up to those trials, they knew not the value of innocence, or the worth 
 of a defence. They had, and not unjustly either, come to the conclusion that to be 
 a Chartist was to be guilty, and that to be tried merely meant the form of conviction. 
 In this notion they w'ere fully justified, for I have seen exhibitions in courts of 
 justice, which, when truly chronicled, as they assuredly shall be, will make the actors 
 hide their faces for very shame. ' 
 
 I cannot conclude an important undertaking of this kind, without awarding that 
 just tribute of praise which is so unreservedly due to Mr. Roberts, the solicitor who 
 
437 
 
 conducted the defence. It has been my lot to be engaged in the defence of pri- 
 soners charged with the highest offences, and in many of which cases, great zeal and 
 ability was manifested by the respective solicitors, hut never in my life did I witness 
 such a combination of zeal, attention, anxiety, talent and power, as was evinced by 
 Mr. Roberts throughoufthe whole proceeding. It must he borne in mind that in 
 ordinary cases, whether of a civil or a criminal character, the defendant may make 
 some guess at what he will be called upon to plead to, to meet and to justify. In 
 the several trials at Stafford and Lancaster, however, guessing formed the rule and 
 not the exception, surrounded upon all sides by stratagem, and while backed by 
 money and ministerial power, Mr. Roberts had no other chance of escape than a 
 shrewd guess at that point upon which the weight of the enemy’s fire would be most 
 heavily directed. To this consideration he bent his mind — to this point he drew 
 the attention of those engaged for the defence, and, after the prosecution had skir- 
 mished with shadows outside Manchester for three whole days, the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral, with all the confidence of a victorious general, led his battle and directed his 
 fire upon Scholefield’s chapel. Here however, he discovered that the barricades had 
 been raised — that every loop-hole had been manned — that every point was defended, 
 riot for the purpose of keeping him out, hut for the purpose of driving him in, of 
 surrounding him, and of leaving him no escape. The consequence was, that the 
 counsel for the defence so heat him out of the triumphs he had achieved for the first 
 three days in his skirmishes outside, that he abandoned them all upon the fourth, 
 and, during the remainder of the straggle, counsel for the defence, under the di- 
 rection of their briefs, held the Attorney-General so tightly to the one point that all 
 chance of escape was hopeless, and to nothing but an imploring appeal to the jury 
 could he look even for a retreat. 
 
 Of this subterfuge he made the most, and out of fifty-nine defendants charged 
 with an equal amount of guilt, he succeeded in getting a verdict of guilty against 
 fourteen, upon just one-ninth part of the offences with which they stood charged, 
 whilst '^e also extracted the admission, that fourteen others had committed the 
 heinous offence of being nowhere, and of^doing nothing, on the 16th of August, and 
 thus ended that great national enquiry, by which Feargus O’Connor and fifty-eight 
 others were to have been proved guilty of something little short of high treason, 
 and upon which issue the crown relied for the suppression of Chartism — the acqui- 
 lescence of the affrighted landlords in all the free trade experiments of their leader ; 
 and the quiet submission of the middle classes to the payment of three per cent, 
 upon their incomes, the prices at which peace was to be preserved, confidence re- 
 stored, and Chartism annihilated. However, by some mishap or other, the order of 
 things has been reversed, the landlords and the middle classes find that they have 
 paid too dear for their w'histle, while the Chartists have discovered the important 
 truth, that if the law’s vengeance is a dagger for the guilty, its spirit is a scabbard 
 ' for the innocent. 
 
 And now, returning my most grateful thanks to the impoverished poor, 
 for the voluntary aid so cheerfully given for the defence of their brethren, 
 I shall complete ray undertaking by a very brief contrast of the characters of 
 the free traders and the Chartists, and the manner in which the respective 
 parties conduct their affairs. The free traders are wealthy, influential, and power- 
 ful j their wealth is derived from their exclusive controul over the labour market; 
 
438 
 
 their influence arises from their power to discharge and brand with their displea- 
 sure all those who depend upon them for an existence ; and their power consists in 
 the use, which, as a body, they make of their wealth and their influence ; they are 
 hard hearted, mean, and unscrupulous ; resorting to and sanctioning acts as a body, 
 which the meanest amongst them w'ould blush to acknowledge as an individual, 
 they vainly hope to accomplish by money that which can only be achieved by force 
 of argument ; they clamour for discussion in the house of Commons, while they ap- 
 propriate the whole of their League fund to so arranging their meetings that no dis- 
 cussion shall take place ; they rob the poor and sneer at their poverty ; they cast 
 reproaches upon honest, indefatigable, and liard working Chartist lecturers who 
 receive thirty shillings a week, wdiile their whole staff live upon the fund extracted 
 from the fears of their slaves. Perhaps it is a fact not generally knowm, that 
 Cobden, Bright, and, in short, the whole pioneer corps of this free trade army never 
 travel a mile in their vocation, or never eat a meal while on duty, without drawing, 
 and not sparingly, from the slave fund. While in London, they are bountiful and 
 generous, and live sumptuously, entertaining, feeding, and rewarding, not only their 
 regular forces, but also the clerical and lay volunteer spouters in their cause. Per- 
 haps an illustration of the manner in which the League fund has been raised may 
 not be uninteresting. Petitions are presented and subscriptions are said to be given 
 as the free will offerings of the starving operatives ; that the signatures to the petitions 
 are some forged, and others procured from fear, every man knows, and, that the sub- 
 scriptions are not the free will offerings of the slave class, the following anecdote 
 will prove ; — The sum of thirty-five pounds was extracted by threats, from the fears 
 of the hands of one Mr. Whittaker, a manufacturer residing in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Stalybridge. In order to give an increased importance to this 
 free gift, Mr. Cobden, as treasurer to the League fund, was invited to 
 Mr. Whittaker’s works to receive the blood money. The hands upon the interest- 
 ing- occasion, were mustered in the mill yard, to receive their disinterested liberator 
 with all becoming respect. When the little gathering was handed to the chief, their 
 master asked for three cheers for Mr. Cobden, the first appeal was answered by a 
 sullen frown, when the master again said, Cum, my lads and lasses, waint yea gi’ 
 three cheers vur Mr. Cobden ? ” Nay,” responded one of the most daring of the 
 lasses, “ he has our brass and that’s all he wants and upon so saying off scampered 
 the slave array, leaving the General to review the empty space. 
 
 Now, as I know that such charges have been denied, it is but right that I should here 
 state the facts upon which this anecdote is founded. In the winter of last year, I had 
 announced my intention of addressing the operatives of Stalybridge, and for this pur- 
 pose the Town-hall was procured. Prior to my going, I had received several letters, 
 stating the above fact, all agieeing. Upon my arrival at Ashton, a deputation from 
 Stalybridge waited upon me, and to which deputation I mentioned the circumstance, 
 asking them if it was true, and to which the reply was, True, aye, bless you, true 
 enough ; why they take cards at two-pence and sixpence, and a shilling for the 
 nobs • and the overseer tells them, that the employer would like them to take them 
 and become members of the association, and they know dammed well what’s meant 
 by " would like them,’ it means, that if they don’t like them they’ll get the walking 
 ticket.” But,” said one, if you doubt it, put the question in the Hall to-night, 
 and AVhittaker’s men will answer it.” Well, I narrated the circumstance, word for 
 
439 
 
 word, as I have written it. I did put it to the meeting. Mr. Whittaker’s handg 
 were there, and Mr. Whittaker himself >vas, as I am informed and believe, in thee 
 gallery. I asked him to contradict it ; I asked the men if it was true, and the answer 
 was, Aye, it is true enough, ahA worse than that tooJ’ So much, then, for th 
 expression of the public mind and the manifestation of public feeling, as exhibited 
 in petitions and voluntary contributions ; and now let Us see the description of men 
 employed by them for the furtherance of their object by the enlightenment of the 
 public mind. While they taunt the Chartists with violence, treachery, and mean- 
 ness, they are ever on the look but for recruits from our ranks, and whose best 
 qualifications are a foul mouth, an easy conscience, and a pliant mind. Their 
 lecturers are insolent, violent, Shd turbulent, because their employers are arrogant, 
 rebellious, and dissatisfied. 
 
 Upon the other hand, the Chartists only seek that favor for their principles which 
 public opinion, after free discussion, is willing to award to them. So strong is their 
 reliance upon rationality, that, a? if by common consent, all those of doubtful, 
 irritable, or suspicious character are expelled by the summary process of general 
 censure. The Chartists render a fair account of their conduct, and require a just 
 one of the expenditure of their funds. They, though poor, give what they can 
 contribute to the support of their cause as a free and voluntary gift. They have to 
 bear all the weight of their employer’s odium, while they struggle against his wiles 
 and contend for their own principles. To which of the two parties, then, must 
 justice award the victory ? That is a question which time and circumstances alone 
 can answer ; but if coming events cast their shadow before, we may fairly infer that 
 the time is fast approaching when sophistry and brute force must give way to 
 widom and moral power. In the accomplishment of this desirable object I have 
 endeavoured to perform my duty; and while assailed by the vindictive slanderer 
 and disappointed scribbler, it will ever be my highest pride and greatest boast to be 
 able to say', that throughout my life I never travelled a mile at the expense of the 
 people — that I have never received the fraction of a farthing for any poor services 
 that I have rendered to their cause ; and upon the account of my several treasurer- 
 ships, as the administrator of their funds, I stand creditor upon accounts furnished, 
 audited, and passed, to the amount of some hundred pounds. Let then, the dis- 
 appointed, rave ; the wily, fabricate ; and the unscrupulous publish aught to my 
 dishonour ; this is my answ'er. I am your faithful, your unpaid, and unpurchase- 
 able friend and servant, ' 
 
 FEARGUS O’CONNOR. 
 
 G G 
 
COMMENTARY ON THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 It will be necessary, in commenting upon such a bulk of evidence as that pub- 
 lished in the preceding numbers, to keep the mind of the reader directed more to 
 the classification of that evidence than to a minute consideration of the testimony 
 of each witnes's. With this view, I shall arrange the whole under three distinct 
 heads : I shall divide the whole into three distinct parts : the first comprising what, 
 to the superficial reader, would appear unimportant, but, when coupled with the 
 far-fetched volunteer declaration of Chief Baron Lord Abinger, at Liverpool, that 
 the distress of the working classes was by no means as great or as general as had 
 been represented, added to the refusal of the Government to sanction any enquiry 
 into the condition of the working classes. Under the second head, I shall dispose 
 of ^"the two Government pals— Griflin and Cartledge ; ” and under the third, I 
 shall review the character of the v.liole body of evidence. 
 
 The casual reader may not have distinguished the different motives for this pro- 
 '^cution, which were exhibited in different shapes ; one, I have said, and not the 
 ast important, being to restore confidence, to silence complaint, and to justify the 
 non-interference of Government. John Brooks, the overlooker of Platt’s works, was 
 a witness wholly unimportant, save and except to establish this part of the case, and 
 upon a perusal of his evidence it will be seen, that not only did the Attorney-General 
 labour hard to extract evidence of the improved wages of the working classes, but it 
 will be further seen from my cross-examination of that witness, that he would have 
 willingly left an exaggerated and erroneous impression upon the mind of thft Court 
 and the Jury upon this subject. Nay, until I pondered for a moment, I felt staggered 
 myself at the evidence of this witness. Let us for a moment consider its bearing, 
 and see what the natural inference would have been had his examination-in-chief 
 gone to the world imcontradicted. 
 
 With great adroitness he conveyed the impression, that all Platt’s hands, to the 
 number of 300, were spinners, receiving from twent^^-two shillings the lowest, to 
 thirty-six shillings the highest, per week. Now, so nicely balanced are the arrange- 
 ments of the whole manufacturing community, that the establishment of such a 
 fact would have gone far to prove that all other masters were giving as good wages, as 
 none can much exceed their neighbours with any prospect of remuneration, while 
 the general tendency of such a belief would at once have cut the ground from 
 under the wages’ party, and would have thrown the whole onus of the strike, by a 
 forcible turn-out of the hands, upon the Chartist body. This view of the case 
 flashed across my mind like lightning ; and by a perusal of my cross-examination of 
 this witness, which will be found in number two, page 85, it will be seen, that of the 
 300 hands only 35 were receiving the high rale of wages, and from which enormous 
 
441 
 
 deductions were made, while the remaining 266 were only receiving somewhere 
 about seven shillings and sixpence per week. These 265 then, instead of consti- 
 tuting a part of the 300, and who it was intended to be shown had been forcibly 
 compelled to leave their work, were actually the dissatisfied propelling power which 
 forced their 35 more fortunate shopmates to ^^ stop the wheels of Government.” 
 
 It will be further seen, that this witness left the impression upon the minds of all who 
 heard him, that about 300 hands were receiving weekly from 310/. to 320/. over and 
 above, and clear of all charges and deductions : that is, that the average earning 
 would have been something more than a guinea a week. When pushed, however, 
 upon his cross-examination, this witness was driven to the startling confession, that 
 the wages, that is the 310/. or 320/., was the amount paid every fortnight, and not 
 every week. Indeed, so important a feature would this man’s uncorrected evidence 
 have formed in the case, and such was the impression upon the mind of the 
 learned Judge, that he actually took the trouble of calculating the whole question 
 arithmetically, and of sending the result most forcibly and most pointedly to the 
 jury. And, indeed, I have no hesitation in saying, that had that man’s evidence 
 gone to the jury as it was intended it should go, we would every one have been 
 found guilty, and with no small color of justice, upon every count, those for riot 
 and all, in the monster indictment.” Perhaps, however, in no part of the intricate 
 and complicated proceedings did the learned Judge more po-'.verf Lilly convey to the 
 minds of the jury, and through ^them to the country, the impression that he was 
 anxious, when not trammelled by the nice distinctions of the law of evidence, to 
 make the investigation as full, fair, apd searching as it was possible. Those who 
 were present while Brooks was giving his testimony, will doubtless recollect the 
 stunning impression which his examination-in-chief conveyed to all, and they will 
 also recollect the change of countenances produced by his amended testimony. 
 
 I now come to consider the character and the value of the testimony of Griffin and 
 Cartledge. Griffin I shall take first. He had been dismissed from my service 
 as correspondent for the Northern Star for hlanchester and district; he was aware 
 that he had been dismissed upon the representations of Leach, Campbell, and 
 others, for sending incorrect, gaihled, and distorted reports of facts and speeches 
 for insertion in the Northern Star. He w'as aware that the Chartists of Man- 
 chester had for some time previously looked upon him with no small suspicion in 
 consequence of an attempt to turn an important mixed meeting of Trades 
 and Chartists to free trade purposes. It was a notorious fact, as sworn to by 
 Brooke, that he had vowed vengeance against me particularly, and that he cherished 
 a foul and vindictive feeling against the whole Chartist body for their justifiable 
 condemnation of his conduct. Indeed, while he denied the use of the threatening* 
 •words charged against him, he admitted that he had declared that he would 
 expose me, and, as the learned .Judge very shrewdly observed when summing up 
 the evidence, perhaps that was the exposure, that is the prosecution then going 
 on, which Griffin had designed as his mode of exposure.” Can this man then 
 be said to have come into court as an unbiassed and impartial witness with clean 
 hands ? 
 
 But apart from any general motive let us calmly and philosophically examine into 
 the wdrole character of this man’s evidence. 
 
 After he had volunteered to become a Government informer, several persons 
 
442 
 
 are arrested. Cartledge among the rest. Griffin is brought before the magistrates^ 
 to substantiate the whole charge against them, the weightiest of which was the 
 identification of the conference delegates with the Executive placard. And now 
 I must solicit the undivided attention of the reader to this part of the case. Griffinv 
 in his depositions before the magistrates, swore, not hesitatingly, although reluctantly, 
 yet positively, that the corrections in the margin of the placard were in the hand- 
 writing .of Cartledge. He was led to a belief by Irvin and the authorities that the 
 only possible means by which tlie League could be saved from a charge of 
 conspiracy was by saddling upon this placard the odium and the crime of having 
 given a physical turn to that which was merely intended to have been a moral 
 experiment upon the part of the League. Here, then, is the plot, and a deep 
 laid one it was. Griffin and Cartledge are both starving ; Cartledge was Griffin s 
 bosom friend, long associated as scribbling companions ; each filling offices in 
 the Chartist oi ganization, but Cartledge was not accessible to the authorities and 
 might have been proof against the intrigues of Griffin, had it not been for the 
 awkward dilemma and the dangerous position in which he placed him by 
 swearing that the corrections in the margin of the placard were positively in 
 his handwriting. It was of all things necessary to win his way to Cartledge’s 
 mind. I have said that it might not be easy for the authorities to have succeeded 
 with Cartledge, but they doubtless laid tbe scheme which Griffin was to work, 
 in all such cases money is the bad man’s best auxiliary. The creatures are 
 both poor; and, as a first step, we find Griffin in his poverty, and not thea uthorities, 
 sending a sovereign to the mother-in-law of Cartledge. We next find him 
 visiting his comrade in that cell to which his evidence had consigned him and 
 where the conversation which passed may be naturally supposed to have been of 
 the following character. ‘^Well, Cartledge, don’t be angry with me, I have but 
 damaged you that I may be your Saviour ; I have sworn that you were the cor- 
 rector of the placard while it is known to the authorities that you were the bearer 
 of it to the printer, and thus there is no escape for you but to choose between 
 the witness box and the transport — The authorities are resolved upon visiting the 
 crime Avith the very highest punishment, my evidence and that of the printer will 
 go to establish your guilt upon tbe most heinous charge, and if you escape with 
 transportation it will be the mildest punishment you caii expect.” 
 
 What follows this deep laid plot. We find the two worthies subsequently in 
 close communication, no other defendant appealed to but Cartledge, because for hone 
 other had his brother traitor a like regard. With all others whom he considered of 
 importance he had some score to settle, some grudge tif^pay. I had discharged 
 him from his situation." Leach and Campbell he was aware were the cause of his 
 removal, Avhile the declaration of M^Douftlh ih- the conference that rf Griffin 
 ' Avas to report the ^eeches he would remain silentj*’ was' rankling in his mind. - 
 
 Let then any iinpartial nian read over the Attorney-Geheral’s examination of that 
 Avitness Avhose- testimony it Avas expected Avotild have developed the Avhole ’c^se, 
 and he Avill bg^triick, irresistibly ‘slrlick, with the eoirvictibn, that the object of ‘th-e 
 Attorney-Gcrierarihl bis examinatidn ’of this witness was to mystify and not> to 
 ' eluHdato the case. ‘' He"'examined^ him td^it feiv and finiiiiportant factsf'he extracted 
 '' ' forn hiih the admi^idh that be^ had’SAA'di’li falsely-at Manchester; when hd "saidi'^hat 
 '• ' ihe’&rfecfiohs dll’ the markin’ W^'t^ ih'Hhe’^'hahdwritihg oLCa'^ 
 

 443 
 
 And then the Attorney-General^ to the utter astpnisi^nient of all present/ stofvt short 
 after scarcely any examination of this witness^ whose testimony was looked fo^ ward 
 to aS the foundation ' of the Whole prosecution, whereas it would appear that the 
 •only object in producing him was to contradict upon his oath that which he had 
 formerly sworn ' to. The omission to examine this man to the full notes which he 
 -swore he had taken of the proceedings in conference is a matter of so much im- 
 jportance, that I shall treat of it in another place, and at that length which it so 
 justly deserves. 
 
 ^ I now come to a consideration of the evidence of Carlledge, and which, hut for 
 sufficient reasons, should have preceded my remarks upon the evidence of Griffin ; 
 rCartledge, having been examined on Saturday, and Griffin not till the Monday 
 following. This fact of the time at which the two informers were examined, may 
 at first sight appear unimportant, w'hile I undertake to show that it forms a most 
 •"important feature in the case. Here, then, is the evidence of Carlledge, and the 
 influences under wliich he gave it with regard to the placard. 
 
 ^^The ATl'ORNF.Y-GENERAL : — On Tuesday, the 16th, were you in the shop 
 of Heywood, the jirinter ? Yes Where was that:’ In Oldham-street. How far is 
 that from Noblett’s ? Not far. Did Heywood put anything into your hands ? A 
 •roll of paper, accompanied by a note ? 
 
 The JUDGE : — Is Heywood a defendant ? No, my Lord. Did he desire you 
 To take it to any one ? To Doctor McDouall. 
 
 «The AUrORNEY-GENERAL.— That is, Peter Murray M‘Douall ? Yes, 
 sir. Did he tell you where he (M‘Douall) was ? He said I should find him at 
 James Leach’s. Did you go to Leach’s ? Yes. Who did yon see there ? The 
 •shop was full at tlie time ; I sent for M'Douall, and he came down stairs to see me. 
 Where did he come from ? From np-stairs. What passed between you and 
 M‘Douall ? I gave him the roll of paper and the note, and told him the note 
 would explain to him what it was. Did he remain with you, or go a\vav ? He 
 went up-stairs. And how long did he stay ? A few minutes. Lie came down 
 , again. What did he do, or say ? He brought down the same roll of paper, and 
 presented it to me, and told me to get it printed at all hazards. Did he say any- 
 thing else — who it w'as for, or anything of that sort ? No, he did not say for whom 
 it was. Now, did you open the paper ? Yes. Did you know what afterwards 
 became of that paper — whether it is in existence or not ? I believe it to be burnt. 
 Why ? Because P. M. McDouall told me so on the night of the 17th.” 
 
 Now, then, there is Cartledge’s evidence as to the placard, and what does it 
 ximount to. Forgetting, for a moment, that he is an informer, and admitting, for 
 argument sake, the truth of the two tutored apprentices of Turner, the printer, is 
 there in Cartledge’s evidence sufficient to convict M’Douall of the authorship of 
 tliat placard ; and, without making his evidence the foundation for the evidence of 
 the apprentices, would the evidence of those apprentices without Cartledge’s have 
 been sufficient to convict M’Douall upon ? If, then, it be a fact, that the evidence 
 of Carlledge was not only insufficient in itself,- and if, from its tendency and his 
 position, it is to be weighed with all just suspicion, it can give no strength to the 
 ^evidence of the apprentices ; and upon which reasoning I come to the natural 
 conclusion, that the whole bearing of Cartledge’s evidence, coupled with, the omission 
 of the Crown to call the only man who could have given complete testimony as to 
 the whole transaction, leads to the probability that Carlledge himself was the author 
 of the placard, corrected the placard, and, subsequently, repudiated the placard , 
 when such course was recommended to him by Griffin as the only means of self- 
 preservation. 
 
444 
 
 Now, I pray you calmly to consider this man’s evidence. He goes into Hey - 
 wood’s shop. Hey wood give? him a paper, and tells him to take that paper to 
 M’Douall. He dees not say that he was to take it hack to M’Douall, but, that he 
 was to take it to M’Douall. It is clear as anything possibly can be, that Cartledge 
 was not a messenger employed by M’Douall ; for he asks Heywood, where he 
 would be likely to find M’Douall. Cartledge, as I was determined to drag from 
 him, admitted, that for years he and Griffin had been in the habit of writing 
 together, and of exchanging scraps, and that the handwriting of one was well 
 known to the other. How, then, in the name of common sense, could Griffin have 
 sworn, and mark, with the observation, when pressed, Mind, you draxo this from 
 me ; I did not tell it willingly" — that the corrections were all in Cartledge ’s hand- 
 writing. Perhaps it may not be out of place to observe here, that it is impossible to 
 imagine a gi’eater dissimilarity to exist between the handwriting of any two persons 
 than will be found by comparing the writing of Cartledge with that of M’Douall, 
 M’Douall was the best educated man of the Chartist party then at Manchester, 
 The party getting up the placard would naturally be anxious that it should appear 
 in a creditable style, and hence the desire to submit it to him, and hence his answer* 
 ** You must do the best you can with it yourselves, and when it is in print and 
 clearly legible I may then suggest any alteration.” Which, however, he does not 
 appear to have done, Cartledge having undertaken that duty himself. 
 
 But now we come to the all-important consideration of time and fact. Cartledge 
 is examined early on Saturday. From his evidence we learn that Heywood was in 
 possession of the whole facts of the case, He3’wood lives at Manchester. Man- 
 chester is within three hours reach of Lancaster by railroad. Forty-eight hours 
 elapse between the examination of Cartledge and the close of the prosecution, 
 Sunday intervened, Griffin was yet to be examined, and the dies non ” was allotted 
 to him for perusal of the whole evidence, and especially of Cartledge ’s. Heywood is 
 a man of business, alwa^'S found at home; Government could have ensured his 
 presence. His presence was proved to be indispensable. The prosecutors did not 
 call him, and ^^et, we are to infer, that there has been a full, fair, and impartial 
 investigation of tliis all-important question. Every man who was tried is prepared 
 to admit the impartiality with which the proceedings, as far as the Court could take 
 cognizance, were conducted ; while, at the same time, the fact cannot be withheld, 
 that there mav be injustice in acts of omission as well as in acts of commission, espe- 
 cially when those acts have the effect of perverting the course of justice, and of 
 withholding facts necessary for the justification of the accused. As the Attorney- 
 General asked why we did not examine Griffin to his notes, so, perhaps, he may 
 ask, and with equal plausibility, why we did not call Heywood and examine him. 
 To that, my answer is, that it was no part of the duty of the defendants to supply the 
 omissions or to correct the blunders of the prosecutors. 
 
 I now proceed, under the third head, to review the character of the whole 
 body of evidence — my space is limited, therefore my glance must be superficial. A 
 prosecution is instituted, from which the causes that led to all but civil war are ex- 
 pected to transpire. Great damage was said to have been done to the property of a 
 certain class, and the defendants were charged with having excited the working classes 
 l:o a performance of the mischief by their inflammator}" harangues and violent pub- 
 ications. Under those circumstances we were naturally led to the belief that tlie 
 
sufferers from violence (being the most interested in the preservation of their own 
 property and most capable of detailing any damage that it had suffered) would have 
 been the best witnesses to prove the first allegation, and that persons of unsuspected 
 character, who were present at the various assemblages of the people, would have been 
 called to substantiate the second charge. So fhr from this, however, we find a host of 
 policemen produced to prove the damage done to other persons’ property, while 
 we find the wealthiest individuals among the supposed sufferers produced for the de- 
 fence, to prove not only that their property was not damaged, but that there was a 
 scrupulous desire upon the part of the people to evince a respect for life and property 
 in the very midst of turmoil and disorder. Upon the character of those witnesses, 
 who were called to substantiate the second charge, I shall make but a very 
 few passing observations. Brierly, the second witness called for the pro- 
 secution, after an examination by Sir Gregory Lewin occupying nearly 
 fifteen columns, and a re-examination by the Attorney-General, answered every 
 tittle of evidence which by possibility could have been bi'ought against the defendants 
 in support of the second charge. In two columns of a cross-examination of this 
 witness, the reader will perceive that the whole case had been broken down, and that 
 the Attorney-General should have instantly abandoned this mad and precipitate 
 prosecution ; and that such was the opinion of some of the counsel for the prose- 
 cution may be gathered from the following letter from Brierly to the jEditor of the 
 JVbrthern Star. 
 
 I was the second witness called upon against Feargus O’Connor, and fifty-nine other prisoners. 
 I spoke the truth to the best of my knowledge, and would hot take a bribe. I was called by 
 Ch’egory Lewin a d — d scamp, and he told me if I wanted my wages, I might go to Feargus 
 O’Connor for them, and if I did not return home, he would have me placed among the rest of the 
 prisoners, as he had better given me ^100 to have remained at home, for a d — d scoundrel as I 
 was.” 
 
 The evidence of Buckley, the self-convicted barbarian, and of the cracked man 
 who followed, who swore that his memory was ruined by a brain fever which, for 
 a considerable time, had deprived him of his senses, must he read with attention 
 and interest. From those witnesses -we leaim that some official had, just before 
 their being examined — read over their depositions to them ; a confession which, of 
 itself, should have induced the Attorney-General, if not to abandon the case, at 
 least to strike out their evidence. I next come to the evidence of Little, the special 
 high constable of Hyde, and from that the reader will glean the fact, that this 
 man actually made out and wrote down a case for the prosecution, and proved 
 too much in his anxiety to catch John Leach, the ""red cat” of Hyde: in 
 short, that jevery policeman who was examined evinced feelings of strong 
 personal animosity against some neighbour Chartist lecturer. Then the 
 
 evidence of every policeman, written under excitement in a plain bund, pur- 
 porting to be, not the notes taken at the time or a transcript subsequently taken 
 from them, but a consecutive narrative of the W'hole proceedings written at the several 
 meetings — not a man in Court believed in the truth of a single statement made by 
 those more than accomplished, extra-finished reporters. The erasures and addenda 
 in Little’s composition were so difficult of explanation that the attempt extracted a 
 blush even from him. Then the evidence of M"Cabe, the commandant of the bo- 
 rough staff — that he was ordered to report all matters of importance, and especially 
 the speeches of the Chartists, to the authorities, and that, although he came to 
 
446 
 
 ten yards of the tent where I was speaking, he did not take a single note of 
 what I said, because he did not consider it of sufficient importance to their worships. 
 Then the evidence of the cabbaging tailor to prove the existence of a committee of 
 
 Public safety," the greatest feature m the whole prosecution. Then the stunning 
 evidence of Wilcox, to which I beg to direct especial attention, as from it will be 
 learned the true cause of the outbreak. Then, -after hearing all the evidence for 
 nearly five days, the withdrawal of those counts by the Attorney-General in which 
 the defendants were charged with the very offences which the whole body of evidence 
 was intended to prove them guilty of. And lastly, the omission upon the part of 
 the crown, to call one single magistrate or person of character from any one 
 of the disturbed districts, while as many of those gentlemen as could he procured 
 were examined for the defence, and each and all triumphantly refuted any single 
 fact sworn to by the guardians of their lives and properties. And, in conclusion, the 
 impression left upon the minds of gentlemen of fhe highest respectability and of 
 large fortune in the county, who, after eight days' patient and anxious inquiry, (I 
 mean the jury) sent for me after the verdict had been returned, and after I had 
 dined, and who, upon my entering the room, addressed me thus, through their 
 diairman : — Well, Mr. O’Connor, we congratulate you — we’ll give you the health 
 of the judge.” They then did me the high honour of drinking my own health, 
 -and in responding I said, ^^But, gentlemen, in my speech I told you that I would 
 more highly appreciate the removal of your prejudices, than your verdict of ac- 
 - quittair for lack of evidence. Have I removed them ?” Yes, every one,” was the 
 
 UNANIMOUS RESPONSE, "" We CONFESS WE HAD STRONG PREJUDICES AGAINST 
 you, BUT YOU HAVE REMOVED THEM ALL.” Tliis declaration, so honourable to 
 them and so cheering and consolatory to me, was more than satisfaction for all 
 the legal persecution I had endured had it been a thousand fold ; and, indeed, so 
 anxious were these honest upriglft gentlemen not to leave a douhi behind, that the 
 gentleman who interrupted Mr. Parkes in the reading of his defence, said that 
 he merely did so lest the defendant should injure himself. 
 
 I have now run through so much of our case, am^ shall conclude this branch by 
 tendering my pitying thanks to the Government that persecuted me — my most 
 unqualified praise to the just Judge who tried me, my respect and esteem to the 
 gentlemen who acquitted me — my love to the v’aliant crew who refused all invi- 
 tations .to abandon the tossing vessel that we were, embarked in — for their valour in 
 the stonn and their mildness in the calm— for their bearing, their demeanour, their 
 eloquence, and their courage ; and ray applause to the poor, who ungrudgingly 
 supplied the means of defence from their too scanty store" ; while of the Pilnt (Mr, 
 Roberts), and the Counsel, T* shall speak as they respectively merit in ^the fitting 
 place. ' 
 
 '^FEARGUS O’CONNOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4--.- • 
 
 ■■vs , a 
 
 
 ’ X •' '■ "Ofl.-Jb i 
 
 ..-■'.i.sO .ffii'iU'U 
 
 
 
 
 I. 'i. > 
 
 ‘ if/; 
 
 
 
 jxihiU^W 
 
 ■ i I 
 
 A',; '■ 
 
 i 
 
 Vl: . 
 b<:i 
 
 U.l „ 
 m. o 
 
 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE DEFENDANTS, 
 
 With the Names of the Witnesses who speak to each, also alphahetically arranged, 
 with reference to the Judge’s charge. 
 
 The figures following the names of the Defendants refer to the page at which the Judge's charge 
 icill he found; the figures after the names of the witnesses, to the page at which 
 the evidence will he met with* 
 
 Aitken, William 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 388 
 
 Candelet, George 
 
 . 
 
 385 
 
 Bannister, Samuel 
 
 . 76 
 
 
 Clayton, William 
 
 . 26 
 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 22 
 
 
 Hanly, John 
 
 171,371 
 
 
 Buckley, James 
 
 . 65 
 
 
 Little, Joseph 
 
 . 27 
 
 
 Haigh, Joseph 
 
 13 
 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 . 
 
 370 
 
 Allinson, James , 
 
 . 
 
 367 
 
 Nolle prosequi entered 
 
 . 121 
 
 
 Bell, Robert 
 
 ‘ . 116 
 
 Challenger, Alexander or Sandy 
 
 . 388, 
 
 389 
 
 Longson, Abraham 
 
 53, 54, 56 
 
 
 Bannister, Samuel 
 
 . 76 
 
 
 Arran, John 
 
 . 
 
 383 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 18 
 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 . 127 
 
 
 Haigh, Joseph 
 
 . 14 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Oliver, Joseph 
 
 73 
 
 
 Arthur, James 
 
 
 
 Chippendale, Joseph 
 
 . 
 
 387 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 . 127 
 
 
 Clarke, Joseph 
 
 . 
 
 386 
 
 Griffin, William . 
 
 153 
 
 
 Cooper, Thomas . . 
 
 
 
 Bairstow, Jonathan. 
 
 
 382 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 127 
 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 126 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Crossley, John 
 
 388, 389 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 . 120 
 
 
 Brierley, Henry , 
 
 21 
 
 
 Noblett, Thomas . 
 
 117 
 
 
 Buckley, James 
 
 . 64 
 
 
 Beesley, William 
 
 
 383 
 
 Doyle, Christopher . 
 
 
 383 
 
 Cartledge, James . 
 
 . 127 
 
 
 Bell, Robert . 
 
 . 116 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Beswick, Richard 
 
 105 
 
 
 Holland, Henry . 
 
 . 312 
 
 
 Cartledge, James . 
 
 . 128 
 
 
 M‘Cabe, Grattan 
 
 . 174 
 
 
 Crompton, James 
 
 48 
 
 
 Booth, William , 
 
 
 389 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Buckley, James « 
 
 . 67 
 
 
 Moore, William 
 
 47 
 
 
 Little, Joseph 
 
 30 
 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 . 120 
 
 
 Rhodes, Thomas 
 
 . 92 
 
 , i- 
 
 Noblett, Thomas 
 
 117 
 
 
 Scott, John Robinson 
 
 . 61 
 
 
 Durham, John , 
 
 388-389 
 
 Brooke Robert 
 
 371,383 
 
 Brierly, Henry . 
 
 . 19 
 
 
 Barker Luke 
 
 139 
 
 
 Buckley, James " . 
 
 67 
 
 
 Cartledge, J ames 
 
 . 127 
 
 
 Jamieson, Peter 
 
 ^ 177 
 
 
 Eastwood, Mr. 
 
 139 
 
 
 Fenton, James . . , , 
 
 . 388 
 
 ,389 
 
 Griffin, William . 
 
 153 
 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 .19 
 
 
 Hearp, John 
 
 ,139 
 
 
 Buckley, James 
 
 67 
 
 
 Heap, William 
 
 . 143 
 
 
 Jamieson, Peter , 
 
 . 177 
 
 
 Brophy, Patrick Murphy 
 
 
 388 
 
 Fletcher, John "j 
 
 
 
 Brierly, Henry . 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 16, 17, 19 
 123 
 
 Fraser, Thomas > No evidence 
 Grasby, James J 
 
 Harney, George Julian 
 
 • 
 
 387 
 
 383 
 
 Campbell, John 
 
 . 
 
 381 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 126 
 
 
 Bell,4lobert 
 
 . 116 
 
 
 Griffin, William . 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Cartledge, James . 
 
 126 
 
 
 HiU, WiUiam 
 
 
 383 
 
 Griffin, WUbam 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 . \m 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 . 120 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE DEFENDANTS. 
 
 Hoyle, John 
 
 Page 
 
 383 
 
 Griffin, WUUam 
 
 153 
 
 Scott, John Robinson 
 
 . 61 
 
 Johnson, George 
 
 Brierly, Henry . 
 
 22 
 
 Haigh, Joseph 
 
 14 
 
 Leach, James 
 
 380 
 
 Beswick, Richard 
 
 106 
 
 Chambers, Samuel 
 
 320 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 . 126 
 
 Fairclough, Paul 
 
 320 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 M’ Mullen, Archibald 
 
 102 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 120 
 
 Noblett, Thomas 
 
 . 117 
 
 Sutton, Thomas 
 
 138 
 
 Leach, John 
 
 383,385,389 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 22 
 
 Buckley, James . 
 
 . 64 
 
 , Cartledge, James . 
 
 127 
 
 Clayton, William . 
 
 . 126 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 153 
 
 Hanly, John 
 
 . 167 
 
 Little, Joseph 
 
 27 
 
 Moore, William 
 
 . 47 
 
 Sadler, Joseph 
 
 42 
 
 Lees, Robert 
 
 . 388 
 
 Maiden, Matthew 
 
 172 
 
 Turner, Samuel 
 
 . 100 
 
 Lewis, John 
 
 371,388 
 
 Cooper, Joe 
 
 . 90-91 
 
 Lees, Henry . 
 
 148 
 
 Newton, Robert . 
 
 . 148 
 
 Rhodes, Thomas 
 
 94-149 
 
 Rothwell, James . 
 
 . 178 
 
 Lomax, John, no evidence 
 
 387 
 
 M'Cartney, Bernard 
 
 . 383,385 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 127 
 
 Fryar, Nathan 
 
 98 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 153 
 
 Hanly, John 
 
 167 
 
 Nasmyth, George 
 
 98 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 . 120 
 
 Rowe, George 
 
 99 
 
 M'Douall, Peter Murray 
 
 380, 382 
 
 Barlow, George 
 
 . 137 
 
 Bell, Robert 
 
 115 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 123 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 153 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary 
 
 . 120 
 
 Noblett, Thomas 
 
 116 , 
 
 Sutton, Thomas 
 
 138 
 
 Mahon, Thomas 
 
 388 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 . 19 
 
 Buckley, James . 
 
 67 
 
 Massey, John, no evidence 
 
 . 387 
 
 Mooney, James 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 Griliin, William 
 Whittam, James 
 Morrison, David 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 Fryar, Nathan . 
 
 Griffin, William 
 Hanly, John 
 Nasmyth, George 
 Norman, John 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 Griffin, William 
 O'Connor Feargus , 
 
 Ardell, John 
 
 [; Bell, Robert . . , 
 
 Brooke, Titus S. Jun. . 319 
 
 Cartledge, James . . 127 
 
 Drake, William , , 111 
 
 Farr, John . . . 320 
 
 Griffin, William . 153 
 
 Halliday, James , . 319 
 
 Hindley, James . • 115 
 
 Holland, Henry . . 312 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary . 120 
 
 Noblett, Thomas , . 117 
 
 Pray, J. Clark . . 318 
 
 Scholefield, William . . 308 
 
 Otley, Richard . : . 383 
 
 Cartledge, James . 127 
 
 Griffin, William . . 153 
 
 Parkes, Samuel ... . 383 
 
 Cartledge, James . . 126 
 
 Griffin, William . . 153 
 
 Pilling, Richard . . . 383,389 
 
 Brierly, Henry . 
 
 17,18 
 
 
 Buckley, James 
 
 65 
 
 
 Longson, Abraham 
 
 54,367 
 
 
 Oliver, Joseph 
 
 . 73 
 
 
 Turner, Samuel • 
 
 100 
 
 
 Wilcox, James 
 
 145 
 
 
 Pitt, Thomas 
 
 
 , 
 
 Nolle prosequi entered . 
 
 121 
 
 
 Acquitted under the direction of 
 
 
 the Court . . 
 
 125 
 
 
 Railton, Thomas 
 
 . 
 
 383 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 127 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 153 
 
 
 Ramsden, Robert . . 
 
 
 383 
 
 Ross, David, no evidence offered 
 
 , 
 
 386 
 
 Scholefield, James 
 
 . 
 
 387 
 
 Bell, Robert 
 
 116 
 
 
 Brook, John 
 
 . 311 
 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 127 
 
 
 Cockshott, John 
 
 : 312 
 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 . 153 
 
 
 Hanly, John • 
 
 169 
 
 
 Page 
 
 . 383 
 
 . 127 
 
 • v • 
 
 . 173 
 
 . 383, 385. 
 
 122, 127 
 97 
 
 . 153 
 
 167 
 97 
 
 : 383 
 
 127 
 153 
 
 373,375,382. 
 . . 321 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST 
 
 Page 
 
 OF THE DEFENDANTS. 
 
 > T, • .. j A )i r-’i \ :rT ■, 
 
 ! Northcote, John . 310 
 
 Scholefield, William . 308 
 
 Scholefield, William . 
 
 Nolle prosequi entered . 121 . 
 
 Verdict of acquittal . 125 
 
 Skevington, James 
 
 Cartledge, James . . 127 
 
 Griffin, William . . 153 
 
 Smith, Thomas Browne, no evidence 387 
 
 Stephenson, William 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 Buckley, James 
 Jamieson, Peter 
 Little, Joseph 
 Storah, Thomas 
 
 Brierly, Henry 
 
 388-389 
 
 18-19-22 
 
 64 
 
 . 177 
 
 .29 
 
 17 
 
 389 
 
 Page 
 
 385 
 
 Taylor, Frederick Augustus . 
 
 Hanly,John . . 167 
 
 , jScott, John Robinson . 61 
 
 ato?JoLl •• 
 
 Wilde, John . . . 
 
 Brierly, Henry . . 22 
 
 Buckley, James . . 68 
 
 Verdict of acquittal taken 81, 125 
 Nolle prosequi eniextdi . 121 
 
 Woodruffe, William . • 385-386 
 
 Haigh, Joseph . 13-14 
 
 Hanly, John ; . 167 
 
 Woolfenden, Albert . . . 385-386 
 
 Brierly, Henry . . 23 
 
 Buckley, James . 67 
 
 Hanly, John . . 167 
 
 
 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 . hit-.: >, 
 
 A: 
 
 i; . 
 A 
 
 OU . 
 
 ■rii; 
 
 avJ 
 
 ■ - 
 
 8 : 
 
 ; ' .t' 
 
 >: r 
 c<i 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST/ OF WITNESSES, 
 
 WITH THE PAGE AT WHICH THEI^, EyiHENO.E i WIEIi i BE yOU?jp. 
 
 Page 
 
 Ardell, John, clerk . . 321 •] 
 
 Bannister, Samuel, chief-constable of police, 
 
 Preston . . . *76 
 
 Barker, Luke, schoolmaster . . 139 
 
 Barker, William, journeyman tailor . 177 
 
 Barlow, George, an apprentice . 137 
 
 Barrington, Thomas, governor Of Stockport 
 
 workhouse . . 45 
 
 Beattie, Thomas, called birt not examined . 39 
 Bell, Robert, extra policeman . 115 
 
 Bentley, William, policeman . . . [64 
 
 Beswick, Richard, chief superintendent of 
 
 police, Manchester. 
 
 104 
 
 Bradshaw, James, millowner 
 
 89 
 
 Brierly, Henry, factory operative 
 
 16 
 
 Brook, John, cabinetmaker 
 
 311 
 
 Brooke, Titus S. Jun., druggist 
 
 319 
 
 Brook, John, book-keeper and manager to 
 
 Mr. Platt 
 
 . 83 
 
 Buckley, James, 
 
 64 
 
 Cartledge, James 
 
 121—125 ^ 
 
 Chambers, Samuel, carpenter 
 
 320 
 
 Chappell, alderinan George Boyle 
 
 316 
 
 Clayton, William, constable 
 
 26 
 
 Cockshott, John, butcher 
 
 312 
 
 Cooper, Joe, cotton -spinner 
 
 . 90 
 
 Crompton, James, constable of Stockport . 48 
 
 Drake, William 
 
 111 
 
 Eastwood, Mr., solicitor 
 
 . 139 
 
 Fairclough, Paul, fruiterer 
 
 320 
 
 Fair, John, steward to Mr. O’Connor 
 
 . ib. 
 
 Faraday, Silvester, constable 
 
 63 
 
 Fryar, Nathan, blacksmith 
 
 97 
 
 Griffin, William, reporter 
 
 . 153 
 
 Haigh, Joseph, milkman 
 
 . 13 
 
 Halliday, James, spinner 
 
 . 319 
 
 Hanley, John, reporter 
 
 166 
 
 Heap, John, constable 
 
 139-144 
 
 Heap, William, late farmer 
 
 . 143 
 
 Hibbert, Joseph, clerk to the magistrates df 
 
 Hyde 
 
 82—95 
 
 Hindley, James, driver of a fly 
 
 115 
 
 Holland, Henry, block cutter 
 
 . 312 
 
 Jamieson, Peter, tailor . 
 
 176 
 
 53 
 
 Page^ 
 
 Kershaw, James, mayor of Manchester . ^ 31 
 
 Lees, Henry . . i’ . 
 
 Little, Joseph, ^ecial high constable .jpf . _ 
 Hyde * 27,96 
 
 Longson, Abraham, police constable of Stock- 
 port . * : . * 
 
 M'Cabe, Grattan, superintendent of police 
 at Burnley . • 
 
 M‘Mullen, Arcliibald, inspector of Manches- 
 ter police force . • 
 
 Maiden, Matthew, conatablepf Ashton . 172 
 Moore, William, dresser . . 46 
 
 Nasmyth, George, occupier of Bridgewater 
 forge • • * 
 
 Newton, Robert, deputy constable of Ashton 
 under Lyne • • 
 
 Newton, Samuel . • .173 
 
 Noblett, Agnes Mary . • 
 
 Noblett, Thomas • • 
 
 Northcote, John, Printer . • ^10 
 
 Oliver, Joseph, overlooker at Robinson’s 
 mill . . • 
 
 Potter, Sir Thomas, magistrate of Manches- 
 
 ter • • 
 
 Pray, Isaac Clarke 
 
 Rhodes, Henry, steam-loom weaver 
 Rhodes, Thomas, cotton manufacturer 
 Roberts, George, book-keeper 
 Rothwell, James 
 Rowe, George, coachman 
 
 Sadler, Joseph, police officer 
 Scholefield, William, schoolmaster 
 Scott, John Robinson 
 
 Shepherd, Edwin, superintendent of police 
 at Blackburn 
 
 Shepley, Samuel, cotton spinner 
 
 Storack, Charles, a designer 
 
 Sutton, Thomas, an apprentice 
 Taylor, Rev. Jno. 
 
 Thorpe, Issachar, manager of print-works 
 Turner, Samuel, farmer 
 
 Whittam, James 
 
 W'ilcox, James . • ^ 
 
 313 
 
 318 
 
 179 
 92, 149 
 178 
 178 
 . 99 
 
 41 
 
 308 
 
 61 
 
 152 
 
 147 
 
 174 
 139 
 
 81 
 
 175 
 100 
 
 173 
 
 144 
 
INDEX 
 
 TO ‘THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING REPORT. 
 
 ^ Page. 
 
 Allinson, John, Evidence against him . 257 
 Acquittal of . . ' I' • 264 
 
 Atherton, Mr., Objection urged by him 
 against the Examination of Cart- 
 ledge . * ' • 124 
 
 Speech of, in defence of Fenton and 
 Stephenson . • 217 
 
 Attorney-General, The, opening Speech of 3 
 Answer to Objection raised against 
 the Examination of Cartledge . 124 
 
 Reply of . . 328 
 
 Baines, Mr., Speech of, in defence of Schole- 
 
 field , . _ . 199 
 
 Bairstow, Jonathan, Speech of 271 
 
 Beesley, William, Speech of . . 264 
 
 Brooke, Robert, Papers taken from him 
 
 when arrested . < ■ /. 141,142 
 
 Cartledge, James, Argument on his being 
 admitted as a witness for prose- 
 cution . . 121-125 
 
 j^olle prosequi exii&r^di . 121 
 
 Acquitted by direction of the Court 125 
 Defendants, List of . . 2 
 
 Doyle, Christopher, Speech of . c, • 266 
 
 Dundas, Mr., objection taken by him to the 
 . ^ examination of Cartledge , . 121 
 
 His speech on behalf of Robert 
 Brooke . . ^ . 184 
 
 Evening Starnewspaper, Extract frotn,*^ read 134 
 f hHarney, George Julian, Speech of . ‘ 231 
 
 Hunt’s Monument, placard announcing 
 
 opening of ' , . ^07 
 
 Placard postponing sarne ' i08, 30940 
 
 r Indictment, abstract of, ,, . , p. w .‘215-16 
 
 copy of. V ,,352-6 
 
 Introduction lu. i 
 
 Page. 
 
 Lancashire, South, Address of the delegates 
 
 of . 
 
 134, 136 
 
 Leach, James, Speech of 
 
 . 277 
 
 Lewis, John, Letters from, read 
 
 149, 150 
 
 M’Cartney, Bernard, Speech of 
 
 257 
 
 McOubrey, Mr., Speech of in Behalf of 
 
 Mooney and Aitkin . 
 
 . 229 
 
 Murphy, Mr., Sergeant : His speech on be- 
 
 half of M’Douall, Railton, and 
 Durham . , 209 
 
 National Charter Association, Address of the 
 Executive Committee of 
 
 96 
 
 Northern Star newspaper. Extracts from 
 
 put in and read . 113, 321, 328 
 
 O’Connor, Feargus, Objection made by him 
 to Cartledge’s evidence being re- 
 ceived . . 124 
 
 Complaint made by him against 
 Irwin . . . 151 
 
 His speech in defence . 285 
 
 Otley, Richard, Speech of . . 245 
 
 Pilling, Richard, Speech of . . 248 
 
 Pitt, Thomas, Nolle prosequi entered for . 121 
 
 Acquitted by direction of the Court 125 
 Proclamation, The Queen’s ^ . 32 
 
 Rolfe, Baron Mr., Letter to . . i 
 
 His opinion on the right to examine 
 Cartledge . . ' 125 
 
 ' His note of the objection raised to his 
 j examination . . . ib. 
 
 Summing up of , . , 357 
 
 Scholefield, William, nolle prosequi entered ’ 121 
 “ Acquitted by dhection of the 
 
 Court . , 1 .. . : 
 
 iJrwin, Mr., Complaint made against him 
 
 , '■■lx •> \ 
 
 Johnson, George, Speech, of .* j -i 
 
 Acquittal of . 
 
 Jury, The,” Names of 
 
 .TO”; 
 
 ' 'V, 
 
 ‘u:255 
 
 256 
 
 i \ ■■■ hi J 
 
 Thornton, John, Acquittal oL" . ; ' . 
 
 ' 
 
 AVi^e, John, Verdict of acquittal taken . 
 j ; Nolle promjilimteved, /.■ . 
 
 Acquitted by directioii^ pf the C purt 
 
 125 
 
 2^9 
 
 81 
 
 121 
 
 125 
 
 -Woolfenden, Albert, His^ipeech in defence ■ 275 
 
LIST OF PLACES 
 
 At which Meetings, &c., were held, w ith the names of the Witnesses, and page of 
 the Report at which their evidence will be found. 
 
 Ashton-under -Lyne . — Brierly, 21 ; Haigh, 13 ; 
 Maiden, 172 ; Newton, 173 ; Storack, 174 ; 
 Turner, 100; Wilcox, 144. 
 
 Baciq ). — Faraday, 63. 
 
 Basinstone . — Heap, William, 143. 
 
 Blackburn . — Shepherd, 152. 
 
 Bridgewater Foundry near Worsley . — Nasmyth, 
 97 ; Fryar, 97, 98. 
 
 Brookfield nedx Glossop . — Shepley, 147 ; Rhodes, 
 92. 
 
 Burnley . — Holland, 312; M‘Cabe, 174. 
 
 Carleton . — Whittam, 173. 
 
 Cave of the Adulamites . — Brierly, 20. 
 
 Charlestown Meeting Room . — Haigh, 13 ; Wil- 
 cox, 145. 
 
 Chisworth near Glossop . — Cooper, 90. 
 
 Co/we.— Holland, 312. 
 
 Dalton . — Rothwell, 178. 
 
 Denton . — Buckley, 66. 
 
 Duckenfield . — Brierley,17 ; Oliver, 73 ; Rhodes, 
 179 ; Thorpe, 176. 
 
 Eccles . — Fryar, 98 ; Nasmyth, 97. 
 
 Glossop . — Brierly,’ 23 ; Cooper, 90 ; Rothwell, 
 178. 
 
 Granby Row Fields . — Beswick, 104 ; M‘2vlullen, 
 102 ; Turner, 100, 
 
 Haigh., The . — Brierly, 16, 19, 20,22 ; Buckley, 67. 
 Hall Grce/ 2 .— Oliver, 73. 
 
 Holt Town. — Turner, 100. 
 
 iTytZe.— Brierly, 16, 21 ; Buckley, 66 ; Clayton, 
 26 ; Hibbert, 82 ; Little, 27, 31, 96. 
 
 Manchester . — Beswick, 104 ; Cartledge, 122 ; 
 Chappell, 316 ; Griffin, 164 ; Kershaw, 317 ; 
 M'Mullen, 101, 104 ; Potter, 313. 
 
 Marple near Stockport.— 46; Cromp- 
 ton, 48. 
 
 Oldham . — Cartledge, 121. 
 
 Orchard The (Preston) . — Bannister, 76. 
 
 Peak Forest Canal . — Crompton, 49. 
 
 Preston . — Bannister, 76. 
 
 Bentley, 64. 
 
 Royton.—%cott, 61. 
 
 Stalybridge.—’BricrlY, 16, 22; Brooks, 83; 
 Buckley, 64, 65 ; Jamieson, 176 ; Thorpe, 176. 
 
 Stockport . — Barrington, 45; Bradshaw, 89; 
 Crompton, 48 ; Longson, 53, 60 ; Sadler, 
 41. 
 
 Thacker's Ground or Foundry. — Buckley, 65 ; 
 Haigh, 13, 14 ; Oliver, 74 ; Turner, 100 ; 
 Wilcox, 144. 
 
 Heap, John, 144; Heap, William, 
 
 143. 
 
 Waterloo Road near Stockport.— ’Longson, 53. 
 
 Wedensough Green or Mottram Moor . — Brierly, 
 20 ; Buckley, 64 ; Little, 27, 31 ; Rhodes, 
 92, 94. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 
 
 2. 7th line from top, 1st and 2nd column — 
 for ‘ Bairstow, John,’ read ‘ Bairstow, 
 Jonathan.’ — For ‘ Morris, David,’ read 
 ‘ Morrison.’ 
 
 18. 7th line from top, 2nd column — read 
 ‘ There is an end of your point, Mr. 
 Dundas.’ 
 
 25. 17th line, 2nd column — insert ‘ Mr. 
 
 O’CONNOR: — This, my Lord,’ &c. 
 
 30. 5 lines from bottom, 1st column— insert 
 ‘ Mr. POLLOCK :-Who spoke,’ &c. 
 35. 18 lines from bottom, 1st column — insert 
 ‘ Mr. O’CONNOR : — What day,’ &c. 
 
 56. 5th line, 2nd column — read ‘ one of the 
 
 first. When Sawyer and me went up 
 stairs, -they dissolved,’ &c. 
 
 57. Line 44, 2nd column — insert ‘Mr. DUN- 
 
 DAS : — My Lord,’ &c. 
 
 70. Line 16, 1st column — insert ‘ Mr. DUN- 
 DAS . — Were you,’ &c. Line 1, 2nd 
 column — for ‘ your ’ read ‘ that. ’ 
 
 106. Line 18, 1st column — insert ‘ The ATTOR- 
 NEY-GENERAL You took, also,’ 
 &c. 
 
 119. Line 26, 1st column — ‘The JUDGE: — 
 Who is that? Mr. O’CONNOR:— 
 Christopher Doyle.’ 
 
 127. Line 16, 1st column — ‘ The ATTOR- 
 NEY-GENERAL :— Who also were 
 present? Mr. O’CONNOR : — Mr. 
 Hill,’ &c. Line 43, 2nd column — ‘ Who 
 seconded, &c. Mr. O’Connor.’ 
 
 132. Line 35, 2nd column — New paragraph : — 
 
 Mr. O’CONNOR :— A, &c. 
 
 133. Line 27, 1st column — for ‘ sent ’ read 
 
 ‘ saw.’ 
 
 140. Line 26, 2nd column — for ‘ not ’ read ‘ no 
 doubt.’ 
 
 143. Line 32, 2nd column — read ‘ Did you give 
 up farming or did it give up yoii ? ’ 
 
 146. Line 41, 1st column — for ‘ Highley ’ read 
 ‘ Shipley.’ Line 42, 1st column — for 
 ‘ Highley ’ read ‘ Hddyard.’ 
 
 148. Line 11, 2nd column — for ‘ indited ’ read 
 ‘ indicted.’ Line 12, 2nd column — for 
 ‘ Leach ’ read ‘ Lewis.’ 
 
 Page 
 
 162. Line 48, 1st column — insert ‘Mr. O’CON- 
 NOR : — But to which,’ &c. 
 
 166. Line 42, 1st column — for ‘ Stanley ’ read 
 ‘ Hanly.’ Line 47, [insert— ‘ The WIT- 
 NESS:— My Lord,’ &c. 
 
 177. Line 9, 2nd column — for ‘sowing’ read 
 * sewing.’ 
 
 188. Lines 46-54, 2nd column — for ‘ Mr.’ read 
 ‘Me.’ 
 
 196. Line 40, 1st column — for ‘ wip ’ read 
 ‘ whip.’ Line 14, 2nd column — new 
 paragraph, ‘ I believe it is,’ &c. 
 
 207. Line 26, 2nd column — for ‘ votes ’ read 
 ‘ notes.’ 
 
 217. Line 9, 1st column — for ‘James and’ read 
 ‘ James Fenton and.’ 
 
 241. Last line, 1st column — for ‘ detached ’ read 
 ‘ attached.’ Line 9, 2nd column— for 
 ‘ that ’ read ‘ than.’ J 
 
 369. Line 4 from bottom, 2nd column — for ‘ p.9’ 
 
 read ‘ p. 115.’ Last line, 2nd column — 
 
 ‘ pp. 10, 15,’ read ‘ pp. 115, 116.’ 
 
 370. Line 1, 1st column — for ‘ p. 28 ’ read ‘ p. 
 
 120.’ 
 
 371. Line 42, 2nd column — for ‘ for ’ read ‘ far.’ 
 
 372. Line 33, 1st column — for ‘ p. 101 ’ read 
 
 ‘ p. 179.’ 
 
 374. The following passage “ I must say I ne- 
 ver heard much of Mr. O’Connor’s 
 speeches in that place — (the House of 
 Commons) — where I once sat with him. 
 At some public meetings out of doors I 
 may have heard him, but I must take 
 my account of his speeches from the evi- 
 dence,” has been by some means wholly 
 transposed — it should read thus : — ‘ The 
 learned Judg^ said, that although he had 
 not heard any of the public harangues of 
 Mr. 0‘Connor,yet, as an appeal had been 
 made to him, he must say, that he had 
 heard his speeches in another place, 
 which^always appeared to be charac- 
 terised by zeal and energy.’ 
 
M'GOWAN-AND CO., PRINTERS, 
 
 GREAT WINDMILL STREET, HATMARKET, LONUOK, 
 
 
 I