gentry in an hour;" another said, "They will soon see what they have brought on themselves;" he spoke it in the broad Lancashire dialect. Some of the people shouldered their sticks, and some waved them at intervals, as if they were rejoicing; I took up and examined several of the large sticks, and some of them had a mark on them, as if something had been screwed on them; I felt very great alarm for the safety of the town.

Mr. F. Phillips. I reside near Manchester; I am a merchant and manufacturer there; my attention was attracted by the crowds of people who were going to Manchester on the 16th: the party that I met at Hardwick-green, about a mile and half from Manchester, consisted of about 1,500 persons; they marched without music, but with perfect regularity; I saw a great number of sticks; some as thick as my wrist; I saw one apparently as thick as my wrist, with green bark as if newly cut. The man who had it carried it on his shoulder; he observed that I was looking at him; he put his other hand to it and shook it at me in a threatening manner. I observed another large party enter St. Peter's-field; a number of them were distinguished by a green leaf in their hats, another part had a white badge in their hats; from the appearance of the meeting, I expected that Manchester would not exist ás Manchester that night; and I am firmly of opinion, that if a bolder commander had been at their head, such as Thistlewood, that would have been the case. In my judgment, the danger was averted by the wisdom of the magistrates, and the co-operation of the military in aid of the civil power. I heard a great num

ber of expressions from the mob, one I remember a man, like one of the witnesses, was addressing a little group round him; he said to his companions, " it will soon be settled; and when our strength and numbers are known, people of consequence will join us."

I could;

Lieut. F. Buckley. I am an officer in the 15th hussars. I was in captain Carpenter's troop on the 16th of August. We halted before Mr. Buxton's house. The Manchester yeomanry appeared very much dispersed amongst the crowd at that time, so that they could not act as a body. They appeared to be jammed in. Το enable them to get out of the crowd, I considered it necessary that other military force should go to their assistance. We were ordered to "front and forward." We accordingly proceeded forward. The mass of people was so great, that I thought it proper to urge my mare as fast as ing in contact with the people, she fell, and I with her. The persons, with whom I came in contact, stood as if determined to oppose the body then advancing. As soon as I disentangled myself from my mare, and raised her, I mounted and galloped to the Peter-street side of the Meeting-house; several of the mob had fronted to the military. I heard cries of " pelt them, pelt them;" and I saw several showers of missiles at the same time. The greater part of the people were behind the breastwork of a wall; I thought this act denoted a resistance to the military; there was a great number of persons in the Meeting-house yard; I endeavoured to get into the yard, but found it impracticable. I encountered a man, who had in his hand what appeared to me to be an iron hoop doubled together; to defend myself I struck at him he fell, but my sword struck him slightly; this was after he attempted to strike me; several were flying, but this man stood his ground.

Lieut. C. R. O'Donnell. I am a lieutenant in the 15th hussars; on my arrival on the ground on the 16th of August, there was a temporary halt for the purpose of forming; we then advanced. The station which I occupied led me towards the Peter-street side of the Meeting-house. After I had passed the Meeting-house, a man made a blow at me with an iron bar or railing, similar to those in the front of houses; I warded it off with my sword.

Lieut. J. M'Alpine. I was a lieutenant in the 15th on the 16th of August; we received the word to advance, almost immediately after we formed on the ground; in our advance I saw one of the yeomanry lying on the ground apparently senseless; I observed a man on foot walking near him, he had a small knife open in his hand; the blade appeared to be about three inches in length, half an inch broad, and sharp at the point.

Wm. Rook. - I was a private in captain Whiteford's troop, on the 16th of August; I advanced with the rest of the troop, and was attacked by one of the crowd; the instrument he used was in the form of a gardener's hook; it had iron at the end. It was a short stock, about the length of my arm, he struck at me just at the end of the saddle-flap, close in the flank. A yeomanry cavalry man said to me. "Dragoon, if you don't take care, your horse's entrails will fall from under you." I looked down, to see what condi

tion my mare was in; and I saw the blood run; I tried to catch the man, but he escaped under the cavalry man's horse's belly, into the crowd. My horse was cut from the end of the saddle-flaps to the flank. I afterwards went towards the Quaker's Meeting-house; I saw one of the yeomanry cavalry there, and several men attacking him with a pole; they knocked him off his horse, and he was carried into a house insensible.

Wm. Carnell.-I am a private in the 15th hussars, in captain Whiteford's troop; I advanced from the front of Buxton's house towards the hustings; as we advanced, I received a blow on the thigh; before I got to the hustings, my horse received a blow on the head; the nose band of the bridle appeared to have been cut by a sharp instrument; at this time, our troop had been separated by the thickness of the crowd; I saw a great quantity of stones thrown by the mob at the military; I received a blow from one just below the eye. As I rode towards the Meeting-house, I saw a pistol fired out of the yard; I also saw a pistol fired from a house on the left-hand side of the ground.

T. Barnes. I was a serjeant in the Manchester yeomanry cavalry on the 16th of August; I was attached to captain Withington's troop. We followed the hussars and went close up with them as one of their troops. I was captain Withington's covering serjeant, and did not leave him.

Mr. Serjeant Hullock here closed the case on the part of the defence. Mr. Blackburne replied at great length.

Mr. Justice Holroyd began at 20 minutes before 4 o'clock to charge the jury. This was an action, said his lordship, brought by the plaintiff, Redford, against four persons, one of whom, Birley, was captain of a troop of the Manchester yeomanry; another was an officer of a different troop of the same corps; a third was a private, named Oliver, and the fourth was Meagher, a trumpeter; and the action sought to recover compensation for an injury which Redford alleged he had sustained by an assault of the said defendants, on the 16th of August, 1819, at Manchester. The jury had heard, that the defendants were yeomanry, and the law made this distinction in such cases that if the yeomanry went among the people on that day, by command of the civil magistracy, and to execute a lawful purpose, and that one of them, while so engaged, committed an unlawful act, then the others being lawfully employed, and not participating in the unlawful act of one of their party, were not answerable for his conduct. But if they went in a body to do, not a lawful, but an unlawful act, then all were by the law held responsible, their original intent being alike illegal. Even in the latter case, however, if one of the party separate from the rest, did an act, not in pursuance of the common design, then the others were not involved in his particular guilt. In the defence, it was contended that the meeting of the 16th of August, 1819, was, if not actually riotous according to law, at least what was denominated a riotous meeting, and one which might become riotous if permitted to carry its object into effect; and that the yeomanry were called in to disperse such meeting by the order of the magistracy. There were other parts of the pleas which led to a

great deal of evidence-namely, that there existed a previous seditious conspiracy to excite discontent in the minds of the king's subjects, and that divers persons were at that meeting engaged in the designs of the conspirators. As to what constitutes, in the eye of the law, an illegal assembly, he could not explain the point more clearly, than it was laid down by his learned coadjutor (Mr. Justice Bayley) at a former trial in York. In the first place, a riot consisted of three or more persons unlawfully meeting together, with or without cause of quarrel, so as to endanger the king's peace. A riotous assembly was, where the parties met for a common purpose, intending to do something in a riotous manner, but yet not remaining long enough to accomplish it. An unlawful assembly was any meeting convened under such circumstances, as the law could not, with safety to the public, allow. Then to ascertain how far this meeting of the 16th of August came within any of these descriptions, they must look at the mode and manner of its assembling-what were all the circumstances preceding and attending its organization-who were the leaders who brought the divisions to the meeting-what were the banners, and how the bearers of them conducted themselves on that occasion, who had been drilled, and what was the apparent object of that drilling. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had truly said, that drilling might be innocent; but was it so here? If the object of it were so to arrange the parties at the meeting, as to secure, by a confidence in their own numbers, an attention to the speeches to be then made, and having the ulti mate object of attaining the com

plete purpose they had in view by a demonstration of their strength, then such a meeting, so got together, was clearly illegal. If from the general appearance and all the accompanying circumstances of that meeting, it excited reasonable grounds of alarm and apprehension, then it was unlawful; all persons, attending it in such a manner as to evince a determination to co-operate in the attainment of its object, were alike criminal; and it became the bounden duty of those who were sworn to keep the peace, to take such steps as were calculated to avert from the peaceable inhabitants the apprehended mischief. It might be, that, had they refrained from doing so, they would have incurred (as Kennett, lord mayor of London had, in the year 1780) a criminal prosecution.

The learned judge then enumerated the different heads of the evidence, and commented upon the previous drilling of parties who had been seen at the meetingtheir assault on the constable, and on Murray-their hissing before the latter's house when marching into Manchester-their hooting before the Exchange, and again at the soldiery.

At six o'clock, the jury retired for about six minutes, and then returned with a verdict for the defendants.

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.

In the following term a motion for a new trial was made in the court of King's-bench; and, after elaborate argument, was refused. On the 2nd of May the judges delivered their opinion on it seriatim.

The Lord Chief Justice said,

that it was perfectly clear, that there was no pretence whatever for the motion. The first ground on which it had been rested, was, that evidence of other acts of wounding committed by the defendants in different parts of the field had been rejected. Here it was to be observed, that as proof was only offered, connecting one of four defendants with the injury sustained by the plaintiff, it was material for him to show, that all were concerned in one illegal purpose, and it was also material for him to prove the peaceable character of the meeting in order to anticipate the special grounds of defence; for these purposes it was sufficient for him to give general evidence of the conduct of each party; and all such general evidence was received; but it was quite immaterial to those points, whether A had been struck by B, C, or any other individual. Had the counsel submitted to the judge some distinct reason, why proof of a specific injury should be received as throwing light on the general question, he would have exercised his judgment upon it, and would have taken a note of the precise ground on which it was offered; but it would be of the greatest mischief, if verdicts were set aside, because counsel afterwards suggested, for the first time, that evidence, apparently irrelevant, might have some possible bearing on the matter in issue. But in this case there was nothing even suggested, to show that a different course should have been adopted. The second ground relied on was, that improper evidence had been received; and this evidence was of two classes-the first consisted of the matters antecedent to the meeting, and of the antecedent alarm; and the other of the conversations of unknown parties respecting its object. Now the pleas charged, that the meeting was riotous and unlawful, and that it was the result of a conspiracy; and surely, with reference to these pleas, all the antecedent sayings and actings of its promoters were material. Surely it was important to show, that the person who was to preside at this meeting, and whose appearance was hailed by so tremendous a shout, had excited certain irritations on former visits, and to trace from day to day all that occurred between his first arrival and his last. And a fortiori, the declarations of persons going to the meeting, or towards the meeting, were evidence to show its character; for, by what other means could it be proved that its apparent object was not its real object, as in every case the design openly professed would be legal? Those who attended such a meeting, indeed, would doubtless be actuated by different motives; some by mere curiosity; others by a real conviction of the necessity of reform; others by the desire for immediate mischief; and others, not contemplating immediate violence, but looking forward to the time, when those who had

been drilled should advance one

little step in their military education, and meet with those arms which they had been so well trained to use. But, at all events, the language of persons going towards such a meeting, was evidence tending to show the spirit which actuated the mass of the assembly, and the evils which might result from its proceedings. The third ground of the application was, that the learned judge had misdirected the jury; and one alleged instance of this misdirection was,

that he had put it to them, as a question for their consideration, whether there was sufficient proof that the plaintiff was really wounded. This he was bound so to put to them; the point was pressed by the counsel for the defendants; and when he heard the extraordinary statement of the witness Prestwick-when he found that no surgeon, no nurse, no friend, who had seen the wound, was called-when he perceived that the plaintiff had not availed himself of the fund subscribed for the relief of the wounded-he would have neglected his duty, if he had not submitted the point to the attention of the jury. Another part of the charge complained of was, that the judge had said, that if the defendants were acting in aid of the civil authorities in the execution of the warrant, they were entitled to an acquittal: and so they undoubtedly were. Again it was objected, that the jury were told, that if they believed the charge of conspiracy, they must find for the defendants; and surely, if the meeting were the result of a conspiracy to overthrow the government, it might rightly be dispersed; and this conspiracy was to be inferred from many acts, one of which was that drilling, in which the plaintiff himself was a sharer. The contradictory evidence on the question, by whom the first assault was made, was submitted to the jury in the most fair, and correct, and humane manner by the learned judge. The last ground offered for a new trial was, that the verdict was against evidence; and really it had excited some surprise, that the zeal of any gentleman at the bar should have led him to take such a position. There was ample proof of previous preparation