Edwards, though frequently complaining of poverty, yet had money to purchase those arms and ammunition which were seen on the table, and which he had paid for. He had made hand-grenades, and often advised him to throw them into the carriages of the ministers in the streets. Why, he now asked, was not this man produced? Why was he not called upon to give evidence? He attributed no pure motives to the law officers for not having called him; for, if he had been called, he would have shewn what the nature of the case was. He next proceeded to speak of the motives which had actuated himself and others; and said, that the immorality of assassination had been talked of. That might be true in some cases, but Brutus and Cassius were extolled to the skies for the murder of one tyrant; and why-Here the prisoner was interrupted by

The Lord Chief Justice ABBOT, who said,—Prisoner, as long as your observations have been directed towards us, we heard you without interruption; but we cannot allow a person even in your situation to attempt to justify assassination.

Thistlewood resumed. He said he had only a few words more, and then he would conclude. He then resumed his attack on his Majesty's Ministers, and maintained, that where men set themselves above the laws, insurrection was a duty. [He was again interrupted by the Court, and told of the extreme impropriety and little use to him of this mode of address. He went on, and again complained of what he called the unfairness of his trial. His object was to free his country, which, he regretted, was still a land of despots. In conclusion, he declared his mangled body would, he knew, soon be consigned to its native soil; but he was sorry that it should be a soil for slaves, cowards, and despots. He would con

sider himself as murdered, if executed on the verdict given against him. He did not seek pity, but he demanded justice. He had not had a fair trial, and protested against judgment being passed upon him.

In the beginning of this address, as we noticed before, the prisoner spoke in a feeble accent, but before he concluded, his voice seemed strengthened, and he spoke with firmness, and some degree of energy. On concluding his address, he leaned against the side of the bar, and seemed more like an indifferent spectator of, than a prominent character in, the awful scene which ensued.

Davidson, Brunt, and Ings, made addresses nearly similar to their former ones, following the example of Thistlewood, in complaining of the injustice of their trial.-Brunt said, he cared not for his life, he valued it as little as any man on the terrestrial globe, when in liberty's cause; but he wished for a fair trial. He wished to be justly convicted if he was guilty, but he had not had a fair trial. That sword of justice, and those tablets (pointing to the sword which is usually placed over the Lord Mayor's chair on the Bench, and to inscriptions of texts from Scripture against false swearing), these were nothing but a mockery, if justice were denied to him. He had an antipathy against the enemies of his country, an esteem for an honest man, a feeling for his fellow-countrymen. He had never conspired to depose his Majesty, or to levy war against him, as he had been charged: but if resisting the civil power was treason, then he confessed he was guilty. He was no traitor to his country-he was no traitor to his King, but a loyal and dutiful subject, who had never suffered his Sovereign to be abused when he was present; but he was an enemy to a borough-mongering faction, which equally enslaved both the King and the people. When he

cou.d earn 31. or 44. a-week, he never meddled with politics; but when those earnings were reduced to 10s. he began to inquire the cause. He thought nothing too bad for men who had caused the dreadful outrage at Manchester. He would die a martyr in liberty's cause, for the good of his countrybut he was no traitor, and none but a traitor and a villain could accuse him of being one. Let them brand him with other crimes if they pleased; let them say he hated Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth, if they wished, and that he would have attacked them; but let it not be said that he was a traitor. In joining in the conspiracy, he had no private enmity or revenge to gratify against any man; but he thought it for the public good, and would have gone through with it. He would have risked his life, and the Court would not then have had him before it. If it had fallen to his lot to kill Lord Castlereagh or Lord Sidmouth, he would have done it, and would have resisted the police-officers to the utmost of his power; but he would not have resisted the soldiers, because they had sworn allegiance to their Sovereign; but, for the others, he would have opposed them while his arm had nerve; but all that would not amount to high treason. In conclusion, he said, "I am going out of the world soon, and I don't care how soon; but I do not wish to leave it with the imputation of high treason. I was incensed at the conduct I saw pursued, and I blame the circular of Lord Sidmouth as the cause of a great deal of what afterwards happened. If a man murders my brother I would murder him; for what does the Scripture say?— 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' I say again, you may try me, and murder me if you will; you may hang and draw me, and quarter me; but let me have justice, that's all."

Brunt then made many charges

VOL. XIII. PART II.

against Adams and his assistant Hale, whom he represented as having injured and cheated him in various ways. He concluded, "I wish to state what may be useful to myself or to my fellowprisoners. Edwards went about supplying money, and buying swords, pistols, and other things. I declare, before that awful Being, before whose Tribunal I may soon appear, that this is true. He had the money from the government; for if not, he could not have so much money. If I die, I shall die not an unworthy descendant of the Ancient Britons, and I would rather die a thousand deaths than betray my fellow-men."

The prisoner delivered the last part of his speech with great energy, striking his clenched fist on the board before him.

Davidson, who was a negro, made rather a long speech; he commenced by observing, that through the whole of his life it had been his endeavour to earn his bread for himself and family with honesty. He had a young and numerous family wholly dependent upon him for support. He most solemnly protested his innocence of the crime laid to his charge, and expressed his willingness to lay down his life if such treasonable designs should be satisfactorily proved against him. He would not stoop to beg his life, for he bore on his memory the proud recollection, that on fifteen several occasions he had ventured it for his King and country. He did not pretend to deny that he was in Cato-street at the time the officers came, but he had not the slightest notion of the wicked designs of the people who had been apprehended. He had been induced to go to Cato-street through the instigation of a man of the name of James Goldworthy, whom he had known previously, and who had promised to give him work. In the course of his address, he quoted several passages from Scripture, and ope

I

from Pope, in order to shew that he had always had the fear of God before his eyes, and that he was not of that ignorant and illiterate class of beings which he was supposed to be. He earnestly entreated the Court and Jury not to be influenced in their decision by the unfortunate colour of his skin; he was indeed a man of colour, but was neither devoid of a human understanding nor human feelings. He had formerly followed the trade of a cabinetmaker, but had lately lived at Walworth, and had been a teacher at a Sunday school. His father was an Englishman, and his grandfather a Scotchman, and he had therefore some claim to the privileges of an Englishman. He hoped the Jury would not consider him so base a wretch as to be capable of forming so detestable a plot for the assassination of his Majesty's Ministers.

On the 9th day, after the trial of these five principal offenders, Richard Bradburn, John Shaw Strange, James Gilchrist, Charles Cooper, and John Harrison, were put to the bar.

Mr WALFORD wished to draw the attention of the Court to the five unfortunate men at the bar. The fate of their fellow-prisoners had acted as a warning to them, and they were now most anxious to throw themselves upon the mercy of the Court. They pleaded for mercy, and hoped they might not plead in vain. By pursuing this course, it had been considered that the interests of the prisoners would be best consulted.

Mr BRODERICK, as counsel also for the prisoners, begged to add, that he fully concurred in, and approved of, this application to the Court. The prisoners were desirous of pleading guilty, considering, most properly, that it was the only reparation they could make to the outraged laws of their country. They confessed that they deserved the heaviest punishment, but en

tertained, in the depth of their contrition, a faint hope, that, consistently with justice, the arm of mercy might be extended to them.

Mr Baron GARROW.-Prisoners at the bar,-The two learned counsel who have addressed the Court in your behalf have paid the best attention to your cases; and they have stated, that you desire now to withdraw your pleas of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty. I must be persuaded that you adopt this course as your own act, and exercising your own judgment with a knowledge of the consequences which must follow this step. There is no engagement entered into with you, but your counsel seek that you may submit your selves to the mercy of the Court. If you desire that that plea should be recorded, that will be done accordingly.

Mr SHELTON.-John Harrison, are you desirous of withdrawing your plea of not guilty?

Prisoner.-I am.

Mr SHELTON. Are you guilty or not guilty?

Prisoner.-Guilty.

The same course was pursued with respect to the other prisoners, Richard Bradburn, John Shaw Strange, James Gilchrist, and Charles Cooper. They all retracted their former pleas, and pleaded "Guilly." They were then all taken down from the dock, and placed in their different cells.

Mr Baron GARROW thanked the Jury for their perseverance and attention upon this and the former trials, and finally dismissed them.

James Gilchrist was much affected, and some time elapsed before he could speak. He said " My Lords, what I say, I shall say and think as in the presence of my God. I knew nothing of the business until four o'clock on the day on which it took place. I then had not tasted a morsel of food the whole day. [Here the prisoner burst into tears.] I then went to

a place where a person appointed to meet me at six o'clock, where I saw four or five men, not one of whom I knew, except Cooper; of him I bor rowed a halfpenny, to buy a bit of bread. I appeal to God, who now hears me, (casting up his eyes) and knows that this is true. I went into the room at Cato-street, where I found a number of men eating bread and cheese, which they cut with a sword. I cut some for myself. Seeing so many men and arms, I was anxious to get away, but Adams stopped me, and brandishing a sword, said, If any man attempts to go from here, I will run him through. An officer then came in, and I surrendered without opposition. This was all I knew of the business, and yet I stand here convicted of high treason. I have served my King and country faithfully for twelve years, and this is my recompense, this is my recompense, O God!" [Here the prisoner again burst into tears, and could proceed no further.]

Sentence of death was then solemnly pronounced by the Judge upon all the prisoners. Thistlewood, Ings, Brunt, Davidson, and Tidd, suffered the sentence of the law. The rest had their punishment mitigated to transportation, with the exception of Gilchrist, who received a pardon.

seph Johnson, John T. Saxton, Samuel Bamford, Joseph Heely, James Moorhouse, Robert Jones, George Swift, and Robert Wilde, with having, on the 1st of July 1819, and at divers other times, conspired together to call great public meetings of the people, and thereby to excite terror in the minds of his Majesty's peaceable subjects; and that, in furtherance of their designs, they had, on the 16th of August last, at Manchester, illegally, riotously, and tumultuously, assembled a large body of people, to the number of 60,000 and upwards, with flags, banners, &c. There were other counts, charging the defendants with a riot.

Mr SCARLETT opened the case by stating to the Jury the grounds of the charge, and the facts which he was prepared to prove. With respect to public meetings in general, it was requisite for him to say a few words in the outset, as to his conception of what constituted a legal assembly in this country. It was undoubtedly the privilege of the people of England, stating the proposition in a broad and unqualified manner, when they suffered any grievance, to assemble at a public meeting, and to pursue a peaceful mode of address. But the meeting in question was not of that description; it was of a nature unknown to the constitution. In former times it was customary for counties, towns, districts, or particular classes of individuals, united by one common interest, in the pursuit of one common object, to meet together. Thus, for instance, where a particular trade was affected.

by a particular law, the parties interested met to petition for its repeal. If a particular class of persons were oppressed by any grievance, they also assembled together to petition for its removal. If a Lord-Lieutenant, or the High-Sheriff of a county, was informed that the freeholders had to complain of something that operated against their interests, the practice of the constitution enabled him to call a meeting for the purpose of petitioning either the throne or the parliament. But he never had heard it stated by any lawyer, and he trusted he should never hear it decided, that it was a right, sanctioned either by the law or constitution of this land, for any person who pleased to call all the people of England together in one place, there to discuss political measures, and to lay down particular modes by which they might obtain redress. He would tell them why such a proceeding could not be legal. No man could deny that the greatest physical force of every community consisted in the mass of the people: and those who looked for the most extended reform admitted, that all power and all right were derived from the meetings of the people at large. Therefore it was clear that the people, when they met to frame the ground-work of a constitution, went back to the origin of society, and annihilated that state of things which had previously existed. Suppose all ranks of people to assemble in one vast plain, for the purpose of altering an existing system, it must, in such a case, be conceded, that all the constitutional functions, which they had previously bestowed on their public functionaries, must sink into the original mass. Let it be imagined that the bulk of the population met together to discuss public affairs, and to take into their own consideration such measures as they might deem proper for the alteration of the

existing order of things, it was evident, as all power and right were de rived from the people, that they would in that case resume their original functions, and the government must be for the time dissolved. Hence it followed, beyond all controversy, that public meetings of the people, without any legal foundation, whether they assembled from their own private will, or under the direction of some demagogue, who for a time possessed some influence over their minds, for the purpose of carrying into effect, by such means and in such manner as they might think proper, an alteration in the constitution of the country, could not be a lawful assembly, as the constitution at present existed.

Mr Scarlett now, after a short mention of the different individuals accused, proceeded to detail the facts which he was ready to bring forward in evidence.

On the 8th of August Mr Hunt arrived at a place called Bullocksmithy, about nine miles from Manchester, and three miles from Stockport. He was here joined by Moorhouse, who took him to Stockport, and on the morning of the 9th they were joined by Johnson. The party made a progress towards Manchester, accompanied by Sir C. Wolseley and others. The notice of a meeting at Manchester had, it seemed, attracted the attention of the magistrates, and the meeting was prohibited by them. By their orders placards were stuck up in the town, stating that the people were called upon to do a thing highly illegal. Mr Hunt, it appeared, was extremely angry at this prohibition, or rather at the conduct of those who were to have met together, in yielding to it; and they would find, that on the evening of the 9th, he was haranguing the people, and speaking of the magistrates who prohibited the meeting, by the appella