---- - properly met,) those I 4 might be Ibund guilty of illegally assembling, though there was no previous cousin. racy. In deciding this case, they would take all the attending circumstances into consideration. One of these circumstances was, the appearance of the parties as if they had been drilled. N%'ith respect to banners, bearing inscriptions, their illegality did not extend to every man present at the meeting, but only to those particular persons who adopted those banners, and the sentiments inscribed on them; or who, with a full knowledge of their existence, gave perfect confidence and co-operation to the meeting. So also in the case of drilling. It could only affect those who knew that drilling was practised for illegal purposes. If he knew that persons were drilled, for the purpose of overawing his Majesty's subjects, and bearing arms, and he attend ed a meeting of that kind, and gave it his confidence, then he was guilty of attending illegally. But, if on the other hand, he was present at a drill-meeting, not being aware it was met for illegal purposes, the law considered him innocent, because he was not privy to the fact which alone constituted the thing illegal. As to the point, whether a specific assembly was likely to produce terror, future or immediate, the fact might be proved in two ways—by showitg, on the one hand, that terror was actually produced, or oil the other, by proving the absence of all terror. To show whether ter ror was or was not produced, he would state the testi mony on both sides in this case. They would find in the evidence on the part of the prosecution, a great deal which imported that no apprehension of immedi ate danger existed; and the circumstance of women and children being present would be worthy of their consideration in that respect. An attempt to keep peace at the meeting was admitted. But this might have been done in order to forward future objects. It might have been hoped, that, by this means, the pre pared seed would be sown, while those who pursued this course would wait till the aline of harvest to reap the benefit of it. Having made these observations, which he deemed it necessary to do, in order to enable them to arrive at a correct conclusion, and at a proper understanding of the evidence, he would now point out to them what the nature of that evidence was. The Learned Judge then proceeded to recapitulate the voluminous evidence adduced in the course of this • interesting trial, briefly commenting nn it as he went on. He observed, that a meeting of 60,000 persons, if they • all came to a certain point, with the common know- • ledge of what was to he done, might create terror. — With respect to the banners, he again observed, that those only who showed that they were favourable to any motto inscribed on them, by carrying, or imme diately marching under them, could be considered as liable to any penalty which the illegal nature of any of their inscriptions might warrant. It was given, he, observed, in evidence, that Moorhouse was a religious nun, and constantly read the Bible to his familya—a fact stated to induce the inference that he would not be guilty of an illegal or immoral act. It was also stared, that Mrs. Moorhouse, though in the family way, went through the crowd ; and it was not likely, if danger had been apprehended, that her husband wouid have per mitted her to attend. With respect to persons walking in the military step, to which several witnesses had sworn, it could not aftect the persons charged, tnless they were proved to have been cognizant of the fact.— With resp ect to the inscription " Equal representation or death, ' if it meant that those who adhered to such a standard would lose their Ines unless they procured what they deemed " equal representation," it amounted to sedition ; but if, as Mr. Hunt explained it, the inscription merely meant, that if the people did nut procure " equal representation" they would be starved o death, it would not come within the character of sedition. Again, the inscription of " No Corn Laws" left the Jury to consider whether the meaning, of it was, that the corn laws were so oppressive, that every means, legal or illegal, were to be taken, in order to get rid of them ; or whether it was a mtne expression of disapprobratuni. In the former case It would certainly be sedition, in the latter it would ion. As to the cap of liberty, it was one of the insignia of the crown; and when the King went to Parliactieut, au officer of state always bore it before him. It did nut, therefore, of ne cessity, mean any thing seditious. W lit respect to any stoppage of business occasioned by the meetinc, it was positively sworn by a great mass of es idetice for the de fendants, that it was not at all interrupted; atid, cu t:Mlle, if any interruption of business had taken place, in a grCat town like Manchester, it would hate been easy to have called evidence to that fact. When his Lordship had come to the testimont of t had seirk, reading the evidence at length, Mr. Scar lett suggested that, it' all parties world airree, the reading of the evidence might be very much abridged. All the parties agreed. His Lordship then said he would read the evidence, and if he minted any thing material lie Legged n might be suggested, and he would read it. Bamford-1 leave it entirely to your Lordship's judg anent. You have had a great deal of trouble. Mr. Justice Bayley.—l grudge no trouble ; you have a right to my services. Ills Lordship then continued to sum up. He said, the phrase sworn to by one of the witnesses, as hating been iisel by a person going to the meeting, ;tamely," That they would make a Moscow of Manchester," seemed to be inconsistent wit h the general intAition expressed by the Reformers on that day, The learned Judge contimied his observations on the evidence till eiant o'clock, when he adjourned the Court mail Monday minium, having tint, in cumplis ance with the request of Mr. Hunt, enjtnned the July to bstain from reading the newspapers, or conversation oil the subject tit the trial. There. was every reason to believe that Mr. Entwistle was mistake' , in the expression of Mr. limit about their enemies, as applied to the soldiers. NVhir regard to the shout set up when the military appeared, it might be a shout of consciousness of innocence, and a &termini/. Lion to remain on that consciousness, or it might be the shout of intimidation. Its nature was to be deter mined by the circumstances in which it was uttered.— There was no other witness that spoke to threatening expressions but Mr. Francis Phillips. The multitude round the hustings appeared to this witness disciplined troops, ready to protect Hunt in case of any molestation. If he had a false impression in this case he might in another, and there seemed to be no evidence that the multitude were ready to fight, as the majority of them had no arms, the most of them being even n ithout sticks. When his Lordship came to that part of the evidence for the Crown which was given by Mr. Holton, he observed that no doubt could be entertained of the great respectability of that gentleman. It was, however, to be considered, that he was not in that situation which enabled him to observe so accurately what passed as many of those whose evidence negatived the throwing of sticks, stones, and brick-bats. He thought it pro bable that a magistrate, knowing the great responsibility intrusted to him, and that drillings had been cal rying on, and that it was his imperious duty called him to act upon sudden zusergency—he thought it probable that a man so placed union he agitated, and not cool during the time he was considering that he might become highly criminal if he suffered inch proceedings to go to such length as to endanger the peace of the town.— That witness stated the depositions respecting the alarm of the inhabitants; but here those depositions, if there were a million of them, could be of no avail; for the jury were bound alone to attend to viva roce.evidence given in open Court. Nadir's statement to Mr. Holton might justify the latter in issuing the warrant; but then the Court and jury were placed in a similar situation of difficulty respecting the necessity of Nadir's application in the first instance, in consequence of that person's not being produced in the witness box. He believed Mr. Holton to be a respectable Mall, who would not mislead them , but he must say, that such important evidence as lie had given ought not to be permitted to want that corroboration which it might have had front his brother magistrates who were in the room with him, and from Nadia the constable. It was due to the defendants to urge this want of corroborative evidence on such im portant facts; and if the omission were calculated to raise a doubt in the minds of the jury, the defendants were most certainly entitled to the benefit of that. It was not snpposed that Mr. Holton stated any thing which he did not believe to be true; but sitting there, as he was, to ad 11l i l lister equal justice to all, he was bound to tell the jury, that though great part of what took place occurred m the presence of several of his brother magistrates, not one of whom had been called to speak to the same facts that Mr. Holton had sworn to, It would not do to say that they had been in attendance; the fact was, they had not been called. The Learned Judge having proceeded through the evidence given on the first three days, and the hour having arrived at which the Court usually adjourned, said to the Jury, that he would desist and adjourn the Court if he fatigued them. No answer being returned, he continued for another hour, when an intimation was given, that as the business could not terminate to-day, it I might be as convenient to adjourn now (at half-past seven). This was assented to by the Learned Judge, and the Court was adjourned till Monday, at nine k, Mr. Hunt, before the Court broke tip, intimated a wish to the Jury that they would in the interval ab stain from conversing with others on the subject of this trial, and accordingly from reading the newspaperse which had been filled with lihels on him during the • last week. His Lordship would express a confidenc, that the Jury would attend to the wish now expressed! hut, it' Mr. Hunt was anxious to secure it under the sanction of an oath, he would put the book into their hands, and swear them on both points. Hunt thought this unnecessary. After what had fallen from his Lord ship, he was sure they would attend to his directions.— The Court then adjourned till Monday at nine o clock. THE NATIONAL ItV.GISTtR. ....~~ TENTH DAY. The Court met this morning at nine o'clock, and the names of the Jury having been called over, his Lordship proceeded to detail the evidence to them. He bad stop ped on Saturday with the evidence of Shawcross, which lie now continued and went on to that of• the last wluu•s, for the prosecution. The principal observation that arose out of this was grounded on the resolutions which were proposed and adopted at the Smithfield meeting in July last; ttlsiclt, according to Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. How pi °- cloyed from his pocket on that occa•unt. His Lordship would read them to the Jory, in ostler that they might judge of the feeling and temper of the individual by %lions they were proposed. He world make no co 1111 l lent on them, for the Jury would see how tar they Here calcu lated to excite discontent in the innids of those to %hoin they were addressed. His Lordship now came to the evidence for the defence. On the part of Nlooritouse and Jones it had been stated, that their attendance at tile meeting so near the hustings was merely accidental ; and it was observed, that it the object of the 'fleeting was legal, and its conduct peaceable, numbers would not make it illegal. lit this lie concurred. Numbers did not make a meeting illegal, unless they were such as to excite a terror in the minds of 0; hers, or to be a probable cause of !et ror. Healy. in his defence, expressed a hope that his ease would be judged %%Mma any party feelings. His Lord ship hoped so too. lie trusted the Jury would dismiss from their minds every feeling which was not excited by the evidence before them. He would do his duty faithfully to isle croon and the in ogle on the one hand ; and it lie did not do it to the defendant. on the other, there was One ;Move him, under whose e• e he was acting, and to %hum lie was I esponsible. He sinew ely lhoped vud trusted 111:11 that Ittillg Would guide hint in the observatissie, when is he had to make, awl the Jury in weighing welt %hat lie should submit to then,. (This Wiser% w as iielivh . ll'll jo so uoirrebsiVe a 01401101 as to :Affect :wit r.. 1 pessows iu Colott eseii to teats.] It was true, as hail set 0110 or Ilse detewlants, that %torte their was no law, these would be uu transgsesslOn t rind if the .Itet) lostuttl that, at the 1111:e 1.1 this turelisog, there was 110 law ag.slll,l it, ths• ~ I gist , list tleiendatits the benefit of ii. Lei tautly the carry tog ofstieks or bananas in the procession weer. not in themselves illegal, and could not be so, miless carried as JO borne with a bad intention. Io the address of Mr. Hula, it was observed by him, that his intentions on this occasion were innocent, and that the *hole of his observations were addressed for the preservation of the peace, and that the object of their meeting was !aerial—circumstances which would be wholly for the consideration of the Jury. He would now proceed to the very voluminous evidence offered fur the defendants ; but, as he said to the Jury on Saturday, he would put it to the parties whether it was necessary to go through the evidence of each witness. He did not think that the Jury would find it necessary i and the less so, as it was probable that, by-and-by, they would be of opinion that the facts to which these witnesses were called were satisfactorily established. Mr. Hunt.—My Lord, we leave it entirely to your Lord ship's discretion. Mr. Justice Bayley.—l only wish that every thing should be fairly done, and so considered. Mr. Hunt.--If your Lordship should happen to leave out any particular point of evidence, will you allow us to call it to your Lordship's recollection? Mr. Justice Bayley.—" I will not only allow it, bat 1 desire it may be done; and I hope those concerned for the crown will also do the same, if I should omit any point of evidence making for the case."—His Lordship then went on to recapitulate the leading points of the de fence, as it bore on the defendants generally. As to Sallee, the Crown had very properly given up the case against hint. To him it appeared, if the evidence of the several witnesses were to be examined, the conduct of the meeting was peaceable ; and if those who attended it were innocent in their intentions in going to the meeting, they committed no offence in so doing. It appeared from, a number of witnesses (whom his Lordship enumerated) that the people went peaceably along—that there were women and children up with them—end it would be forthe jury to consider how far their intentions most have been peaceable when many of them thus brought their wives and children with them. As to their having cheered on the field, or at the appearance of soldiers, they had a perfect right to do so : and unless the cheers were those of defiance, they were quite innocent. Several of the witnesses (for the defence), indeed all of them who spoke of those cheers, louked upon them not as cheers of delis ance, but as proceeding front a cuusciousuess of inno cence. Many of the persona, even the women, when they saw the soldiers, looked upon their approarh as in no manner hostile to their meeting. When his Lordship, in summoning np the evidence of Mr. Tyas, Caine to that part which mentioned the hissing opposite the police office, Mr. Mint requested that his Lordship would recollect that neither he nor Johnson had given any directions or encouragement to the people to hiss. His lordship soil that he was about to state that fact to the jury. Having gone through the evidence of several other witnesses, his lordship agent called the attention of the jury to the peaceable conduct of the meeting on the Ititle, and the fact that no person had been called to prove that any act of violence had been committed before the ca valry came. There welt now two questions which lie should put for the consideration of toe jury. The first WAS, whether the meeting was illegal in its nature, or in its manner; and the second, how any, and which of the defendants, were criminal in pilling it. If the meeting were perfectly legal, some of ilatee who were present might have acted illegally, if it was their intention to give the meeting a wrong direction. If any of time defendants should, in the opinion of the jury, have so acted; then they would be guilty at the crime of having met for an illegal purpose, though the great bulk of the meeting might have been perfectly innocent in their intentions. If the object of meeting was to discuss or petition for reform in a peaceable manner, that would be strictly a legal meeting, unless there appeared something in the manner of assembling to create terror in the minds of the people of !Manchester. It such terror were excited so as to produce alarm to the town of Manchester, then the meeting would be illegal, and all those who concurred in it would be gniliy of an illegal act. If the jury believed that the alarm excited was not produced by a fear of e sent, but of a future danger, if the meeting had continued together, they would give a special verdict to that effect. They would recollect that there was no interruption of !nosiness on that day, and this would materially influence them in the judgment they should totem, whether imme diate or remote danger was to be feared. On the me tof the Crown it was suggested—and it might possibly have been so—that an immediate disturf Janet . Was not the ob ject of the parties accused, but that they looked to tee future [towel nt . sonic mischief. It avoid be for the Jet y to inquire how far this aus prom ed by the et idence. The next question was, wheilii t the meeting was unlawful as to the intentions of any, and which of the defendants. la looking at the case in this view, it was necessary to exit mine time actions of the several pal ties. The meeting eua admitted oit all hands to have been very large, and nee 1 r the charges against the defendants was, that they lied at tempted to excite, in the minds of douse pm esent, Les:tire (ion and discontent, amid to produce a hatted and contempt for the Government of the country, as by law established. Let the Jury look at the tact. It was said that this meet iugs was called by item housekeeper. However, no one c f those persons had been celled to prove ilia tact ; and as to the moniker in which it really was called, or by whom the notice was given, the Court and the Jnmy were left in the 'talk. Mr. Hunt, it depraved, had recently beim e this been at a meeting in Smitlitieid, where eertaie rest,. lotions had been agreed to. From thence, or at least soon after, he was found in the neiobourhood of Ilaticilesteis He was there before the time at which the meeting of the eth was to have taken place. Noe, if eh !IA intended to propose resolutiens at the meeting of the 161 h, Illlnilar to these which lie had proposed at the Smithfield meeting, it would be for 1114 .14,1 y to say how far they %%mild he likely to excite discontent and disaffection en the minds of illt.Se whi) weer' He would leave this part of the question entisely to them, with only this (Iloil•lAation—lisat if elm. Hunt had such object, and that the ITS41:11!lolls a ere calculated to excite discontent, then qoutul Mr. limit, the meeting would be illegal, and if Le coisminnicated such intentions to any °Mei*, and C.i.t they approved of them, then there a °Mil be a t ~wavy ; and it any thlee or thou went to Ile. uleettn %inn ankh Mimi!, the meeting wonlii, 31 fem as 4.11.) e gal;be id. for the law said,'' thi CC Ur inure persons. " The Cl/111 I :41111 tile Jury went, nut only MI a hilt was proved, Ina What ttiti;li t he ',loved, and no evidence had been mitred fib.' 41 was thteitiled to Sonoma may 0 ..et esoluttuns to the twill. With iesnerts to the mlaes a (For coman,;aiiore 64• C Page 110.)