would assist in destroying similar buildings, if set up in this country, said no more than every English gentleman felt. Sir Charles Wolseley's fortune was opulent, and affording the elegances and luxuries of life; his family, his rank, his wife and numerous family, proved that he could not be influenced by envy, or desire to throw his property as a prize of some desperate gambler in revolution. He committed that client, his liberty, his happiness, and the happiness of his family, with most entire confidence, into their hands.

Mr Harrison began to address the Jury with the utmost composure, and with a violently methodistical twang. The first thing he would speak of to them was Mr Marshall's charge to the Grand Jury, as it appeared in the papers. It struck him that it was ap. plied to himself. He knew of no case to which it could apply but his own. This speech, so elaborate and long, was all directed against him, an humble individual as he was. (Here he read a great part of the charge, till he came to the expression that "there were persons destitute of honour, fame, and fortune, who hazarded their lives for desperate purposes.") That there were some bad and desperate adventurers, that hazarded their lives to obtain fame or fortune, he admitted, but he was not among them. He had always proposed to promote and effect reform by legal means. The honourable Baronet could not have been alluded to as the desperate adventurer, destitute of honour, fame, and fortune. Therefore he alone had been alluded to, or the observation was irrelevant. (He then read a passage, in continuation, from the Chester Chronicle.) If he should fall, it would be by the violence of his prosecutors; " and if I fall," continued he in a whining tone, "the earth will shake when I fall.” If in the heat of argument or discourse be used figures too strong for the oc

casion, every public speaker did the same. Had he been conscious of having desired, or of having used any means to cause "a sanguinary revolution, he should have stood at the bar, and at once pleaded guilty." When he had looked at that sham document, the indictment, in which he and Sir Charles Wolseley were bound hand and foot, to be thrown-where ?—into hell! Here he was most basely traduced and injured. He was determined to vindicate his own innocence. It might be said, what was his country to him?"Why, gentlemen, it is every thing to me. Should they throw me down, my country will receive me in her arms; should I be separated from the beloved partner of my life, my country will comfort her heart; should I be separated from my dear babes, my country will provide them ten fathers for me alone." This time was the first opportunity afforded to him of vindicating his character, and this opportunity, by the strength of Heaven, he was determined to improve. (He now read further on in the charge to the Grand Jury.) "Early impressions of loyalty and religion must be removed; and this was to be accomplished by the blasphemous speeches of their vagabond orators." Vagabond orators! meaning, no doubt, himself! Witness that Gospel which had been sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ, in the preaching of which he had lived, and in the practice of which he would die, that he had done his utmost to check the progress of vice and irreligion. The Gospel held out to him the hope of a glorious hereafter; it had been the delight of his heart, and it was still the comfort of his soul. "The people have a right to petition for the redress of their grievances; but they must exercise that right in a legal and constitutional manner." And yet, for the exercise of that right it was that he now stood in his present trying predi

cament. Mark the buis! The people have a right, but they must not exert it. They may have as many rights as they please, but the moment they seek to exercise them they are forfeit ed. "Drawing together vast multitudes." Were 5000 too many for such a neighbourhood to assemble on such an occasion? One-fourth part of the population? Would three men be terrified at one? The terrorem populi had not been made out by the prosecution. He (Harrison) would not apply to the feelings of the Jury; he scorned to do it. Let the Jury hate him as their most mortal foe, still it was their duty to give a just verdict; he did not ask it, he demanded it. "The law of England abhors the assemblage of great multitudes of people on any pretence." "Abhors!" What was meant by " Abhors?". "Forbids" might have had some meaning; but, even then, the same argument would apply to general elections, either for county or city. "Assassination seems to have been one of the crimes by which this horrid conspiracy was to have been accomplished." What was this but an allusion to the Catostreet plot? What, but an attempt to connect him (Harrison) with those foolish, rash ("Here is a gentleman behind won't let me speak")-inconsiderate men? But, be the Jury what they might, they were Englishmen; he loved them; every Englishman was near and dear to his heart. "Pretended Reformers!" the word "pretended" hurt him. If they had been cool, and careless, and tame, and indifferent, at their meetings, they might have been so designated; but when they had done every thing to prove their zeal; when they had shewn that they felt their grievances, and wished to get redress for them; when their exertions in the cause of Reform had subjected them to abuse and to punishment, it was too much to say that they were not in ear nest. It was too much-he could not

abide it. [Here the orator stamped emphatically with his foot. He then wiped his forehead, at leisure, with his pocket-handkerchief, and continued.] He was sure that he had not offended the Judge by his remarks; for his Lordship had been looking at him with a pleasant countenance all the while. He (Harrison) would tell the Jury that he held in his hand a help unhoped for. It was a little book, entitled "Remarks upon the Indictment of Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr Harrison." It was written by Jeremy Bentham, the greatest lawyer in the world. May be the Jury had heard of him; no doubt both their Lordships had. Mr Harrison then went at great length into the work of Mr Bentham, and expatiated, by way of digression, upon the merits of the Edinburgh Review. There was an article in that Review worthy the attention of the Jury. It treated of tumult, the offence of which he (the defendant) was accused. The article was written by another great lawyer, Mr Brougham. Mr Brougham there defended tumult; and proved that it was not for the good of the public that tumultuous meetings should be extinguished. Mr Brougham wished that very crime to continue for which the defendants in the present case were indicted. Not that he (Harrison) liked tumult; he was always a peaceable man. It had been given in evidence, that the defendants had intended to assemble the whole country at Oldham. It appeared then, that the English law punished intentions, fancies, inclinaticns, thoughts, wishes, and dispositions. If not, the indictment was not founded upon English law. Insurrection had been imputed to them. What was insurrection? It was rising up. Was rising up a crime? Counsel rose up. The Jury must rise up to give their verdict of guilty, which was anticipated. Then they were guilty of a crime.-Mr Harrison had, by this

time, spoken for nearly four hours, and there appeared to be no prospect of a conclusion, when it was hinted to him by his friends, that the course which he was pursuing, was as little likely to produce advantage to himself as entertainment to his audience.-After a few observations further, therefore, he closed his address.

A few witnesses were now called for Sir Charles Wolseley, who did not however prove any thing important.

Mr Benyon replied. The Chief Justice summed up the case, and charged the Jury at great length.

The Jury after retiring for three quarters of an hour, brought in a verdict of Guilty against both defendants. Application for a new trial was made in the Court of King's Bench, but refused.

On the 16th May, judgment was pronounced. Sir Charles Wolseley was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in Abingdon gaol; at the expiration of that time to enter into sureties for his good behaviour, himself in 1000l. and two other persons in 500l. each. Mr Harrison to be imprisoned for a term of eighteen months (to be computed from the expiration of his present imprisonment) in the Castle of Chester; and at the expiration of his imprisonment, to enter into securities for his good behaviour during five years, himself in 2001. and two other persons in 100%. each.

and which afterwards became the subject of a motion before the Court of King's Bench. At present they were overruled by the Lord Chief Baron.]

Mr BALGUY opened the pleadings. This was an indictment, in the first count, charging the defendants, George Edmonds, Charles Maddocks, John Cartwright, Thomas Jonathan Wooler, and William Greathead Lewis, with being malicious, seditious, and evil-disposed persons, and with unlawfully and maliciously desiring and intending to raise and excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the king's subjects, and intending to move them to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution as by law established, and of the Commons House of Parliament as by law established, heretofore, to wit, on the 12th of July, 1819, and on divers other days and times, as well before as after, with force and arms, at Birmingham, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously, did combine, conspire, and confederate with each other, and with divers other disaffected and ill-disposed persons, for the purposes above mentioned, and unlawfully to nominate, elect, and appoint a person to be the representative of the inhabitants of Birmingham, and to claim admission into the House of Commons as a member thereof, neither they, the said defendants, nor the said other conspirators, nor the inhabitants of Birmingham, being then lawfully authorized to nominate, elect, or appoint any such representative. And that the defendants, and various other persons, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, assembled, to the number of 20,000, for the purpose of hearing divers scandalous, seditious, and inflammatory speeches, resolutions, and writings, concerning the Government and the House of Commons, uttered for the purposes aforesaid.

Mr Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the

case.

He sincerely congratulated the Court, after so much time had been lost, on the decision which his Lordship had just pronounced, and he was much gratified in having the honour of addressing so respectable a Jury on the merits of the indictment against the defendants at the bar. Looking

at the nature and character of the of fence, it appeared to him to be objectionable on two grounds. It was objectionable, inasmuch as the parties who assembled at that meeting attempted to do an act for which they had no legal authority; and because, in the course of their proceedings, most impudent and insolent observations were made on the legislature. Could it be endured that any set of persons should attempt to make an alteration in the constitution of the House of Commons, when it was well known that such a power resided alone in the House of Commons itself? To prove the guilt of such an attempt, it was not necessary to go into the history of earlier times. By the law, as it now stood, it was a direct violation of the king's prerogative, and was therefore an assumption of illegal power. From the earliest period of our history, the king was the only individual who possessed the power of issuing writs, whereby individuals might be called to parliament. That body could meet only under the king's writ; and even the king himself had not now the authority to make that alteration in the representative system which these defendants had contemplated. The king had not the power to issue a writ for a new place, neither had he the power to hold one from a place which at present sent members to parliament. They were apprised that there had been, unhappily, for some time past, a great degree of real distress in the country. That distress, he was sorry to say, had been fomented by the conduct of persons who as

sembled at public meetings, who infused into the minds of the people the idea that all their distress arose from the misconduct of government, and the corrupt state of the House of Commons. It was quite impossible for any person who remarked at all the signs of the times, not to perceive that the greatest pains were taken to make the people suppose that all their misfortunes were owing to the misconduct of government, and they were stimulated to endeavour, by their own authority, by open force, to change the existing state of things. Birming ham, like other places, was subject to this evil; meetings were held there, at which persons indulged themselves in abusing and reviling the different branches of the state, particularly the Commons House of Parliament; and it was in consequence of some of those meetings that the present question had arisen. On the 3d of July, 1819, a special notification was given by the defendant Edmonds, that a public meeting would be held at Birmingham on the 12th, to take into consideration the best mode of reforming parliament, and at the same time to promote reform in the representation of the state, not only with respect to Birmingham, but with reference to the whole empire. This notification was communicated in the form of an advertisement, signed by seven housekeepers, amongst whom were the two defendants, Edmonds and Maddocks. It would be necessary to shew that what was done was effected in concert and combination by all the parties. He would prove that there was a specific meeting held, at which all the defendants assisted to effect one common object. It was impossible to have passed through life without having heard of Major Cartwright. He was far advanced in years, and was called the venerable champion of reform. He was one of the persons present at the

meeting, although he understood he had no connection with Birmingham, and was quite a stranger there. It was clear, therefore, that he only came to serve a cause to which he was so much attached. There was another gentleman, Mr Wooler, whose name it was almost unnecessary to mention after what they had heard this day. It was not surprising that his talents should attract a considerable portion of popular attention. As far as he understood, Mr Wooler was not connected with Birmingham; but, as he had abilities to promote the cause, he made himself very active there. Maddocks was a pawnbroker residing at Birmingham. Edmonds was a schoolmaster and printer there, and was in the habit of publishing political tracts; and Lewis was also a printer, living at Coventry. Mr Wooler, he should have observed, was editor and printer of a pamphlet called the Black Dwarf; and by the agency of these three presses, publicity was given to the sentiments of those who thought like the defendants. He charged that the meeting at Birmingham, on the 12th of July, and of which notice had been given to the Clerk of the Peace on the 3d, was procured by concert and co-operation between these parties. They would find that Major Cartwright took lodgings in Birmingham on the 10th, and that Wooler arrived soon after. Major Cartwright, as the father of reform, was generally waited and attended on, but more particularly by the other defendants. They called on him on the Saturday; they saw him on the Sunday, the meeting being fixed for the following day; and the most intimate communication subsisted between them. They were closeted: and, though he could not let the Jury into the secrets of their cabinet council, yet there would be no difficulty in satisfying them that they did, at the private meeting held at Major

VOL. XIII. PART II.

Cartwright's lodgings, settle the course of proceeding that was to be afterwards acted on. While they were engaged in this private meeting, two flags were brought in, bearing political inscriptions; and he would leave them to say whether those flags were not calculated to assist the object in view, and whether they were not likely to create disaffection in the minds of his Majesty's subjects. One flag was inscribed, "Major Cartwright and the Bill of Rights and Liberty,"-alluding to a bill which appeared to be a great favourite with the Radicals, as they called themselves; and on the other side ofthe flag they found, naturally enough, the inscription of "The Sovereignty of the People;" for they were going to exercise a very great act of sovereign power-they were proceeding to alter the constitution, and to give it a construction very different from that to which they had long been accustomed. With respect to the other flag, it was on one side inscribed, "Sir C. Wolseley and no Corn Laws." On the other side of this flag was inscribed, "T. J. Wooler, and the Liberty of the Press." There could be no greater blessing to a country, he was ready to admit, than a free press; but every one knew, that though it was a blessing when properly directed, it became the direst curse to a country when it was abused; and they had recently seen it prostituted to the purposes of sedition and immorality. These two flags were first brought to the house in which Major Cartwright lived, and in which the committeethe movers of the whole business, the five defendants on the record, were known to meet. They set out from this house to a place called Newhallhill, near Birmingham, in a landaulet, accompanied by some music. The hills formed a sort of amphitheatre, which would accommodate a vast number of people, and not less than 60,000 were

M