Mr. Sergeant Cross. That is to say, my lord, in other words, that there may be an open, as well as a concealed conspiracy. The Chief-Justice then commenced his charge to the jury.The first count upon the indictment, his lordship said, consisted of two points: the one charging the unlawful assemblage, and the other the unlawful assemblage, followed by the seditious speeches. The second count charged conspiracy between the defendants. He would state (his lordship continued) to the jury, a definition of the term "unlawful assembly." Mr. Sergeant Hawkins had said, that any meeting of great numbers of people, with such circumstances of terror as could not but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jealousies among the king's subjects, would properly be called an unlawful assembly. This was the position of Mr. Sergeant Hawkins, which he had illustrated thus: as when great numbers of people, complaining of some grievance, meet in a warlike manner to consult together upon the most proper means of redressing them, because no one can foresee what may be the event of such an assembly. His lordship would call the attention of the jury particularly to those words, because no one can foresee what may be the event of such an assembly; and he would request them to bear in mind, that such was the reason given by the author why those meetings were dangerous to society. From Mr. Harrison's expression that it was as absurd to petition the House of Commons as for a getleman to petition his groom for his horse, it was manifest that the object was not to petition parliament or

to obtain a reform by legitimate means. After reading Welsh's evidence respecting the allusion to the Bastile, he left it to them to judge whether the only meaning that could be put upon the words, in justice and fairness to the defendant, was not the meaning put upon them by the attorney-general. Sir Charles Wolseley said, that if all their hearts were as firm as his, they would soon put an end to the present tyranny and corruption. Did these words require explanation? If sedition were to be illustrated by the strongest instances, could a more forcible instance be found? This was addressed to a multitude of 5,000 from different parts, armed with sticks, peeled, cut from trees, and having large knobs. This evidence was entirely uncontradicted. The Chief Justice proceeded to read the evidence of the expression, "that in a few weeks the great struggle would be made." What great struggle? He left it to them to consider who the parties were whom Sir Charles thought would be engaged in this struggle. From a former part of the speech, where Sir Charles Wolseley had talked of putting down tyranny and corruption, it was clear that the struggle was to be with tyranny and corruption. Who were the tyrants and corrupt? They had heard of a barrier to be removed, in order to see whether the throne was filled by a pig or a man; and they now found Sir Charles Wolseley exciting 5,000 persons to be as firm of heart as he. The struggle then was to be made by these 5,000, and others who would join. The place was sacred ground, sanctified by Bagueley, Johnson, and Drummond! His lordship then

read the evidence, as to the words used by Harrison," that there were ten thousand walls between the throne and the people, and they should all be blown up to heaven or to hell." This speech had been received with acclamations! His lordship then proceeded to observe upon the resolutions of the meeting. It had been resolved that Lord Sidmouth was guilty of high treason. Lord Sidmouth was holding a high and responsible situation in the country; and it had been stated to 5,000 men, with sticks in their hands, that Lord Sidmouth was guilty of high treason; and that statement had been received with shouts of applause. These resolutions had been read upon the hustings in the presence of Sir C. Wolseley and of Mr. Harrison; and had been put by Sir Charles Wolseley himself the leading person in the transaction. A sailor had then spoken, and that man had said, that there had been a panic at Manchester; but that that would not do at Oldham. Those words were mysterious; the learned judge did not understand what was meant by them. The last resolution had been—and it was worthy the attention of the jury,-that, as ministers had obtained bills of indemnity to cover their acts, so the meeting should indemnify the speakers if any thing seditious had been spoken. John Barrett had said in his evidence, "When they heard that the military were coming, Sir Charles Wolseley called to the people to stand firm." So then he looked upon himself in the character of leader of the meeting."They wished the cavalry would come; they were prepared for them." Prepared for what? To oppose them of

course. How prepared? With the large sticks. His lordship proceeded to the evidence of Thomas Cartwright. "Sir C. Wolesley called for three hisses for the prosecutors of Bagueley, Johnson, and Drummond :" these men were then lying in prison for the offences they had committed, and Sir Charles Wolseley called upon 5,000 men, with bludgeons in their hands, to give three hisses for their prosecutors. His lordship then went minutely through the rest of the evidence. If they thought that, in pursuance of a connected scheme, the defendants acted and spoke, and that the tendency of their conduct was, to stir up to hatred and contempt of the government, and that speeches had been made by them with that intent, then they would find them guilty of the two charges in the second count. If they thought them guilty of all the charges in the two counts, they would find a general verdict of guilty.

The Jury consulted for about two minutes, when they desired to retire. The indictment was handed to them. They retired at one o'clock, and returned in three quarters of an hour with a verdict of Guilty against Sir Charles Wolseley and Joseph Harrison. The court was very crowded, and all seemed to feel the greatest interest, but no expression of feeling accompanied the verdict.

[For the judgment passed upon the defendants by the Court of King's-bench, see Chronicle, page 148.]

The Trials of Arthur Thistlewood, James Ings, John Thomas Brunt, Richard Tidd, William Davidson, and others for High

Treason, at the Sessions House in the Old Bailey, on Monday the 17th, Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, Friday the 21st, Saturday the 22nd, Monday the 24th, Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th, Thursday the 27th, and Friday the 28th day of April, 1820. On the 8th of March, a special commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued under the Great Seal, directed to the lord chief justice Abbot; the lord chief justice of the Common Pleas, Dallas; the lord chief baron Richards; Mr. Justice Richardson; Mr. Baron Garrow; the Recorder and Common Sergeant: and others the king's justices: for the purpose of hearing and inquiring into the offences therein named, viz.

1. All high-treasons, except such as relate to the coin.

2. All misprisions of treason. 3. The murder of Richard

Smithers.

4. All offences against the persons of Frederick Fitz-Clarence, William Legg, James Ellis, John Surman, William Westcott, William Charles Brook, John Muddock, and Benjamin Gill, contrary to the statute 43, Geo. III, c. 58, " for the prevention of maliciously shooting," &c.

On Monday the 27th of March, the commission was opened at the Sessions House, Clerkenwellgreen, by the lord chief justice Abbot, and the lord chief justice of the Common Pleas; when a Grand Jury was sworn, who, on the following day, returned true bills of indictment against Arthur Thistlewood, William Davidson, James Ings, John Thomas Brunt, Richard Tidd, James William Wilson, John Harrison, Richard Bradburn, John Shaw

Strange, James Gilchrist, and Charles Cooper, for high-treason. On the 29th, other bills were found for the murder and felony [for which, see Chronicle, p. 88].

On the 3rd of April, copies of the indictment for high-treason were delivered to the respective prisoners [for the substance of the indictment, see Chronicle, page 92].

On the 15th of April the court re-assembled at the Sessions House in the Old Bailey. Present, The lord chief justice Abbot.

The lord chief justice of the Common Pleas, Dallas.

The lord chief baron Richards. Mr. Justice Richardson. The Common Sergeant, and other the king's justices.

Ings,

The prisoners were severally arraigned upon the indictment for high-treason: they all pleaded Not Guilty, in the usual form, except Wilson, who pleaded a misnomer in abatement. when asked by the officer" How will you be tried?" at first replied, "by the laws of reason," but he was afterwards persuaded to put himself on his trial in the usual terms. The prisoners against whom other indictments had been found, were then arraigned upon their respective indictments, and Messrs. Curwood and Adolphus having been assigned of counsel for Thistlewood, Davidson, Ings, Brunt, Tidd, and Wilson; and Messrs. Walford and Broderick for the others, the Court adjourned to Monday April the 17th, when Arthur Thistlewood was put upon his trial.

At eight o'clock the arrival of the jurymen, who had been summoned, created considerable bustle, and this was greatly enhanced by the pressure of other

form.

Mr. Shelton immediately proceeded to call over the names of the jurymen summoned. Some of the gentlemen were excused from attendance, on the ground of ill-health. While this form was going through, the prisoner Thistlewood was put to the bar. He came forward with apparent firmness. He had in his hand a pencil and a sheet of paper.

The counsel for the crown in attendance were, the attorneygeneral, the solicitor-general, Mr. Gurney, Mr. Bolland, and Mr. Littledale.

While the Court was occupied in attending to the list of the jury, a man placed his hat on the board in front of the dock. Thistlewood immediately took from

the hat five oranges, which he put in his pocket. The oranges were taken from him by the gaoler, from an apprehension that they might contain poison, but he was informed that he should be provided with any thing in the way of refreshment which he might require.

At 12 o'clock the whole of the jury had been called over.

Thistlewood then addressed the Court, and said, "Will your lordship allow me a chair?"

A chair was placed at the front of the dock, and the prisoner sat down.

A jury being sworn, after numerous challenges, both on the of the crown, part of the prisoner, and on that

The Lord Chief Justice observed,—“ "As there are several persons charged with the offence of high-treason by this indictbe taken one after the other, I ment, whose trials are likely to think it necessary, in furtherance of justice, strictly to prohibit the this or any other trial, until publication of the proceedings of the whole of the trials shall be brought to a conclusion. It is highly necessary to the purposes of justice, that the public mind, or the minds of those who are hereafter to serve as jurymen, should not be influenced by the publication of any of the proceedings which may take place, until the whole of those proceedings shall be finished. We hope all persons will observe this injunction."

The indictment was opened by Mr. Bolland:

And the Attorney General stated the case for the crown.

"May it please your Lordship; Gentlemen of the Jury; The

charges in this indictment, though four in number, will all be proved to you by the same evidence; and if the evidence I shall lay before you be sufficient to establish one of them, it will, I believe, completely establish the whole. Three of the offences charged consist in compassing and imagining the deposition of the king from his throne; the death of the king; and a conspiracy to levy war, in order to compel him to change his measures for the government of the kingdom. In this case it is quite sufficient to show you, in the first instance, that the plans of the prisoner at the bar and his accomplices, were of that description, and of that nature that they were aimed against the government, as they will undoubtedly be proved to have been in this case. Although they were not directly aimed in the first instance against the personal safety and personal authority of the sovereign, still, if the consequences of their acts led to that result, they involved, in point of law, the treason charged in the indictment.

"Gentlemen; having said thus much, I will, without further preface, call your attention, as perspicuously and as shortly as I can, to the facts which will be proved in evidence to support the charges. The prisoner at the bar had for some time conceived the wicked and nefarious plan of overturning the government so long established in this country; and it will appear to you that several, nay, all of the persons mentioned in the indictment, were participators in the same design; some of them probably coming into that purpose and design at a later period than others, but all of them concurring

in the last criminal event which led to their detection. [The learned attorney - general here detailed the proofs of a treasonable conspiracy, which he proposed to adduce against the prisoner, which differed little from the statements subsequently made by the witnesses for the crown]. It may, gentlemen (continued the attorney-general) be urged in a general sense, that such schemes and such plans as the facts I have related to you disclose, ought scarcely to be credited in a court of justice; or they may be ascribed to the circumstance of heated men with heated passions, conceiving and proposing the adoption of plans, wild and visionary, and in fact, wholly impracticable. In this case, however, such a principle did not exist; for here were long-laid regular plans, extensive schemes, and the most abundant preparations, to effect a wicked purpose. And will not desperate and designing men, infuriated by their passions, either influence others to the accomplishment of such plans, or be worked upon by them themselves.

Gentlemen, it is not your duty to consider whether the schemes in question were wild and visionary, but whether they had for their object an illegal or wicked purpose; and if illegal, and that towards the execution of their plans they took but one step, they have then done that which renders them amenable to the offended laws of their country. But you will also be told that accomplices are not to be believed on their oath in a court of justice. But it is not the law of England, alone, that receives the evidence of an accomplice. It is the law of reason also, and has