said, that since this case was before the Court the other day, he had been instructed by Major Cartwright to address such topics to the Court as presented themselves to his own mind, which might be available to the venerable defendant in this last stage of the proceedings. Since the trial, his attention had not been particularly called to the circumstances of the case; and although he had not been a very attentive observer of what had subsequently passed, yet, bearing in mind what had been reported by the learned Judge, and the facts mentioned in the affidavit of the venerable defendant, it appeared to him that there were some legitimate topics of mitigation, which could not be urged without considerable effect on his behalf. He then adverted to the very small share which the worthy major took in the proceedings at Birmingham-the total absence of any proof of concert with the other defendants his being a silent auditor and spectator of what took place at the meeting of that day-his merely acknowledging his sense of the vote of thanks conferred upon him for his general political services-circumstances which, proved, as they were, by his own affidavit, and confirmed by the affidavits of other persons, clearly entitled him to exemption from being thought an active participator in the supposed conspiracy. But though the venerable major had, in fact, taken no active share in the events of that occasion, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he disclaimed any invidious distinction between his case and the cases of the other defendants, being quite ready to bear equally with them the consequences of that verdict which the Jury had pronounced. Look ing, however, to the general nature of the charge, it appeared to him (Mr Denman) that there were some topics which might be successfully urged on

VOL. XIV. PART II.

behalf of the defendant, notwithstanding the terms in which the indictment was framed. The charge against the defendant was that of conspiring with other persons to nominate and elect a legislatorial attorney, to claim a seat in the House of Commons, as representative of the inhabitants of Birmingham in Parliament, in derogation of the Constitution, and for the purpose of bringing the House of Commons into odium and contempt. Now, he was free to own, that he was utterly at a loss to conceive how this could be considered as a crime; he had applied his best judgment and consideration to the subject, and the result was, that, in his opinion, this was no crime at all. The appointment of a legislatorial attorney, by an assembly such as that which had taken place, was a vain and idle proceeding; and the mere fact of such an appointment could not be construed into an offence cognizable by the law, unless it was the effect of artifice or fraud, in the abuse of some constituted authority. As well it might be said in the case of the election of a bishop, that a person giving a conge d'elire without authority, was liable to criminal punishment. The same observation would apply to any other appointment under the like circumstances; for it could only be considered as an idle and vain exercise of authority which did not exist, and could not be attended with any injurious consequences to the public. If, indeed, the defendants had forged the King's writ, or had resorted to any fraudulent abuse of authority in derogation of the powers of other persons to effect their object, the case would have been far different, and no defence could have been urged. But here no such complexion marked the case. It could not be pretended in this case, that any mischievous consequences had attended the conduct of the defendants.

B

No riot or breach of the public peace had occurred; it was not even hinted that there was any attempt to violate the law; no magistrate had found it necessary to whisper the riot act into the ear of his clerk, under pretence that the peace of the community was in danger. A more orderly or peaceable assembly had never taken place on any public occasion, and it had separated without having committed, or threatened to commit, a single act of violence. Then, as to the intention of the defendants, it appeared from all the circumstances of the case to have been perfectly bona fide. The Court were not to look to the particular conduct of the defendants on the occasion, but they were to refer to the essence of their motives, which had nothing in view but to remedy abuses, which were not only supposed to exist, but which for ages had been positively asserted to exist, by some of the most enlightened philosophers and statesmen that had ever adorned the country. If the defendants were to be considered as entertaining sentiments of disaffection, in canvassing the constitution of the House of Commons, and in urging that reform was necessary in that branch of the legislature, then must Lord Chatham, Mr Pitt, Mr Burke, Sir G. Saville, and other enlightened statesmen, be deemed to have been disaffected traitors to their country. It was no part of his duty on the present occasion to defend the means by which the defendants had sought to remedy the grievances of which they complained; but if their intentions were honest -if they merely exercised a right which they conceived they possessed, of meeting to discuss public measures, and of expressing their sentiments-surely they were not to be considered criminals for having done no more than the constitution of the country allowed the subjects of England. The great est men that ever lived had come for

ward in like manner to express the like sentiments, and the right of meeting publicly for such a purpose had never yet been questioned. It was in this spirit, and with this object in view, that these defendants had met on the occasion in question. Were they then, under such circumstances, to be brought to the bar of Justice? If such meetings as these were to be considered as illegal, then every meeting that had taken place to arouse public opinion in the cause of public virtue, must be deemed illegal. Public opinion could only be preserved by such means, and by that engine alone was the national character preserved. The infamous and bloody traffic in slaves, so disgraceful to the British nation, was rooted out only by public opinion, repeatedly and publicly expressed; and with as much propriety might public meetings for that purpose be considered as conspiracies against the West India merchants, as this be called a conspiracy to bring the constitution into hatred and contempt. By public opinion alone was public virtue preserved; and under the influence of that check were our institutions kept in a state of healthful vigour. It was a fatal delusion to imagine that such meetings could do any harm. Such an opinion begot a reverence for folly and absurdity, and taught even the best-disposed persons to mistake the corrupt excrescences of the constitution for the constitution itself. The moral conviction of the existence of such abuses was not to be disputed, and it was only by public opinion that they could be redressed. It was quite extraordinary how even abuses excited the admiration and respect of those who shuddered at reform. The learned counsel then proceeded to advert to the public and private virtues of the worthy major, whose life had been devoted to promoting the arts of his country, endeavouring to preserve the purity of our national in

stitutions, and to the pursuit of those objects which dignified and ennobled the character of man. Considering then the conduct of such a man, considering the motives by which he had been actuated-his venerable age, (84) his amiable and unoffending deportment through life, he was quite convinced that the Court, in discharging its painful duties, (for painful they must be in such a case,) would proceed towards him, with that tenderness and consideration to which on every account he was so much entitled. In conclusion, he adverted to the worthy major's desire, that whatever punish ment the Court might be disposed to inflict, imprisonment rather than fine should be imposed, considering that if the latter course should be resorted to, it would have the effect of disinheriting a beloved niece, the daughter of an elder brother, whom he had adopted, and of depriving an adored wife and aged sisters of that means to which they looked for support in the advanced autumn of life. However, since this case was last before the Court, he (Mr D.) had received a letter from those relatives, in which they deprecated the idea of allowing any consideration of their situation to weigh with the Court, when the health and liberty of their venerated friend were at stake; and agonized with the sense of those sufferings which awaited him, they implored the Court to avert that punishment which the worthy major himself was disposed to hail with the genuine spirit of martyrdom in a cause to which his life had been devoted. Such were the feelings of those beloved relations. The worthy major, though a nominal defendant in this case, would be the greatest sufferer; but he came with manly fortitude to meet all that could be inflicted on him, consoling himself, that, under every dispensation, there was a public who would respect him,

and an impartial posterity who would do justice to his name and actions. The learned counsel sat down amidst a burst of uncontrollable applause from the auditory.

Mr Justice Bayley proceeded to pass sentence. It was his duty, the learned Judge said, after careful consideration by the Court, and nice discrimination between their respective cases, to pronounce judgment upon the defendants. It would have been some alleviation to his mind, if, in the interval which had elapsed between the month of July, 1819, and the present period, they had been induced to look back upon their own conduct, at least with a feeling that they might have been wrong in what they had done, and without that prejudice which men in general are but too apt to entertain as to that which regards their particular selves. It was the duty of the Court to pass sentence on individuals, not for the sake of inflicting punishment upon them, but in order, as far as possible, to produce security to the public at large, and especially to that portion of the public which might be deluded or led away for want of sufficient knowledge to judge for themselves. As far as he (the learned Judge) could have an opinion, he had no difficulty in saying, that the defendants had committed a great crime, to insinuate into the minds of the lower orders, that they had certain rights, which, in fact, they had not; to fill their minds with imaginary or exaggerated evils; in short, to hold such language to them as should induce them to endeavour to change by physical force the constitution of the kingdom, was an offence of a very aggravated description. The insinuating, therefore, to a large body of men, that they had such an inherent right, was not only holding unconstitutional doctrine, but trying to engender in their minds principles which

could not be justified, and which might induce them perhaps to adopt conduct which might at last involve them and their families, and indeed other peace able inhabitants of the kingdom, and their families, in great distress. He (the learned Judge) did not mean to insinuate that such consequences had been foreseen in the present case; he believed that they had not; but it was the duty of the Court to estimate conduct by its probable result. Every man at all acquainted with the constitution of his country, would be aware that there could be no election without the King's writ; and that if, under the circumstances of the case, the House of Commons had permitted Sir Charles Wolseley to take his place among them, they would not only have been guilty of a violation of the constitution, but have rendered invalid every act which, as a Parliament, they might have done. The meeting in question was held on the 12th of July, and from 16,000 to 20,000 were present at it. The whole proceeding was regular; and, bating some ill language to two persons, Pemberton and Dickenson, who dissented from the resolutions, the crowd dispersed without any breach of the peace; but a meeting intended for an ill purpose might pass off peaceably, and the true mode of discovering the motive and intent with which a meeting was held, was to look at the speeches delivered at it. Upon that part of the case the evidence affected the defendants in different degrees. The learned Judge then went at considerable length over the evidence given at the trial, and over the speeches as published subsequently to the meeting by the defendants, Edmonds and Wooller. Five hundred seats in the House of Commons were described as being sold to the best bidder. Was that assertion, or was it not, calculated to diminish the respect

which persons would otherwise feel for that House? That there might be some instances in which, contrary to the spirit of the constitution, corruption was employed in returning mem. bers to the House of Commons, might be true; but here the imputation extended to 500 seats out of 658. He (the learned Judge) put it to the hearts of the defendants themselves, whether such an assertion was not calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt. As to the principle of universal suffrage, it was the peculiar blessing of the British constitution that every man was virtually represented in Parliament. Members were chosen by particular places; but the moment they were chosen, they became bound to act, not merely for the benefit of their constituents, but for the good of the public at large. If every man had an inherent right, however, a natural right, independent of the law, to vote for Members of Parliament, why were women to be excluded from the same free right? The learned Judge then adverted to the motion for a new trial, and commented on the facts and arguments which had been adduced in support of that application. His Lordship proceeded :-The Court had attended to the affidavits which had been laid before them. It was the most unpleasant part of its duty to inflict punishment upon individuals, particularly where that punishment affected their innocent families. His Lordship wished that before persons subjected themselves to danger, they would think on the situation of those who were de pendent upon them. The Court had not forgotten the family of the defendant Edmonds; and they wished that the conduct of the defendant Madox had been such as to strengthen the claim which his family also gave him upon their merciful consideration. The affidavit of Major Cartwright ex

hibited the feelings of an extremely good heart, strong principles of reli gion, and great attachment for the country to which he belonged. The learned Judge lamented to see that upon one subject, and perhaps upon only one, there was, to a certain degree, in the mind of that gentleman a delusion, an unfortunate delusion, as to the rights of adult men to vote for their own representatives. The major's preference of imprisonment to fine, was a preference which deserved to weigh, and would weigh, with every well-constituted mind; but the Court was bound to look at the major's age, and to judge more prudently for him than he had done for himself. The Court, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, did order and adjudge-that the defendant Edmonds should be imprisoned for nine months; the defendant Madox, for eighteen; and the defendant Wooler, for fifteen months, in the jail of Warwick; to find securities for their good behaviour during five years, themselves in 4007. each, and two securities in 2001. each. The sentence of the Court upon Major Cartwright was-that he should pay a fine of 100%. to the King, and be imprisoned until that fine be paid.

for causing certain individuals to be punished by those publications.

The case on the part of the crown was stated by Mr Pearson; Mr Scarlett and Mr Gurney conducted the defendant's case.

The first witness called was Arthur Seale; he stated that he resides in the vicinity of Tottenham-court-road ; knows a person of the name of Forbes, or Fletcher, or Franklin; first knew him by the name of Oliver, and afterwards by the name of Fletcher-did business for him; had seen him on the 1st of July, 1818; applied to witness to print bills for him; received that order on Saturday evening, and on the Sunday evening following, worked off between four and five hundred bills for him. A bill was here handed to the witness, which he stated to be one of those that he had printed at that time. It was addressed to the unpolled Electors of Westminster, and dated July 2, 1818. Witness remembered the chairing of Sir Francis Burdett; that was on the 11th of July, on Monday, and Fletcher was with him on the Saturday preceding; witness had some conversation with him about certain hat labels which he had printed for Fletcher, and Fletcher said, "Let the fools wear them, and they will the more easily be cut down."-A paper was here handed to witness, in manuscript, which he said he had received from Fletcher, who wrote it at his (witness's) own desk; he printed 500 copies of it by Fletcher's own order, about the beginning of September, 1818. The paper alluded to by the witness was then read. It called upon the people to remember that the great were not their only enemies, &c. Other handbills were proved in like manner. On one occasion, Franklin, when he came to take the bills away, came in a hackney chariot; the chariot did not drive up to the door of witness's printing-office, but drew