AUTHENTIC REPORT 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 DOCTOR PETER MURRAY MC DOUALL, 
 
 AT LIVERPOOL, 
 
 ON MONDAY, AUGUST 28th, 1848. 
 
 COMPILED PROM THE SHORT-HAND WRITER'S NOTES. 
 
 THE PROFITS OF THIS PUBLICATION, IF ANY, WILL BE APPLIED TO THE 
 SUPPORT OF MRS. Me. DOUALL AND HER CHILDREN. 
 
 MANCHESTER: 
 
 PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF MBS. Me. DOUALL, 
 
 BY ABEL HEYWOOD, 58, OLDHAM STREET. 
 
 ,T. WATSON, QUEEN’S HEAD PASSAGE, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 PRICE FOURPENCE. 
 
TRIAL OF DR. Me. DOUALL. 
 
 you with their decision. There are only ten thousand disposable troops, and what 
 are those to five millions of people f I wish they would call up the militia, but they 
 dare not do that, for then we should have their guns, and bayonets, and cartridges, 
 then we would let them see what we would do. Before the harvest is in, or very 
 soon after, I ’ll promise you, you shall have the six points of the charter, and some¬ 
 thing more. Organize, organize, organize.” 
 
 The third count charged against the prisoner the publishing the following words: 
 “ I advise you to organize and form yourselves into divisions and sections, and to 
 practise the same drillings and manasuvres as your enemy, not only without arms, 
 hut with them.” Then it continued—“And the Jurors aforesaid on their oath 
 aforesaid further say that the said Peter Murray Me. DouaU, then and there so as 
 aforesaid, spoke, published, uttered, pronounced, and delivered the said last-mentioned 
 false, malicious, wicked, and seditious words, with intent and design to persuade and 
 incite in the said last-mentioned liege subjects to procure arms, and to be drilled to 
 the use of arms, and to practise military exercise, movements, and evolutions, with 
 and without arms, for unlawful piuposes, and to move and incite them to be unlaw¬ 
 fully trained and drilled to the use of arms, and to the practise of military exercise, 
 movements, and evolutions, against the provisions of the said statute, and to move 
 and incite them to insurrection, riot, and breach of the peace, and contempt of our 
 said Lady the Queen, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and 
 against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.” 
 
 The fourth and fifth counts charged a conspiracy (but these counts had, after ar¬ 
 gument, been abandoned). The sixth count charged that the prisoner and others, at 
 the same time and place, unlawfully assembled to disturb the peace, and to obstruct 
 by force and arms the execution of the laws: and the seventh count charged a riot 
 at the same time and place. 
 
 The prisoner to the question “ Are you guilty or not guilty ?” replied in a firm 
 voice “ Hot guilty”. (This part of the business, the arraigning and pleading, had 
 been gone through on the previous Saturday.) 
 
 The Attorney-General opened the case:—May it please your Lordship, gentlemen 
 of the jury—The prisoner at the bar is charged by the indictment which has been 
 just read to you, with uttering seditious words, and he is also charged -with attending 
 an unlawful assembly; and the intent with which these offences were committed is 
 charged to be an intent to raise up and excite a spirit of discontent, and to obstruct, 
 by force of arms, the execution of the law. It is my duty, as counsel for the crown, 
 briefly to state to you the circumstances under which this charge has arisen, and to 
 call your attention to the mode in which I shall endeavour to bring it home to the pri¬ 
 soner. Gentlemen, I need scarcely call your attention to that which has been a matter 
 of public notoriety, but which, nevertheless, I must mention, as a means of introducing 
 the case. You are aware that, throughout many parts of the country, and particu¬ 
 larly in the county in which we are sitting, there lias for some time past been a con¬ 
 siderable agitation produced by persons who profess a particular class of political 
 opinions; opinions winch have no’- gained a very well-known and popular name. I 
 am not going to discuss those opinions with you; I am not going to ask the question 
 whether those opinions are correct or not, because, in truth, they have nothing at all 
 to do with the case. People are allowed to entertain them, but no man is allowed— 
 and in civilised society no man ought to be allow'ed—to advocate his opinions in lan¬ 
 guage that has a tendency to promote a breach of the peace, and is intended, and is 
 likely to have the effect of exciting among the people a spirit of resistance to the law. 
 That is quite distinct from the discussion of any political opinions whatever. No 
 man has a right to do that under any circumstances whatever; and, if he does it, he 
 cannot, when put upon his trial for the offence, shield himself under the plea that he 
 was honestly advocating his own opinions. Indeed, as far as the prisoner at the bar 
 is concerned, I shall show you that when he delivered the speech in question, he was 
 the hired and paid agent of others; a lecturer employed to go about the country and 
 disseminate the poison in which he deals, and to excite the people at different places, 
 
is charged with having utl 
 without any great difficull 
 Lord, whether they are no 
 
I heard the whole of the speech, hut the parts I have mentioned impressed them¬ 
 selves particularly upon my memory. I gave the note I made of Me. Douall’s speecii 
 to Inspector Dalglcish, and I have not seen it since. I have not asked him for it. 
 He is here.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins then handed the witness a piece of paper and a 
 pen, and asked him to write his name. After he had done so (the writing being very 
 indifferent), the learned Sergeant said:—Now just have the goodness to write on 
 that piece of paper “ Form yourselves into sections and divisions”. 
 
 His Lordship.—I do not "know tliis is a regular course of proceeding, brother Wil- 
 kins; because, supposing the man were to write badly here, how will that tend to 
 show that he could not write what he himself can understand ? 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—I just w'ant to see whether he can irate what anybody 
 can understand. 
 
 His Lordship.—I have seen many handwritings of many eminent men, that they 
 could not make out themselves. I remember perfectly well holding a consultation 
 
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins—Is Dalglcisli sworn ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.—Yo. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—If he would answer one question, it would save a great 
 
 Dalglcisli was then sworn, and examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, as follows:— 
 
 The last witness says that he gave you the notes he made of these transactions— 
 Did you look at them ? I did. Could you read them ? Of course I could. Were 
 they legible ? Yes, they were. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—That will answer my purpose. 
 
 The cross-examination of Taylor was then proceeded with as follows.—The people 
 dispersed without doing any further mischief than making a noise, cheering and 
 shouting. I heard Me. Douall, in one part of his speech, caution the people against 
 resorting to acts of violence. 
 
 George Dalghisli said—I am an inspector of police for Ashton. On the evening of 
 the 16tli July last, I was on duty at the Charleston Chapel. I did not go in. I at¬ 
 tempted to go in, but was not permitted to do so. I was prevented by men who 
 were guarding the doors. I remained there until the meeting broke up. They broke 
 up about half-past ten o’clock. In leaving the place, I counted several rows of peo¬ 
 ple, three and four deep. Me. Douall was in front of the procession, with a man at 
 each side. Before they started, there was some cheering. I thought there were 
 about 300 or 400 people in the procession. They went along Wellington-road, 
 Oldham-road, and Old-street. They had to go about 100 yards along Old-street, 
 from Oldham-road, before they got to the Odd Fellows’ Arms. They passed this, and 
 proceeded through Henry-square, along Stamford-street, through Cavendish-street, 
 
TRIAL 
 
 C. DOUALL. 
 
 11 
 
 emphasis, as those with respect to which he has been giving evidence. The test 
 you propose would be a very fallacious one, at the best. 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—I am not here to say that it is infallible. 
 
 His Lordship.—It is a very common test, I believe, in cases of this sort, whore a 
 
 out of court to write a report, that cannot be. You have a right to the oral testimony 
 of a witness, but not to send him out of court to write. 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—If vour lordship is against me, I will abandon the point. I admit 
 the test is not infallible. 
 
 His Lordship.—As to sending a witness out of court to write a speech, that is im¬ 
 possible. You have a right to cross-examine him orally; but you have no right to 
 ask a witness to write his evidence down. 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—My object is to show that a man, under the circumstances in which 
 the witness is placed, and anxious, as he naturally will be, to do his best, will not 
 be able to report the meaning so as that he may not give detached passages bearing 
 a meaning totally different from that which the whole speech would bear. 
 
 His Lordship.—As for as asking him the purport of what is said, you may do 
 that: but to follow out the principle upon which you found your argument, see wliat 
 it would come to:—“ I have a right,” you say, l: to ask a witness to do in court, 
 that which he did out of court.” Suppose then, a man came and identified a watch, 
 and he says, “ I know' the watch very well, I made it.” “ You made the watch,” 
 says the prisoner’s counsel, “ I should like to see you do so now.” 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—There are, no doubt, extreme cases in winch the practice would be 
 
 His Lordship.—But they illustrate the principle. 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—I have heard that one of the greatest men that ever lived, shut 
 a man to make a Jacquard loom, in order to show that he could make one. 
 
 His Lordship.—But not during the progress of a trial. I will allow you to 
 that which I have said; but as to allowing the witness to go out of court to writ 
 report of what has been read to him, that I decline. 
 
 Mr. Pollock then read the following sentence from a pamphlet:— 
 
 : at the political horizon at the present moment, it appears dark and loweri 
 not anticipate anything like what alarms the mind of the attorncy-gener: 
 nigh I see nothing of revolution, anarchy, and blood, yet I can see approach 
 sion in this land which is calculated to level down the fundamental principle 
 and the few remaining privileges of the people, in the new and arbitrary ic 
 copied from the despotic governments of France, Prussia, and Russia.” 
 
 He then asked Dalgleisk to report that sentence to the jury. Dalgleisli—I do not 
 think that I have any right to do. His Lordship.—I give you permission to do so, 
 if you can; or the learned counsel himself. Mr. Pollock.—I confess my inability; 
 that is what my learned friend and I are contending for. Can you give any report 
 of the meaning and general purport of that sentence? Dalgleisli.—No. Ilis Lord- 
 ship.—I am quite sure you might extend your inquiries to other parts of the court, 
 without getting much more satisfaction as to the meaning. If I was to guess at the 
 meaning, it was, that the alarm was not for the government, but for the people; to 
 give, to you iu short— 
 
 Mr. Pollock—X do not know whose speech it was; I never saw it until it was 
 put into my hands. 
 
 His Lordship.—(Continuing his statement, of what ho considered to he the mean¬ 
 ing of the passage read.)—I have not the apprehensions that the attorney-general 
 has for the government; but I apprehend that the people will be oppressed. 
 
 Dalgleish’s cross-examination was then continued as follows:—I cannot swear, 
 positively, whether troops at Windsor or at Woolwich were spoken of. I cannot 
 say that Me. Douall spoke of the organization of the methodists. I did not hear 
 him speak of the organization of the and-com-law league. Have known Me. Douall 
 hold meetings at Ashton before, two or three years back. I cannot say how many 
 
also told them that before the harvest was in, or very soon after, he would promise 
 them the six points of the charter and something more. He then concluded, 
 “Organize, organize, organize.” There was then some shouting, and the people 
 dispersed. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—I made some notes of this speech. 
 They are in my pocket book, which I have here.—[Pocket book produced, and 
 handed to the learned counsel.] I made my notes as soon as I could get to the 
 police-office, after the meeting. I made them at the office. There was no one in 
 the room where I wrote but myself. There were others at the office besides myself. 
 Some who have been called, and others who will have to be called this morning, 
 were there. We are supplied with books and pencils by the authorities. I was 
 constable to the overseers for apprehending those who had neglected their families, 
 and for the removal of the poor, for seven years. To the best of my knowledge, I 
 have given an account of a meeting before. 
 
 Thomas Hollingworth .—I am an overlooker in a factory at Ashton-under-Lync. I 
 am in the employment of Mr. Eayner. X went to this meeting house on the 10th 
 July, between eight and nine o’clock in the evening. When I got there I saw some 
 constables at the door. I saw into the meeting house. I was at the doorstead. The 
 place was fall. I saw a rush at the door to where the constables were standing. I 
 observed some men going into the room from the outside. I saw something in their 
 dress that glittered. I thought it was a pike. I stopped until the meeting was 
 
u 
 
 His Lordship.—You had better offer them first. 
 
 The Attorney-General.—Then I will offer the letters found upon him. The first 
 is dated the sixth of July, 1848. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant "Wilkins.—Will you allow me to look at them ? [After reading the 
 letters he continued]—I object to them, because, having read them contents, I find 
 them refer to past transactions, in no way connected with the present, and I call 
 your lordship’s attention to a case, where certainly all the evidence that could be 
 justified, on behalf of the crown, was admitted; and this was the case of Hardy, re¬ 
 ported in Howell’s state trials. In that case it was ruled that letters must be writ¬ 
 ten in furtherance of the conspiracy, and not merely as evidence of past transactions. 
 Therefore the letters, if used at all, can only be used as pointing to transactions which 
 form part of the transactions at the meeting. The letter which was excluded in 
 Hardy’s case was one from Thelwall, containing seditious songs sung at the annual 
 meeting of the corresponding society in Loudon, of which both were members; and 
 the majority of the court ruled that as it was a mere narrative of transactions, and 
 was not in furtherance of the design, it could not be admitted. Eyre, chief justice, 
 said:—“ Correspondence of a mere private nature, which is merely evidence of what 
 has been done, appears to be a different thing from spoken language.” I apprehend, 
 having read the letters, that they come within that description, that they have refer¬ 
 ence to transactions by-gone, and are mere accounts that may have passed between 
 the defendant now in custody, and the party from whom that letter comes; but I 
 submit that, at any rate in order to render those letters admissable, it should be 
 shown who the party is who unites those letters; for, without that explanation, it is 
 impossible to put anything like a distinct, or at any rate a legal, import on the letters. 
 
 His Lordship.—The contents may make it immaterial who was the party who 
 
 Mr. Pollock.—There was originally a count for conspiracy in the indictment, and 
 under that no doubt this evidence might be adduced; but the rule contended for by 
 my learned friend, Mr. Wilkins, seems to have been acted on in Watson’s case after¬ 
 wards, and if that be true, and that be the right rule which seems to have been fol¬ 
 lowed in Watson’s case, after consultation between lord chief justice Ellenborougli 
 and chief justice Abbot, then I submit this is an a fortiori case as to the exclusion of 
 evidence; because, although on the coimts for conspiracy they might have been ad¬ 
 duced, yet we have now only to deal with counts confined to given acts on given 
 days; an unlawful assembly at Ashton, and a riot and seditious speech at that as¬ 
 sembly, which include all the charges In the indictment. Then I submit it would be 
 a much stronger point in our favour, that the letters refer to past transactions. For 
 instance, that with regard to the trial of other prisoners, on other matters, would be 
 quite irrelevant with reference to what occurred at a given day at Ashton; there 
 being nothing to connect the correspondence there adduced with the immediate object 
 with which the defendant is in this case charged, and it being calculated highly to 
 prejudice him also if there be evidence let in which tends to show that he was con¬ 
 nected with other parties in different parts of the country; which might be evidence 
 in a charge of seditious conspiracy, if he was charged with that, but which do not 
 connect these individuals with the individual act which is the subject of the indict- 
 
 His Lordship.—I am of opinion that these letters are legitimate evidence. I think 
 they tend to throw light upon the course that the defendant was pursuing. 
 
 The Attorney-General.—This case is quite different from that cited by my learned 
 friends; hi Hardy’s case, the prisoner knew nothing about the letter. 
 t Mr. Sergeant "Wilkins.—His lordship has decided in your favour. 
 
 The following letters were then put in and read:- 
 
 John-street, 6th July, 1848. 
 
 morning, but things were looking very black up till now. TVe had a supper with Carl Schapper 
 and others on Tuesday night. We had breakfast with the prisoners and their bail, and other 
 
Ut-Thc-Attorney-Gcneral then said:—I shall now read part of the hook. In one 
 place there is, “ creditor, M‘Cree ”, then follow other items, and then “ Jime 14th, 
 1818, salary”. Before that, is “ Salary, £2 ” no date; and before that is “Wages, 
 £2 7s. 6d.” 
 
 His Lordship.—It is not material now, as we have the letter stating that JPCree 
 has paid one amount of salary, and that he will send the other as soon as possible. 
 
 The Attorney-General.—I will now read “The Song of the Soil,” from the “Irish 
 Felon”, and a letter from Bradford. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—I object to the Bradford letter, as referring to a transaction 
 totally distinct from this. 
 
 His Lordship.—Let me look at it. 
 
 The Attorney-General stated, in answer to Mr. Pollock, that the depositions to 
 which he had referred in his opening speech, were enclosed in the Bradford letter. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant Wilkins hating again stated that he objected to the reception of the 
 letter in question in evidence:— 
 
 The Attorney-General said:—I apprehend that any document found in the pos¬ 
 session of a party accused, is evidence against that party. Of course the effect of it 
 —the weight of it—will depend upon circumstances. It may be of greater or less 
 weight, according to this or to that; but, I apprehend, you cannot entirely shut it 
 out of the case, when it is foimd in the possession of a party who is accused, and my 
 object in offering it in evidence, is that which your Lordship pointed out in admitting 
 
takes Iris trial on such a charge, and are very much calculated to mislead those who 
 have to decide upon it. It has reached us, from the highest to the lowest, and I 
 entreat and implore you, not merely for the interest of this man, not merely with 
 reference to the result of this inquiry, but I entreat and implore you as you value 
 your own interests—as you set a right value on the trial by jury—I entreat and im¬ 
 plore you to exercise all the vigilance of which you are capable, to scan your own 
 conduct and your own views with the greatest possible scrutiny; to come to this case, 
 respecting the solemn obligation under which you are placed in that box—respecting 
 the confidence reposed in you by your fellow countrymen. I entreat and implore 
 you to come to this question and decide it as any other, purely by the light of reason. 
 Let prejudice, if possible, have nothing to do with it. I know not what may be 
 your views on the political opinions of one man or upon the political opinions of 
 another. This I do know, if there he any truth in the picture which has been drawn 
 
speak in favour of liis sincerity, that if lie lias all tile abilities for which my learned 
 friends give liiin credit, lie should do this for so paltry a pittance, when liis abilities 
 would enable him to command for liis sendees, so ample a reward. It may be that j 
 his opinions may be despised, it may be that they may be wrong; but if he be- : 
 lievos them to be right, 1 say his motives should be appreciated; and let me tell i 
 you this, that every privilege almost that we enjoy, every right -and immunity in • 
 which we exult, has been purchased hy men who taught when then- teachings were 
 reviled, and they themselves were persecuted and despised. It is not because the 
 doctrines which this man teaches may be unpalatable—it may be that they are un¬ 
 palatable, because they lay bore the character of our institutions; that they are 
 unpalatabllf because they call m question the expenditure ot public money, .and 
 sometimes question the sincerity and honesty of those who expend that money, who 
 are paid for purposes somewhat different from what they devclope in their conduct. 
 All this may be so ; but do not, because lie is paid—paid after the fashion that lias 
 been proved to you to-dav—do not come to the conclusion therefore that lie is a 
 mere hireling, and that lie is insincere in what lie teaches; and do not treat him 
 with contempt, because he receives a miserable pittance for promulgating doctrines 
 lie believes to,.be true. “But,” said the attorney-general, “resistance to law, 
 under any circumstances, is not to be justiiied." I for one enter my solemn protest 
 against such an aphorism. I am not saving that we have arrived at that point 
 
cannot give you any definite or decisive evidence that there was any single man of 
 that assembly that had even a pocket-knife in his pocket. Will Mr. Newton say 
 that lie heard any expression of alarm ? lie will not. Well then may we come to 
 the conclusion that there was nothing of alarm existing. 
 
 Well, the meeting takes place; and the expressions the defendant used in his 
 speech I will draw your attention to, more particularly, by-and bye, when I come to 
 the count for a seditious speech. What takes place in the meeting ? Constables 
 were refused admittance! They had a perfect right to refuse admittance to the con¬ 
 stables ; and I do not think that you will come rashly to the conclusion, that they 
 
TRIAL OF DR. Me. DOUALL. 23 
 
 refused tire constables admittance because they were conscious that they were' doing 
 anything illegal. They told Mr. Newton, “ if you came lvcre as Mr. Newton, you 
 would be admitted, ” and to another officer, “ if you came as somebody else, you 
 would be admitted, but not as an inspector ”; and the reason is, not, that we are 
 afraid of you, because we have done anything wrong, but we are afraid you would 
 
hear anything about a revolt 
 anticipating certain results 
 
:al OP DE. Mo. douall, 
 
 Jut -where was he ? He was under cover; in a pi 
 •ate from the walls, and the speaker would he he 
 the open air. Yet my learned Mend was obliged 
 obtain from him such answers, and such an acco 
 is he gave. “ 'That did he say ? “ Why he £ 
 
 nd.” “ What did he say in reference to the land 
 ! left the impression that he was advocating soi 
 essions of the rich; that he was urging the peopli 
 le lands of the rich, and divide them amongst tin 
 to be ? And here, is one little fact, showing ; 
 whole of what a man says, before you can come 1 
 really intended and what was really said. Whe 
 1 Did not he say that the increase of the people i 
 t last fall back on the land ? ” “ Yes ” he said, 11 
 is a very different proposition; he said “ There ai 
 building up the happiness and wealth of this nat 
 s, and I tell you that machinery is now so fast 
 
 man labour, that, in the course of a very few ye 
 i of the world, and then be reduced to a state of si 
 ase of machinery, that, despite all the eulogies I 
 must at last fail back on the land, and the nati 
 went on to state that the parks of the aristocr 
 if he said what I put to the witness, and the la 
 le said that “ Population has now so fast increa 
 has hitherto remained unproductive must be bro 
 irks, as well as commons, must be divided into j 
 ; is a proposition in which a great many of you n 
 ectly true that for centuries we could admit not o 
 for parks for the pleasure of those who enjoy the 
 everythin!! tells us that no Dortion of this land 
 
you (and I will do it in a tvord or two), the utter falsehood of that proposition. 
 There are one or two observations which I must make, nevertheless, at the beginning 
 —make them whilst they are fresh on my memory, lest in the indignation with 
 which my learned friend’s proposition has inspired me, I should forget to notice them 
 
TRIAL OP 
 
 c. DOUALL. 
 
 31 
 
 altogether, Says the learned sergeant, “ If you are desirous to convince the man at 
 the bar, that you are not a packed jury, forsooth, you must acquit him! ” Are you 
 a packed jury ? What is the meaning of the imputation ? You know well how you 
 have been summoned, and whether you have been brought into that box by any 
 process different from that by which you have sat through the whole assize, and 
 tried every party brought before you. A packed jury! Did I object to a single 
 gentleman in the box, when he was called to-day, to be sworn in the case ? Did I 
 know the name of a single gentleman, or take the slightest care to select a jury who 
 might have prejudices against the prisoner or his supposed opinions ? I ask in your 
 recollection, whether anything of the sort occurred ? and surely, my learned friend 
 must have forgotten all that belonged to your constitution, when he was induced .to 
 make an observation like that; for this I must say, since I am challenged to it, and 
 forced by my learned friend, that the only application to set aside a juryman in the 
 box this morning, came not from me, but from my learned friend himself, who did 
 apply to set aside a gentleman in the box. Let me therefore, if you please, hear 
 nothing more of a packed jury; an observation, gentlemen, not less insulting to those 
 whose duty it is to bring a jury together, than to yon, the gentlemen sitting in the 
 box, who know perfectly well the truth of that which I am now speaking—that, in¬ 
 stead of being packed at all, you have been brought into the box in the usual way. 
 
 Mr. Pollock said the prisoner’s counsel had not objected to any juryman. 
 
 The Attorney-General: One gentleman was set aside by some one. 
 
 Mr. Pollock: Not by my learned friend, Sergeant Wilkins, or myself. 
 
 The Attorney-General: I do not know who it was; it was not by me. It is an 
 unjustifiable remark. It is an insinuation that you are a packed jury, and will be 
 thought a packed jury, if you do not return a verdict in accordance with my learned 
 friend’s opinion. I would beg you not to let that feeling which my learned friend’s 
 
talked about were glass buttons, you will discard all be said about pikes; but do 
 you think that a man does not know pikes from glass buttons ? and what do you 
 think of the argument which seeks to deprive a meeting like this of its illegal charac¬ 
 ter, by making a suggestion which common reason in a moment rejects ? You have 
 it that they were meeting, excluding reporters and the police, armed. I admit, I 
 have only been able to give some evidence as to what passed at that meeting. At 
 what time of night? At halPpast ten they came out of the place, and when honest 
 people would be thinking not of meeting in the streets, but of going to bed, they 
 marched hi regular order—not much perhaps in that, but still something—they 
 marched in regular taler, to convey this man to his lodgings. To his lodgings! 
 why; what do they do ? You have this band of men, leagued together in the manner 
 described, w-alking about the town, passing his lodgings, making an entry into the 
 square beyond, and by another mode and another street, coming back to his lodg¬ 
 ings. What is the meaning of that procession, at that time of night, getting towards 
 half-past eleven o’clock ? And then you have this body of'men then increased to 
 800 or 900, assembled about the house from which this man addressed them, shout¬ 
 ing, cheering, and making noises; and I put it to any man living—having reference 
 to the hour of night—whether such an assembly was not likely to excite terror in the 
 minds of the inhabitants of the town, when they were roused, as many no doubt 
 would be, from the bed to which they had retired, by an assembly of this sort, con¬ 
 ducting themselves in that manner, cheering and making a noise during the speech, 
 and at its conclusion ? I submit to you that this was clearly an illegal assembly; 
 and though it may not be of so much importance, because of the other part of the 
 case I apprehend there can be no doubt of your verdict; unquestionably it is your 
 duty to find hint guilty of that, if your conclusions go along with mine upon the 
 
 But what is the other part of the case ? He makes a speech. Does my learned 
 friend defend it ? He could scarcely do that, because it would hardly have escaped 
 your attention that, though he attacked witness after witness, he did not advert to the 
 terms of that speech, nor venture to deny, that if that speech was uttered, it was a 
 seditions speech. True, he did say something about other speeches which have 
 nothing to do with it. He did say, that ministers and statesmen, and I know not 
 who, have in their time talked treason, and are now rewarded by the acquaintance of 
 judges, and by places of honour in the land. I know not what my learned friend 
 means, nor to what he alluded, when he told me that I did not prove that the regi¬ 
 ments at Woolwich had not revolted, that being a matter of public notoriety, I 
 
in resisting. That is the ground on which the justification of these passages of our 
 history depends. As to saying that the law may he lawfully resisted or violated, it is 
 an absurdity to speak of it in a society and a country governed by law. Who is to he 
 judge as to when the law is to he resisted or not ? What test are we to apply ? is every 
 man to judge for himself when he trill resist the law or not ? is one man to judge rather 
 than another ? by what rule is he to judge ? because he is not to judge according to 
 law; we are assuming that it is to he against the law to resist the law. Is every man 
 to use his own judgment, and is that to he the ride ? because, according to that, we 
 should very soon lose the character of a civilised people, and all associations together 
 would he at an end; perfect anarchy would reign, and the law of the strongest, 
 would prevail. I now pass by this point; I merely alluded to it thus shortly in 
 consequence of the vigour with which the assertion was made; because there are 
 many persons here who may he misled by it, and foil into the great mistake of 
 supposing that these instances, cited from history, are reasonably applied. There 
 can he no doubt that the people have a right to meet together and consider their 
 grievances. They have a right to form their own opinions as to whether a law is a 
 good one or a bad one, and whether it is beneficial to the state that that law should 
 be altered; and they may lawfully meet to discuss, consider, and advise each other 
 on the subject. But how are they to proceed to alter the law ? Can you proceed 
 by force of arms ? It is impossible to think that that is consistent with any law 
 that is in exisience; neither can an assembly be lawful under the pretext of meeting 
 to consider any grievance, when it is evidently so composed and of such a character 
 that discussion and deliberation is out of the question. If 1,000, or even 10,000 
 people meet together by night, and, instead of talking of any grievances, talk of taking 
 up arms; and, instead of adducing arguments against any particular law, devise 
 combinations and organizations in sections, and preparation to use arms: is that a 
 mode of proceeding to discuss grievances ? What grievance is alleged ? You must 
 first have a grievance stated, or you must suppose it is a mere pretext to talk of 
 grievances; you would expect that if they merely wanted to discuss an amelioration 
 of the law, they must first say what that law is, and what they want; hut is there 
 anything of that sort in this case? The charge is that Dr. Me. Douall trished to 
 incite the people to unlawful associations and confederacies; and, hv force of arms to 
 resist the law. That being what is alleged, the first question is—is it proved that 
 he did that; or rather, is he proved to have done that which he is alleged to have 
 done with that object; and, therefore, the first question for you is, “ Did he make 
 the speech set forth in the indictment ? ” If lie did not, then, as for as these counts 
 are concerned, which impute this speech, the indictment falls to the ground. With 
 respect to his having made the speech, you are told by three people, I think Henry 
 Taylor, a policeman, and George Dalgleish and Matthew Maiden, also policemen, 
 that he did make the speech; and they all give you the words set out in this indict¬ 
 ment. , Henry Taylor says (we are speaking now of what came from the window, we 
 will go through the other parts of the case, as applicable to the other counts, after¬ 
 wards)—he says “ I advise you to organize yourselves, and form yourselves into 
 divisions and sections, and to practise the same manoeuvres as your enemy,” and so he 
 went through the whole of the words set forth in the indictment. Henry Taylor 
 
40 
 
 c. DOUALL, 
 
 them.” Now, if you doubt whether the policemen correctly reported what is set out 
 in the other counts, it will be for you to say whether they correctly reported these, 
 “ I advise you to organize and form yourselves into divisions and sections and prac¬ 
 tise the same manouvre8 as your enemy, not only without arms but with them; ” 
 and then to say whether he did that with the intention to persuade and incite the 
 people whom he addressed to procure arms and be drilled to the use of arms and 
 military evolutions without or with arms, contrary to the section of the statute. If 
 you think that he did you will find him guilty on that count; if you think he 
 uttered the longer speech and that part of it, and that both inuendoes are made out, 
 then you will find him guilty on both counts. I have already directed your atten¬ 
 tion to what constituted an unlawful assembly; and if yon think that that assembly 
 at Ashton was, from the circumstances under which it assembled; the manner in 
 which it marched about the town and halted there to receive the speech from the 
 defendant;—if you think that was an unlawful assembly, then you will find him 
 guilty on that count. Ton will take these circumstances into consideration and dis¬ 
 pose of that count as you think fit. With reference to the intention of that speech, 
 perhaps, you might also consider what was the character of the person who came 
 down to address that meeting. He is a person who appears by those letters, and I 
 think they were evidence for that purpose, to have gone about for the purpose of 
 addressing meetings. The writer tells him, there are many places that require his 
 services. You have in one memorandum book a statement of a variety of places 
 which he intended to be at at various times, and among others, Ashton, on the day 
 in question.. You find afterwards, that he is a person in the pay of some .person or 
 
M 
 
 LOF,J)B.'.Mc.DOUALL. 
 
 imprisonment in the county.gaol at Lancaster; I’have been told that it will be 
 inconvenient to place-you there as a male prisoner, and your place of confinement 
 will therefore • be.’ithe' house of correction at Kirkdale. 
 
 The'Prisbner.—Will'your lordship allow me to make a few observations? 
 
 His Lordship.—What are they ? ■ , . 
 
 . The, Prisoner.—I have spoken to the govemer and the gaoler of Kirkdale, and I 
 find thatj- from the confined state of the Kirkdale gaol, it will be impossible for my 
 tonsiithtion tb bear it. 
 
 His Lordship.—You should have considered that before you made yourself 
 amenable to the law. I cannot hear anything of that sort now. 
 
 •The prisoner was then removed. 
 
 HEYWOOD, PRINTER, OLDHAM-S 
 
 i