Talk:Henry Vincent

Charge(s)? and conviction(s)?
The source provided, ("Vincent, Henry". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900) says this:
 * "On 9 May 1839 Vincent was arrested at his house in Cromer Street, London, on a warrant from the magistrates of the Newport Association for attending a riotous assemblage held in that town. He was taken to Bow Street, charged, and committed to Monmouth gaol to take his trial at the ensuing assizes. So great was the tumult outside the court that the mayor was obliged to read the Riot Act. On 2 Aug. 1839 Vincent, who had been refused bail, was tried at the Monmouth assizes by Sir Edward Hall Alderson [q. v.], baron of the exchequer. Serjeant Thomas Noon Talfourd [q. v.] conducted the case for the crown, and John Arthur Roebuck [q. v.] that for the defence. Roebuck showed clearly from the admissions of the chief witnesses for the prosecution that Vincent had told the people to disperse quietly and to keep the peace. Vincent, however, was found guilty and sentenced to twelve calendar months' imprisonment. On 9 Aug. Lord Brougham called the attention of the House of Lords to the case of Vincent, who, though found guilty of a misdemeanour on one count only, was treated as a felon. Lord Melbourne had to promise inquiry."

So what was the guilty charge, unlawful assembly? And what was the not guilty charge? Newport Rising says conspiracy, but no mention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)