The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-04-17 00:00:00

THE S'iOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

THE TRIAL OF THE SOCIALISTS.

The charge of uttering seditious and inflammatory
language on the Bth of February against four men,
named Burns, Champion, Hyndman, and Williams,
was resumed on Saturday, before Mr. Justice Cave,
at the Central Criminal Court. The Attorney-
General, Mr. Poland, Mr. Charles Matthews, and
Mr. R. S. Wright appeared for the prosecution; Mr.
W. Thompson appeared for Burns and Williams;
Champion and Hyndman defended themselves. The
defence having concluded, Mr. Justice Cave, in
summing up, said the law upon the question of what
was seditious and what was not had been laid down
by Mr. Justice Stephen, who was better acquainted
with the criminal law than any other judge, and what
he had said upon the subject bad been endorsed by
the other judges engaged in drafting a Criminal
Code. That learned judge defined seditious
words and libels as meaning words or writing
used Or written for the purpose of bringing into
contempt the Crown or the constitution of the country,
or the administration of justice, or to excite her
Majesty's subjects to alter existing laws otherwise than
by lawful and constitutienal means. The seditious
intention alleged to have existed in the minds of the
prisoners was the desire to alter otherwise than by
lawful means matters connected with Church and
State, and to promote between different classes
of her Majesty's subjects: but this latter charge was
somewhat vague, and could only depend upon the
surrounding circumstances. The charge against the
defendants divided itself into two heads. First, that
they had uttered certain words, and then a general
charge that they agreed together before they went to
the meeting that they would make speeches to excite
the people to acts of disorder. Before dealing with
them, however, it was necessary to state that Mr.
Childers had not been influenced in the prosecution
by anything but a desire to promote law and order,
and the Attorney-General had said that he did not
charge any of the defendants with having incited the
mob to disorder and destruction, but still the Attorney-
General had said that they were to be held respon-
sible for the consequences of their words, although
they might not have intended them. With
this he could not agree, as he did not see how any
jury could be asked to act upon what was really a
legal fiction. If the jury came to the conclusion that
the defendants or any of them upon the occasion ia
Trafalgar-square used language which it was their in-
tention should excite the people to violence, to a
breach of the law, then that would, undoubtedly be an
uttering of seditioas words. The Government had,
undoubtedly, directed this prosecution upon the as-
sumption that the defendants did actually incite these
particular disturbances, and although that was not
necessary at all to the proving of a conviction, yet,
undoubtedly, that was a moral justification, so to
say, of the grounds upon which the Government had
placed the action which they took. And, therefore,
if they could show, and the jury were satisfied,
that these disturbances, although not contem-
plated by the defendants, were the natural conse-
quences of their act, that would affect the
position which the Government desired to take up.
There was another question, and that was, whether the
language used by the defendants was used with the
intent to produce violence. A man was not at liberty
to make use of language which resulted in riot and
disorder. With regard to the question of conspiracy,
it was alleged that the defendants agreed at their
. _ . - .

meeting on' the 7th of February to diaurb the Fair
Traders, but he (the learned judge) was unable to see
any intention or any agreement of the kind. There
was undoubtedly evidence—not very pointed, but
there was some evidence, that there was a suggestion
that the platform should be stormed, but it was quite
clear that upon the 7th of February (Sunday) there
was no intention to incite people to violence, and the
attempt to have a conflict with the Fair Traders was
abandoned, if it ever existed. He (Mr. Justice Cave)
did not see any evidence at all to point to conspiracy
to utter seditious words. A man must do more than
stand by and say nothing to be guilty of sedition. It
was not illegal for a man to preach any doctrine, pro-
vided it did not incite to crime. But with regard to
Socialistic principles,, whatever we might think of
them—and' with that he had nothing to do—whatever
we might think of these principles, if the defendants
believed in them they had a perfect right to
argue and to discuss them, and to spread their
opinions which they believed to be true. It was ex-
tremely fortunate and right that this was so, because
it was only by free argument and open discussion that
real principles could prevail. The defendant
Champion might claim some considerable credit in.
bringing this question to light. The evidence as to,
what took place at the meeting did not present an
accurate picture; but it must be remembered that
upon the tone in which a thing was said depended in
a great measure the meaning which was to attach to
the words. So far as Williams was concerned, there
was nothing whatever to show that the speech de-
livered by him in Trafalgar-square was calculated to
excite people to disorder, while his speeches at the
Achilles statue were directed to restrain and not to ex-
cite people. The observation by Burns, "When we
give you the signal will you rise ?" was going very far,
and it seemed to him (the Judge) that Mr. Burns had
used very strong language upon more than one
occasion, and the jury would have to consider very
carefully whether he had not brought 'himself within
the law for what he had said. In conclusion, he had
to remind the jury that what they wore asked to de-
cide upon was whether the defendants, all of them or
some of them, and if some of them which of them,
did upon the occasion of the meeting
in Tratalgar-square incite the people whom
they were addressing to redress their grievances by
violence ? Did they intentionally excite
between different classes of her Majesty's subjects in
such a way as to be likely to lead to disturbances of
the peace. He had already told them that they must
take a broad, bold, and even a generous view, and
look at this matter, not attaching too much import-
ance to particular phrases, but considering the subject
with its surroundings, in order to arrive at a conclu-
sion as to whether the words uttered were likely to
lead to a breach of the peace. He could not conclude
without expressing his sense of the extreme folly of
those who sought to incite the people to violence.
Violence was practically useless. The government
was virtually in the hands of the people, and long
before a sufficient number of persons could be per-
suaded to endeavour to bring about the object which
they had in view by means of violence, those objects
could be accomplished by constitutional means.
The jury retired at 3.25, and after an absence of an
hour and a quarter returned into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns: Have you considered your
verdict, gentlemen ?
The Foreman: We have. ,
The Clerk of Arraigns: Do you find the defendant
Champion guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman: We have returned a special verdict
with regard to Messrs. Burns and Champion—" The
jury are of opinion that the language of Messrs.
Champion and Burns was highly inflammatory, and
greatly to be condemned but on the whole of the
facts brought before us we acquit these two defen-
dants of
_seditious intent."

A verdict of -nOt guilty was returned in respect to
Hy ndtuan and Williams.
The Foreman of the Jury announced that they
wished to make the following presentment :—" That
considering the circumstances and the public ex-
citement of the moment, and after the reports
made in the press of the speeches on the occasion
of Feb. 8, the prosecution by the Crown was rightly
instituted."

Mr. Thompson, on behalf of the defendants, con-
veyed their thanks to the jury for the extreme atten-
tion with which they had listened to the evidence.
He also added that the same remark applied to the
learned judge.
Mr. Justice Cave: I have done nothing but my
duty.
The result was received with applause, which was
immediately silenced by the usher. Upon leaving
the court the defendants were cheered heartily by a
large body of friends and sympathisers.