The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-10 00:00:00

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES.

Letters from Hamburg, of the sth inst., state that
it had been announced on 'Change that a truce with
Germany had been signed at Copenhagen for a period
of three months, under the guarantee of England and
ltuf.sia. The terms of the truce had not been made
known, further than that the Duchy of Schleswig will
have its own ministry and government, as an inde-
pendent state, and the foreign and Danish troops be
withdrawn. The conditions had been forwarded to
Berlin for ratification by an English courier, who
arrived from Copenhagen. A steamer was also
despatched thence to the Isle of A.seti, to inform the
Danish general.
Tie Borstoisalle of Friday evening confirms this
statement, and says further that, as regards the condi-
tions of the truce, not only Schleswig, but Holstein
also (excepting a small garrison in Altona) will be
cleared of troops, the Danes leaving a small force on
the Isle of Alsen, for the protection of the hospitals.
Besides the chips taken, the prisoners will likewise be
given up on both sides, and arrangements are contem-
plated, aa soon as the Duchy of Schleswig is cleared
of troops, to introduce a provisional government. The
amount claimed by Denmark for the Prussian requi-
sitions in Jutland is laid down at 140,000 dollars in
cpteie.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(TBI3 Dan.)
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before the honiChiefaissuce of the Court of Common Pleaal
TRIAL OF ERNEST JONES.
This morning, at 10 o'clock, Lord Chief Justice Wilde
took his seat on the bench, and Ernest Charles Jones, 29.
banister. at-law, was called upon to surrender. Having
answered, he was placed at the end of the counsel-table, and
was arraigned upon en inifictment charging him with sedi-
tion, attending an unlawful assembly, and a riot.
The counsel fur the crown were the Attorney. General,
Mr. Bodkin. Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Clarks. For the
defendant, Mr. Seijesnt Wilkins and Mr. Clarkson.
A jury was then put into the box, but Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins interposed, and asked if that were not the jury th it
had tried some of the former cues. Being answered in tho
affirmative*, the learned serjeant objected to the same jury
trying his client, hut wished it to be understood that be slid
not cut the least imputation upon the gentlemen composing
the jury.
The Attorney-General offered no opposition to the objec-
tion, and another jury, that had been throughout the session
occupied is the other court, was then put into the box and
sworn.
The Attorney-General then rose and proceeded to open
the case fee the prosecution. He did not complain in any
manner whatever at the objection that had been taken by
his keened friend the Berk ant, an objection which he
(the Attorney. General) must say he had no right to
make, hut which had been conceded more as •
matter of favour than of right. He offered no opposition to
that objection, as he wished the administration of justico,
particularly as regarded these cases, to be free from taint,
and beyond the least Imputation or suspicion. But the
course his learned friend bad adopted, had entailed upon
him the necessity of going at greater length into the details
of the circumstances of the case; and upon his lordship the
necessity of Enunciating the law as it stood in relation to the
case about to be considered, at greaterleugth that would have
been required had the jury that had been objected to nt-
=tined in the box, as, by liming already considered several
cases of a similar character, they would be more acquainted
with such matters. The case they were about to inveoigate
was the lot that rentaitied of several of a like nature, but
though it was last it was not the least in point of moment,
for in fact this was the most important prosecution of
the whole—not deriving its importance so much from the in-
flammatory and most seditious words that had been uttered by
the defendant, a- from the character and position of the defen-
dant himself. It would be with some coneiderahle degree
of pain that he should have to lay the circumdancee of this
case before tha jury. for the defendant belonged to the same
profession as himself, and he, therefor', was a per-
son who knew well what would be the effect of his
language, not only upon the minds of those to whom
it was addressed, but also its bearing in a legal eense.
He was a person of education and reading, and, there-
fore, the jury would find that in the sedition he had
spoken there was not that growneas that had been exhibited
in the speeches of the others, and they would find that it had
been delivered in more measured term., and with greater
conactness. That made the case more important, for arch
language, emanating from such a source, and under such cir-
cumstances, was far more elangertus; it was calculated
to produce a far greater effect on the minds of those un.
educated and misguided persons who followed and
adopted the doctrines he preached, than that words spoken
by persons of lower position and less standing. The case was
one of importance, tor, as it was of a nature to meet and
refute an imputation that had been thrown out against hint
and his predecessors, that them was one law for the rich I
man and another for the peer man ; that the poor man was
singled out as the object of prosecution, whilst the rich man we
regardlessly allowed to go on in toe same course. In the case
before them they saw amen who could not be brought within
the denomination of a poor man; he was not onn of
the mass. The defendant had had au education which
must have taught him what was the law of his coun-
try, and he had moved in such society that he must
have known what the real rights of the people were. He
had, however, at meetings of the illiterate aad the unin-
formed, addressed to them tapirs of the most baneful
character, with the object of inducing them to organise, te
arm, and to resist the awhority of the constituted govern-
ment of the queen—that queen to whom he had sworn
allegiance. He should not ask the jury to look to particular
parts of the defendant's speech—he should not direct heir
attention to particular words, but he should put it Ye ore
them as a whole, and they would see that its entire object
and meaning were "Organise, arm, and prepare to resist
the authorities." He told them that a day was coming
when there would be a general rising of the mess, not only
in London, but throughout the whole manufacturing dis-
tricts, which were at that time, let it be borne in mind, in a
state of alarm and excitement ; and the defendant
left London and proceeded to those districts for
the purpose of stirring up still further excitement
and still further alarm. Now it could nut be pre-
tended that the defendant was one of the misguided, that
he did not fully understand what he said, and the effect it
was calculated to produce. He was aot one of the poor inn,
who were said to be treated under another law than the rich;
he was one of the instructors of the misguided—he was one
of the leaders. Let tne jury suppose that a rising had taken
place—that it had proved suuccessful—that the constituted
government had been overthrown—would not • democracy
have been established in this country, the same as had bean
in another. Mr. Ernest Jones knew that would be the re-
sult of a universal rising, and it was more than he (the
Attorney-General) could aaywhat ulterior motives or objects
the defendant might have entertained had such a result
followed. He did not stand there to impede or inter-
fere with the undoubted right of every man in this
country to meet in public to express tree opinion, to discuss
political grievances, whether real or imaginary ; but he
stood there in his capacity of public prosecutor, to see that
that right wan not wrongly exercised—exercised for the
d.ssemination of that which the law made sedition. There
were three charges against the defendant; but, bowiag to the
decision of his lordship in other cases, he should abandon the
third charge, that of riot, and the jury would therefore
have to confine their attention to the charge of sedition and
unlawful assembling. The expression of public opinion
on public matters was as free and as unrestrained
as the air they breathed ; but juries, the juries con-
stituted by the constitution to see that the right
of public meetings was not abused, must not
by their verdicts sanction meetings held nominally to
exercise that right, but in reality to advocate doctrines dan-
gerous to peace and society, and to produce in the minds of
loyal subjects terror and alarm. Were such meetings sanc-
tioned in that manner, what society would be sale ? It was
as important, therefore, that juries should see that the right
of meeting to discuss in public was fairly, properly, and
honestly exercised, as it was important that it should be
a right at all; and if juries by their verdicts did sanction such
meetings, it would be far worse than if no such right existed
at all. Juries must see that at these meetings grievances
were discussed—that they were not held to excite to violence
and rebellion against the law—that they were not made
inetraments lathe hands of paid agitators,—men paid to excite
alarm and resistance. At the meeting to which their
attention would be directed, the charter had been mooted.
The charter might be right, or wrong, and every person
had a right to entertain an opinion that the chartist doctrines
were right, but neither with the charter nor its doctrines
had they aught whatever to do. Mr. Ernest Jones might
be a chartist, and ho was justified, and had a right to believe
that the charter was right; but the question here was were
these meetings held honestly to advocate the charter ? Was
inflammatory language addressed to excitable audiences, lan-
guage which could not but excite them to violence and to
resistance, necessary in advocating the charter ? Let the jury
look at the words of the defendant delivered at such a meet-
ing, and say whether they were said to excite the people, or
to advocate the cause he had adopted. On Sunday, the 4th of
June, two meetings were held in Bishop Benner's-fields, at
a place
roanktime selected no doubt
as to delude the publicrs,that as
their pmoters seemed to desire, te e n umbe
attended. The first meeting was one of the Irish confede-
rates, and, at the conclusion of that, another took place of the
chartists—as had been the case Sunday after Sunday since
the 10th of April. The country, almost from one end to the
other, was at this time in a state of alarming excitement,
and the misguided had been taught to believe that a day
was coming when a struggle would begin, and it was ex-
pected, that when it did come, the leaders would be found
shunt. It would be well if the people were to attend to
this before it was too late, for ft too often was the case that
the people led on to violence were deserted by those
who had excited them. There was some suspioita
that this was the case with Ernest Jones, who
did not attend the meeting punctual to his promise,
and the chairman made some observations upon that in his

.' z..