The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-05 00:00:00

11/TI3ViS

378.1 LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1848. [THREEPENCE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—nus DAY.

in abreviated long-hand. I only. took Williams's speech
dawn to the words of " a partizan judge, a packed jury, and
a perjured sheriff." I took also • portion of the speech
of the following speaker, M'Carthy. Both of these
speeches appeared to be received with great satis-
faction by the mob. Fussell next addressed the meet-
ing. I only took parts of his speech. "The government has
succeeded in eenvictii g honest John Mitchell," was %he lest
tent. nee I took. The whole of this will be brand in the open-
ing speech of the Attorney-General.) After Fussell had
finished, Williams then desired them to form in marching
order. They then proceeded down Aylesbury-street into
St. John's street. I there left them, and went down Wilder-
ness-row. I again met them in Old-street, and they pro-
ceeded down the City-road into Finsbury square, where
they remained about three-quartets of an hour. I did not
see them joined by any body of persoas ; they then went along
Chiewell-street, Beach street, Long-lane, Smithfield, up ILO
Holborn into New Oxford.street ; when they came opposite
the Land and Labour Bank they gave three cheers, and ulti-
mately proceeded to tho Chartist Assemhly.rooms, in Dean-
street. I saw some person :at the windows, but whether
they addressed the mob I cannot say; the mob had greatly
increased. I left them about • quarter-past ten o'clock
they appeared to produce fear, terror, and surprise on the'
inhabitants ; many came out and closed their doors.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Allen : I was in the
van. The speeches occupied twenty minutes. There were
three speakers. I was behind Williams and Fussell. I
am not certain whether Fussell said he had four or five
sons. I took my notes in abbreviated long-hand.
Mr. Sergeant Allen : Let me see your notes.
Witness: This is the ordinary way of my taking notes;
thirty forty first-rate reporters take their notes in the
same way. I have sent to all papers; I have been specially
engaged for the Times. I have 'seen a reporter six er seven
yean ; in the interim, I have been the proprietor of the
Railway Telegraph. I have never attended • police court
as a reporter. I have been twice as a defendant; once for
having run away from my apprenticeship, and again on a
charge of felony, preferred by the Morning Chronicle. As
you hare asked that question, let me explain. About six or
seven years ago, I was going home, with my brother and an-
other person, when I happened to knock my cigar against
the letter-box. At this period the porter came out, and
charged me with having put a light into the letter-box. I
denied this, when the porter knocked my brother down, and
I was givereinto custody on a charge of arson. This was dis-
missed. The porter was fined 31. I brought an action
against the Morning Chronicle, and not being able to go on,
I hail to pay 481. costs. That is all I wish to say
in this case of arson. I bad a house burnt down, which was
insured in the Sun Fire Office. I made a claim for 4101.,
but I never obtained a farthing. There were six pleas ; three
were found for the defendant and three for am. Upon my
oath I don't know that one of the pleas charged me with
setting fire to my own house. 1 have never been charged
with committing a fraud on Mr. Spicer, the paper maker. I
have been a bankrupt, and obtained my certificate imme-
diately. I am paid at per line for my copy. I never
was in the employ of the Blackwell Railway.
I never was charged with robbing the railway.
I have attended all the Chartist meetings. I attended the
meeting at Kennington Common for an evening paper. I
attended the Hampden controversy. I was paid eeven or
eight guineas for it by the Times.
Re-examined by Mr. Bodkin If lor any other reporter
supply • newspainr with a report that is untrue, we never
are employed again. In fact our bread depends upon the
accuracy of our reports.
Henry Potter, examined by the Attorney-General: I am
a reporter, and reside at 48. Charlotte-street, Blackfriars-
rtad. lam employed by all the newepapers. I take notes
in long-hand. I attended the meeting on the 29:h of May.
It commenced at about 7 o'clock. I was on the van which
served the purpose of a platform. There were about 30 per-
sons on it, including Wee:thy and Pineal. I took a note
of the proceedings. Williams address.) i the meeting first,
and was followed by M'Carthy and Fussell. I only took the
main points of their speeches. [The witness read from his
notes the principal passages of the speeches in question, as
quitted by the Attorney-General in his opening.] They then
fell into marching order, at the request of Williams. The
witness described their progress into Dean-street, as detailed
by the last witness, when he left them.
Cros--examined : I was not engaged by any paper to
attend the meeting. I have lived in the same house with
the hilt witness since the beginning of the year. I did not
see any other reporters there. I was induced to go there
on the chance of getting my account inserted. The prisoners
were speaking about forty minutes. I should not need any
assistance to report the speeches. Fowler and I acted as
partners. It I sent false reports to a paper, my copy would
probably not be inserted again. But this does not apply to
a mistake made by • partner. We did not compare notes.
I wrote out a portion of the report, and be wrote out the
other. I rec.illeet writing a description of the procession,
and I also believe that I wrote Fussell's speech. I was in
the van immediatoly behind Fussell, who spoke fur about
ten et-drones. There wee a great no:se among the crowd.
The whole of the speech as reported by me appeared in the
Morning Chronicle.
Police-constable Harvey, examined by Mr. Clark : I was
at the meeting on Clerkenwell-green on the day in question.
A man named Williams was the first puma who spoke.
There were about 1,200 persons at the meeting. I made
notes of what was said, but I have not a copy. The
first words he said, were " the bloody aristocracy
have now done their work," or " had their wish"—l forget
which. I then left the meeting for a abort time, and when
I returned Fussell was sp.aking, and the meeting was
cheering Irina. Williams then came forward and said, "Now
friends, fall in, four deep!" meaning four abreast. They
then marched off. I saw Williams in front of the procession.
In Compton-street, Williams said to the persons on the
pavement—" If you are friends of the cause, fall ilia> the
procession." They proceeded to Finsbury-square, and
marched round it two or three times slowly, waiting, I be-
lieve, fur another j arty. I did not see any other party join
them. I know a person named Vernon; the fist
thing I saw of him on that day was in to procession in
Finsbury..quare. The witness described their route to No.
83, D. an-sttet. Several persons came from the house and
joined the procession. When they left Dean-street, they
proceeded through Regent.street and Trafalgar-street into
the Strand, where they sang part of the Marseillaise Hymn,
and some words to the air of " Rule Brittannia." I believe
they sang an English version of the former. They proceeded
up Fleetstreet, stopped at the Dispatch office, saying, '•Let's
smash the place in; ' some said, " Let's go to the TilllCSoffice;"
they did not, however, do so, but proceeded up Farring-
don-street to Smithfield, where they were addressed by some-
body from a lamp-post. Williams was at the head of
the precession. They then proceeded to Redcrose street.
Mr. Serjeant Allen here submitted that this evidence had
no relation to the case of Fussell, who had been lost eight of
for some time.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it appeared to him that
the two could not have been separated, but that the one
must be concurrent in the proceedings of the other.
The witness continued : W:lliams addressed them from
the window of a house in Whitecross-street. Among other
things, he said, " they would have • meeting in spite of
• Finality Jack.' " e ernon also addressed the crowd from
the window, and also M'Carthy. Same one in the crowd
said, " Come down and lead us, and we'll do it to night."
M'Carthy replied, " No, not tonight, but to-morrowoughtt
and bring your guns and pietols." I was in plain clothes.
Creoseximined by Mr. Si rjeant Allen : I saw the me King
disperse when removed by the police. The greatest number
in the procession was about 3,000; but there were many by-
standers on the pavement, the number of which it is quite
impossible to estimate. I cannot say- how many policemen
were there. They dispersed the mob, and I ran with them.
Some of the persons in the mowd said "Don't let us run—let
us stand." They continued, however, to run. I saw no vio-
lence, nor did I hear any order given bythe police to disperse.
Jam, s C Bins, of the City Police, examined by Mr. Ser-
jeant Welsby I went with my division to Badmen-street,
on the 29th of May, when several persons were addressing
a crowd of between 3,000 and 4,000 persons from the win-
dows of Cartwright's Coffee-house. We were ordered to
disperse the crowd without drawing our truncheons, but
were unable to do so. We then drew our truncheons and
dirm-raed them; but they re-assembled in Golden-lane, were
we followed. I received • brickbat on my face, and there
were four others wounded. Some of the metropolitan pollee
' came to our assistance. We were called out at about ten
o'clock. Hot water was thrown from the windows. I did
not see it, but my brother officer' felt it on their faces.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Allen : 1 do not know
the names of the officers who were wounded, except one,
whose name is Tyler.
James Telling, examined by the Attorney-General : I am
a glass-maker, and reside in Sr. John-street, near to Clerken-
ell.gree.i. I saw the procession on the 29;11 of May. I
was not alarmed at it myself, but my family were. I shut
up try shop, and many of my neighbours did the same.
There might have been about 600 persona in that portion of
the procession that I saw. I was not present at the meeting
myself.
Joshua Pleasant, examined by Mr: Serjeant Wehby.—
I reside in Aylesbury-street, and am a hatter. I saw the
procession on tho day in question. I closed my shop, as
usual, at five o'clock. In common with my neighbours, I
was alarmed, for there was a troop of Horse Guards there.
(Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Allen : The processions
were of continual occurrence, and were of great injury to
my business.
By the Lord Chief Justice: I have uo particular recol•
lection as to what occurred on the particular night in
question. The same scenes took place on many nights.l
The usual hour for closing the shops in the neighbourhood
is ten o'clock. On this occasion they were closed at five
o'clock.
The case for the prosecution being concluded, the court
adjourned for a few minutes.
On re-assembling, Mr. Serjeant Allen called the
attention of the court to several discrepancies that existed
between the words alleged in the
.indictment to have been
eel by Fussell and those Fowler, the reporter, deposed to.
The objections were overruled.
Mr. Serjeant Allen then proceeded to address the jury for
the defence.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

TRIAL OF TILE CHARTIST LEADERS.
The business of this court commenced before Mr. Commis-
sioner Bullock, who ut till 10 o'clock, and disrovid of

several unimpOrtut cues.
At a quarter past 10 o'clock, Lord Chief Justice Wilde, Mr.
Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice Mettle, took their seats on the
bench; and immediately afterwards, Joseph Ir,eous
John Fmgs,ll was placed at the bar, charged with having,
in the hearing and presence of divers subjects of our sove-
reign lady the queen, uttered certain seditious and scan-
dalous words against our said lady the queen and her

government. -
The Attorney-General, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. We!shy, and
Mr. Clarke, were counsel for the prosecution. Mr. Stn.
jeant Allen and Mr. liuddleston were counsel for the
prisoner.
Mr. Serjeant Allen said he had an application to make
to their lordships, which was that the indictment should be
quashed, or that Mr. Attorney• General should be called upon
by the mitt to make his election as to which of the counts
in the indictment he would proceed upon. The indictment
contained eight counts, the first six of which charged the
defendant with uttering • seditious speech; the seventh
was for an unlawful assembly, and the eighth charged
the defendant with a riot. Now it was distinctly laid
down in the CM of Young and others v. the King in
error (3 vol. Term Repts ), that: in an indictment for a mis-
demeanor, in which there were separate counts, charging
separate misdemeanors, the prosecuting party was compelled
to elect upon which count they would proceed to trial—er
the court mud quash the indictment. That doctrine was
fully recognised by Lard Elle aborough in the eau of the
King v. Johnson, reported in Haute and Selwyn; he there-
fore hoped the court would follow those preee lent+, and
either order the indictment to be quashed, or call upon the
Attorney-General to elect the mount upoa which 1 is would
proceed.
Mr. Iluddlestone followed. Lord Chief Jastieo
without calling upon the Attorney-General to reply, decided
that this case was not one in which the court could exercise
the discretion pointed out by the learned counsel.
The prisoner was then arraigned, and having pleaded
not guilty,
The Attorney-General then proceeded to open the case
on the part of the crown. He rose, he said, to address the
jury, with feelings such as he hod not before telt
in his professional experience. The circumstances from
which this preoecution had resulted, were of such a
nature that, had he hesitated to put the criminal
law in operation, he should have been wanting
iu that high and important duty which bin position
invested him with. This prosecution, he could say, was not
instituted only and for the mere purpose of punishing the
defendant at the bar and those misguided men whose
violent language was calculated to excite and delude
others ; it was not instituted only as a warning to
those who were likely to be the victims of the conduct
of such men, but to show and to convince the public
and all wellelisposed m.embers of society that the law
was strong enough to vindicate itself, strong enough to main-
tain the peace of the country, and that the general state of
the country should not he one of continual alarm and excite-
ment. lie made these few observations to justify the course
he had token in reference to these prosecutions, and net in
any way to intlueuce or create a prejudice in the minds of
the jury advert., to the persons charged. The jury would
take alone into its consideration the evidence he was pre-
pared to lay before them in support of the charge, and
they would dismiss from their minds everything they had
elsewhere heard of the cs3es about to be considered. The
Indictment, as the ury would have observed from the short
argument of his Learned friend, charged three various
offeaces. Three distinct charges were embodied in differeut
count.. The first six charged him with having delivered a
seditious speech, a further count charged him with having
been present at en unlawful assembly, and the eighth count
charged him with having taken part in a riot, and
therefore the charge upon which tho defendant
was arraigned before them, and which ho would
have to answer would ba a threefold one—sedition,
unlawful assembly with other's, and riot. Before
he went into detail of the circumstances of this offence, he
should make an obaervation or two upon the law ex it af-
fected cases like the present ; but the jury would bear in
mind that they were not to regard his exposition of the law
as conclusive and final ; they would have to be guided by
their lordship on the bench as to the law regarding
the offence imputed to the prisoner. lie would,
in reference to the charge of sedition, observe
that sedition had been defined by the commissioners appointed
to inquire to be an offence inferior, as u penal crime, to the
more serious one of high treason; but still one calculated, if
allowed to continue unchecked, to endanger the state by
exciting in men's minds disaffection to an extent to destroy
confide nee in the constituted auemmeni nt the country, to
subvert the legal authority of that government, and to ever-
throw the authority of these sovereign of the realms. Sedition
was a kind of assault on the constitution, and, although it
ranked somewhat lower than high treason, it was an
offence of so serious a character that it deserved the full
punishment of the law. The learned Attorney-General
then proceeded to quote a charge delivered by the late Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, upon the subject of sedition and un-
lawful assemblies, in which hie lordship, after defieing tho
crime of sedition, laid it down as law, that if a meeting of an
unlawful character took place by a pro-concerted arrange-
ment, all those who took part in it, in consequence
of that pre-concerted arrangement, were amenable
to the law; and the act of any one person who
attended that meeting might be adduced against any other
member of that meeting; and, therefore, said the learned
gentleman, if the defendant Fussell attended the meeting in
question by any prearrangement he was legally responsible
for all that was unlawfully said at that meeting, and equally
as guilty as those who uttered the unlawful words. The
meeting the defendant attended, and at which he uttered
tho seditious words charged against him, took place on
the :Nth of May, on CI .rkenwell green, after seven
o'clock in the evening, an hour selected no doubt to
produce some degree of excitemeet in the minds of the per-
sons assembled. That meeting took place by private arrange-
ment; it was held without any previous notice, and it was
attended by near upon 4,000 persons; a van was drawn up
as a platform, and in that van there were some eighteen or
twenty individual., amongst them the defendant at the bar,
a person named Williams, and others, who took a leading
part in these transactions • Williams was the person who first
addressed the meeting, and, in the entree of his address, he
said (he, the Attorney-General, merely quoted the speech of
this person to show that the meeting was an unlawful one)
that the bloody atisto. racy had done its work at last. They
had got a government spy there, but they must keep the
peace. They must keep the peace, and he would lead them
to • place, and they would hold a meeting there. He
would give a signal, when they would fall into marching
order, and proceed to a place where five times their number
were assemuled. He said, " I don't fear banishment any
more than honest Jahn Mitchel did. lie habeen
convicted, and how ? by a packed jury ; he had been mur-
dered by the blcody and brutal Whigs." Williams was fol-
lowed by a person named McCarthy, who said that the Irish
people would never allow John Mitchel to be taken from
his native shore. If they did take him away, that would be
the time to strik , a blow, and Ireland would rise, and be
advised the persons prevent to follow their example. Fuesell
followed, and said that, by packing juries, the government
had got John Mitchel convicted. " I tell Lord John Rus-
sell," sail he, " that I have no sympathy with his damnabie
government. If the queen would not recognise the people,
the people must not recognise the queen. He knew a mode
by which they could rid themselves of governers who
neglected their duty. He did not disguise what he meant.
lie meant private assassination. (A strong sensatioa was per-
ceptable in court when the Attorney General read these
words.) What was it that made the Emperor of Austria
fly from his dominions ? The fear of assassination. He had
five sons, and he would disown any one of them that would
hesitate to assassinate those who were instrumental in
his banishment." After these speakers bad addressed such
language as this to the assembled people, they tell into
marching order, four abreast, and after that they were amen
addressed by Williams. Now the first intimation the govern-
ment had of these meetings was the reports that appeared
in the public papers. And, as the meeting had been pri-
vately arranged, neither the government nor the police knew
of it, and therefore they had to make inquiries of the public
papers as to who were this gentlemen who repotted that
meeting. That information was gathered, and a gentle-
man, who attended that meeting as • reporter, and who took
down in short-hand such passages as ho thought of public
importance, would prove that the defendant did utter the
words imputed to him. There would be no legal difficulty
as to proving the words uttered ; he apprehended that his
learned friend would not so far forget his position as to deny
that those words amounted to sedition, and he would there-
fore, ho presumed, direct his observations against the
witnesses. He was sure that, whatever observations were
mode, they would not be deserved ;—it was irreproachable
testimony, and the teat evidence they could collect under the
circumstances under which the meeting took place. lie
wished to say that he did not appear there to attempt in
any manner to dine the privilege, which was perhaps the
highest privilege an Englishman could enjoy, that of meeting
in public for discussion. Instead of any wish to limit the
enjoyment of that privilege, he was one of its warmest advo-
cates ; and he felt quite sure that those who wished to meet
fairly for discussion upon improvement, progress, and reform,
would condemn and reprehend the acts of those who -wished
to wrest by violence any measure of concession from the pro-
perly constituted authorities of the country.
Mr. Richard Kemmis, son of the crown solicitor iii Ire-
land, was then called by Mr. Welsby. He produced an at-
tested copy of the conviction of John Mitchel for felony—
under the provisions of the Crown and Government Security
Bill, 11 Vie., c. 12.
Frederick Toun Fowler, examined by Mr. Bodkin : I am
a reporter for the public press, and in that capacity I attended,
on the 29th of May, emceeing on Clerkenwell green. I got
there about half-past six o'clock in the evening. There
was a van drawn up as a platform. 18 or 20 persons
were in it, and amongst them the defendant FusselL
I noticed a person of the RIM of Williams there. I took
note of what was said ; I have it here.—Mr. Serjeant Allen :
Did you take the notes at the time ?—Witness: I did. (Mr.
Fowler was here directed to read them, which will be found
in the opening speech of the Attorney-General.) I did not
take the speeches fully ; I took a newspaper report of them,

M. Grazor.—lL GnMot has declined the offer of
the Chair of Modern Languages mai* to him by the
Cureton of the Taylor Institution in Oxford. M. Guizot
declined the offer from personal motives, with every sense of
the compliment which was paid to him.