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

nt gortll

582.1 LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 10, 1848. [THREEPENI

opening speech. Whilst he was speaking, however, the
defendant arrived. The chairman went on to complain of
the interference of the police on the morning of that day. The
chairman said that the police had acted brutally towards the
people, and the people had, he understood, acted the
party of cowards; he hoped they would embrace •. an oppor-
tunity to seize their rights"; he referred to a former meet-
ing on Clerkenwell-green, where the men were of the "right
sort, and ready to act as the vanguard in the struggle." He
hoped they would be prepared to follow their example; he
recommended the people to act on the defensive ; if inter-
fered with by the police or specials, to wrest their staves
from them and show them no mercy. Was that
discussing the charter? Was it advocating the charter to
advise to resit force by force, and to tell the working classes
that they were strong enough to overthrow the petty power
derived from government by police and special constables ?
The defendant followed the chairman, but his speech was not
like the others—he was amin of education, and had therefore
more influence. The first sentences he uttered proved that
the meeting took place with his sanction. He said he
could not he in two places at one time. lie said he had
attended a meeting at Paddington, which the police had not
interfered with, for, although the government was certainly
mad, it was not mad enough to attempt to put down
public meetings ; it was more then they dared do,
and he hurled defiance in their teeth. The attor-
ney-general proceeded to read the defendant's speech,
as taken by a government short-hand writer. The
defendant said he was going into Lancashire and Yorkshire
to excite those district" still more. The meeting was not to,
mind the half and-halt men, and his advice to :hem was, if
the police came, they should stand their ground, and the
law, though defective, would enable them to punish them if
they struck the first blow, He exhorted them to organise
into classes—to choose class leaden—to form watch:notes,
and then they would bo enabled to stand to their
colours. If they did so, the meeting then assembled
weeld have 1,000 men under the glorious banner on the 12th
of May, a day—said the Attorney-General, when there was
to be a general end simultaneous rising throughout the
country. The defendant thus advocated the organisation of
illegal societies or classes, and he told them that when the
organisation was complete they should be showed some
feueihle mans of obtaining their rights. They were not
to break their force by any partial nets —the rising
must Le simultaneous and universal. The Executive
had sent Dr. M'Dowall to Bradford and Manchester,
to preach to the men there the doctrine of resistance,
and to impress upon them that partial riots would only
break down their strength. "Go on," said he. "organise,
organise, organise, and the rest will came." Whet was to
come—what was "the rest" alluded to? The rising
wee to he simultaneous ,• and if the Government had had to
s ield, property and, lives would have been sacrificed
by the violent). of the mob. The defendant slid that
the government had interdicted the daily press from
publishing news of the state of the discontented in Ireland,
and as it might be necessary to tend over to Dublin some
trustwo:thy emistater to inform them how the rebellion pro-
gressed, he appealed to them to raise funds. They
pretended that by thus tending over Ito Dublin, where
rebellion was rife, an emissary to supply them with
private information when and how to act would
strengthen the bend of union betwen the two countries.
By that did they mean the union:that existed for the benefit
of both cnuntrics. No; they meant a band of blood—a
bond of sympathy between those who were exciting the
people to violence and rebel ion, such as the man who,
though now properly stamped on the brow with the brand
of felony, had too successfully promulgated rebellion and
treason, and who said that at the present time Ire-
land was but sleeping to recruit her strength to
rise in open and avowed rebellion against this her sister
country. The defendant said he would go to Halifax and
Bradford, and preach there the manly doctrine of resistance,
and he would endeavour to bring Leeds and Sheffield up to
the same mark. What mark? Why at Bradford and at
Halifax the military had beets called out—what, there'orc,
could he mean but that he would excite the people to open
rebellion. He oaid there should he no peace till the poor man
had•his rights, and the rich man's nose was brought to the
grinding atone, that could only refer to the French doctrine
of equal division of property. The defendant said that the
Dispatee bad said he had inherited the mantles of Olivers
and Castles; but he could tell the Dispatch that he had
fought for the principles he advocated. Oa his person
were wounds he had received from the Hanoverian
soldiery. He said they would have soothes Ken-
nington meeting, but not 't Kennington. "Shall I,'
said he " tell tee men of the West Riding that the men of
London are ready to do their duty N. blear need be struck
in this country for liberty, but in Ireland there must.
Organize, organize, organize, and the green flag shall son
float over Downing-street and St. Stephens, and Sir George
Grey and Lord John Russell shall exchange places with
John Frost and John Mitchel." The green flag therefore he
(Attorney-General) supposed was the emblem of the doctrines
*e defendant held. Mitchel the traitor and the felon, was
to be brought back from the place to which he had been so
Justly consigned—and Frost, too, he who had led the people
on to miserable destruction, and then had the cowardice
to desert them,: and men of honour, of uprightness, were
to exchange places with them ! The defendant recommended
the sending over to Ireland of an agent to let them know
when the first blow of rebellion was struck, and he had
openly advised orgar ization, ermine, and resistance. It
was for the j ory to take into consideration the
character of the meeting, the circumstances under wh'cla
it was held, and they would come to the conclusion that a de-
monstration was intended to paralyse the government, and te
compel them to yield to these-called rights of the people. That
in the most illiterate person the most deluded would be a
crime of the blackest nature, but in a person of superior
education, a person of knowledge and position, it assumed
a guilt of • much worse character, the consequences of which
he must be prepared to meet.
Mr. White, a short-hand writer, deposed that he attended
two meetiags at Bishop Bonner's-fields on the 4th of June.
At the second meeting Sharpe was the first speaker, and used
i certain seditious expressions which he took down at the time.
(The witness read the speech in question, which has already
appeared in our reports of the previous trials.) Ernest Jones
then addressed them. (The witness also read big loafs of
this speech, the principal passages of which were quoted by
the Attorney-General.) He went to • public house in the
neighbourhood, to which some of the meeting adjourned,
and he saw the dispersion of the remainder by the police.
On his amt.-examination by Mr. Serjeant Wilkie., he
stated that he was accommodated with a chair and table for
the convenience of taking notes. When he arrived on the
ground, • preacher was addressing • crowd of persons. He
continued to preach after the chartists arrived, but lost many
of his hearers. He was close to Mr. Jones while he was
speaking, and received every civility and attention from him.
Inspector Waller was then called, and described the state
of the crowd at Bonner's-fields on the day in question, in
similar terms as other occasions.
Inspector Shaken, of the detective police deposed, that he
had also attended the meetings. He described the precau-
tions taken by the authorities against riot. Copies of the
handbill (produced) prohibiting such meetings, and declar-
ing them illegal, were circulated by the police in the neigh-
bourhood. He attended a meetingiat Bradford, on the 29th
of May, when the military were called out, several persons
wounded, and seventeen or eighteen taken into custody.
This closed the cue for the prosecution.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkie' then addressed the jury for the
defence. He commenced by observing that it was far easier
to sting than to eradicate the venom. His task wee therefore
more difficult than that of the Attorney-General, who had
bestowed a greater amount of force said vehemence upon this
than upon any of the other cases tried, for the simple reason,
he supposed, that his facts were weaker. He (the learned
serjeant) urged the jury, however, not to entertain any of the
fallacies and sophisms which had been addressed to them by
the Attorney-General, nor be influenced in their judgment
by those comments of the newspaper press, which it would
have been more creditable to the press bad they with-
held till these trials had been concluded, but to view the
case unbiased by any influences save those of facts. as
those facts bad been detailed to them in evidence, With
these preliminary observations he would proceed to comment
upon some of the statements made by the Attorney-
General. His learned friend had described the pre-
sent case as the moot important one of all, and
in so describing it, he (Mr. Serjeant Wilkins)
presumed that he meant to say that it was the most difficult
to be established. He also said that Mr. Jones had the
advantages of education, end that he was placed beyond
want, and that his professional knowledge and position
served only to aggravate his case. Yes, true it was that
Mr. Jones was a man of learning. and high literary ability,
and held • high position in society. He also belonged to
a profession which held out to him the highest honours of
the land. Possessed of high hopes and elegant desires,
and of so many advantages calculated to distinguish
hie from other men, was it probable that he would
willingly throw aside all these advantages by seeking
to overturn and destroy society ? Mr. Jones had been
described as "dangerous." might be so; but to
what was he dangerous but to corruption and wrong ? It bad
been said that Mr. Joaes was paid for advocating the cause
which he adopted ; but he (Mr. Serjeant Wilkins) rejected
the insinuation with disdain, and avowed solemnly that
Jones had never received a shilling for his advo-
cacy.of the principles which he avowed to-day. Mr. Jones's
opinions had been called sedition—but the same might be
said of every great reformer, and but for this so-called se-
dition, uttered by Lord Grey and other,- the whigs would
not be in power, and the Attorney-General would not hold
his present office. The Attorney-General had said that he
blushed to state that Mr. Ernest Jones was a member of the
bar. He thought it was a long while since the 'Attorney-
General blushed—(laughter), and he would show them how
much—or how little cause his learned friend had for blushing
upon that occasion. He maintained that the speech of Mr.
Jones's contained neither treason nor disloyalty. The
Attorney-General had told them to look at the whole of that
speech. He (the serjeant) told them to do the same i and
they would find that the tendency of the speech was simply
to procure certain constitutional reforms ; and only as much
antagonism ea was edweye displayed by one party against
another. The fact had been dwelt upon that Mr.
Jones wee not a labouring man, and holding the
paid= which he held in society had no personal motives fa
acting as he had done. But, he asked, had society and
morals arrived at such a pitch that every man must act from
parcel motives, end none from those of purity and
pathotiaa Mr. 7004114, Wing from this feeling, Inni wind
, aad was perfectly justified in so doing • fee
l=ts'atalit but orgamatiaa aril* bad it '

,e
entancipation, the abolition of the slave trade, the
real of the corn laws, and every other great
privilege which they now enjtycd ? Ile said that with
out organisation the I eople of this country, instead of
living under free institutione, might be mingng, fawning,
and lying under the iron rule of despotism. He thought he I
had said enough of the legality and utiity of organisation.
He would now advert to the circumstances of the
minting. It was held on a Sunday, and near the
apt • minister was preaching the gospel. Women and
children were there, and there was an utter absence of
everything calculated to excite divarder and alarm. Mr. Jones
had there made the speech which had been proved in evi-
dence, upon which the learned counsel proceeded to comment.
He maintained that the address contained nothing cairn
lated to destroy the public peace ; and that, bet for the in-
terference of the police, that meeting, as well as every eet-
lag of the kind, would have passed over peacefully. There
was a great prejudice existing against the police among the
lower orders, who considered them as common enemies, and
subjected them to • great deal of annoyance. Stung repeat-
edly by the insults cast upon them, the police were only
too glad of an opportunity to revenge themselves, and
the consequence was, that serious consequences always fol-
lowed • collision. It could not be denied that the same
persons had met there for several Sundays previously, and
had discussed their grievances in a smiler manner as on the
occasion in que-tion, without violating the law or csusing
any disorder. Interference was expected on the 4th of June,
and Mr. Sharpe had told the people to resist if attacked. In
so doing, he (the learned counsel) considered he was justified,
because it was a very difficult matter to persuade a man when
knocked on the head by a truncheon, not to resist because
his opponent was • policeman. Mr. Jones had justified re-
sistance, and had said " that, though the whigs were mad,
they were not mad enough to put down public meetings."
Such would be the opinion of all sensible men. They all
knew the effects of suppressing public wee- inns on the
Continent; and that if the reform meeting had been allowed
to take place at Poet, Louis-Philippe would he still on the
throne, and Guizot yet in power. Mr. Jimmie had told the
meeting on the 4th of June that he was going into certain
districts, where his pre ence was required in cons, quence of
their disturbed condition, and had also in effect said that his
presence WAS not required in London, because it was peace-
able. lie maintained that such a c tune did net look line
stirring up the people to revolt, but had a contrary tendency.
A great d al was said against the People's Charter; but he
miontained that, whatever its merits, any man who believsd
sincerely that its previsious were just, and necessary
to the country, and who had the honesty and
boldness to avow his principle', was entitled to
their praise rather than their censure. Is could not be
called sedition to speak against the law—the law was fre-
quently abused by legal men. If any of them had ever
attended certain meetings in Regent-street, when Lord
Brougham pie sided, they would hear from the noble lord
more condemnation of the law than they would hear any
where else ; and it was his lordship's constant cus-
tom to speak in the same manner in other pieces.
It could not be denied that there were a great many bad and
unjustifiable laws in existence, and though it was their duty
to obey them as long as they remained laws, they could not
be =lied seditious fur advocating their repeal. It was absurd
to cry out against organisation. He maintained such a pro-
ceeding to be perfectly bend and justified by the precedent of
the Wesleyan M ethodids, and other perfectly ',netted
bodies. It was only such organization that Mr. Jones
had recommended, and that he had not the slightest
idea that lie was saying an% thug that was illegal was appa-
rent from the fact of the facility which he gave the govern.
went reporter for writing down his words—for they could
not suppose Mr. Jones to be so egregious a blockhead as to
give that facility if he intended to utter any language
for which he could be prosecuted. The construction
which he bad put upon the speech was that Mr.
Jones simply recommended legal organisation for
the attainment of certsie rights. In that speech he had
shown himself to he opposed to violence, by his condom.
natien of the outbreak at Bradford. He had told them to
obey the laws, and never to attack the police, except in
self-defen-e. lie (the learned counsel) urged them to take
into consideration the whole tendency. of what Mr Jones
had said, and not take a particular passage and
judge it without its context. For they might take a
verse from the Bible and use it as an argument in favour'
of Atheism ; and this was the course which had been taken by
the Attorney-General with regard to Mr. Jones's speech. With
respect to the it sistance which Mr. Jones hod recommended,
he quoted Locke's, "Treatise on Government.," to show
that resistance might legally be made to illegal acts on the
part of a magistrate, and be contended that the same
principle applied to a subordinate officer. He read
passages also from Bolingbroke, Paley, Hume, and " Rus-
sell's History of Modern Europe," wherein similar rules
were laid down. Ile read these passages to show that Mr.
Jones had not acted in opposition to law and right, in saying
that hewn not going to preach to them " any namby doctrine
of non-resistance and passive obedience." Mr. Jones believes,
said the learned counsel, and is not singular or alone in his
belief, that the time has come for action, and that there is
an immense portion of the vast community who are nos
only unrepresented, but who are misrepresented ; who are
not only unprotected, but are oppressed ; who are not only
disregarded, but regarded with contempt and reproach.
Mr. Jones felt all this, and these feeling induced hill to
take a course which had been taken by some of the finest
minds that hag ever adorned the annals of the country.
His learned friend had made some remarks respecting
equality. Now Mr. Jcnes bad not denied that there
were gradations in society, hut he denied that it
WAS owing to a dispensation of Providence which clothed
the rinecurist in purple and fine linen, whilst it left the in-
dustrious man to starve. He (Mr. Serjeaut Wilkins) con-
sidered that, great as might be the learning of the Attorney-
General, he could not give a better commentary upon the
Scriptures than that of Mr. Jones. lie urged them to re-
member that the gentleman in question had said " not a
single blow need be struck for liberty in this country ;" a
sentiment which he considered plainly proved his peaceable
intention. As for what he had said about sending Lord
John Russell and Sir George Grey to occupy the place of
the chartists in Van Dieman's Land, that should be taken as
an absurd supposition, meaning nothing, and emanating
from the heat of discussion. The same might be said of
Mr. Jones's remarks about chartism being " alive and
kicking," and " the rich man's nose being brought to the
grindsione_e" they shou.d be taken merely as they were in-
tended. He considered the is sue in the present c,se not so
much a question between Mr. Ernest Jones and the govern-
ment a question involving the rights, liberties, and privileges
of them all. The right of public speaking, and criticism
of the actions of government had made this country
what it is, and he said preserve it. oh! preserve
it! As having reference to the fate of your children
and your children's children—as having reference to the
security of the throne, of the ermine—for God's sake take
care how you allow any encroachment on what our fore-
fathers have left to us as our rights and our privileges! The
learned counsel concluded by expressing hie hope that he
hod succeeded in satisfying them of the innocence of his
client; and said that if there was any one among them un-
convinced, he considered it en be his sacred duty to stay there
till his tongue failed him before he returned a verdict of
" Guilty " against the prisoner.
The Attorney-General then replied. He maintained that
there coulee be n t doubt of the lunation of the speech, not-
withstanding the construction placed upon it by the learned
counsel for the defence. He referred to the various passages
which had been commented on by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
and with regard to which he differed from the learned
counsel. It was plain that Mr. Jones had attended the
meeting by previous consent and arrangern nt, and it was
equally plain that his object in visiting the various excited
districts to which he had alluded, was not to quell that
excitement, but to increase it. Nor could there be
any doubt that he advised resistance to constituted
authorities. The government, in prohibiting the meet-
ings might be right and might be wrong, but it was
the duty of the people to obey, because the resistance
of force against force would put an end to all peace and
order in the country. There could be no doubt that
the object of the corresponding societies was to t
cause a general and simultaneous rising throughout the
country, for which the government and the people would be
unprepared;: and the suppression of those societies wee a
necessary step. Mr. Jones spoke of a glorious opportunity
which would occur on the 12th, and meantime urged
them to steer clear of all partial riot or outbreak,
for reasons which must be obvious to them all.
It was evident that the object for which they proposed to
raise a fund was to promote, not the union between England
and Ireland in a legislative sense, but, as Mr. Jones had ex-
peened it, a " union of sentiment, a union of democracy,
and • separation of the bonds which bind one country to the
other." There was no doctrine of law which justified
resistance to constituted authorities, and though there
might be circumstances which justified • whole naion in
rising, it was not competent for three thousand persons to
take upon themselves to act for the entire country.
The speech in question had a direst tendency to promote a
breach ; and if that be a fair construction he was justified in
taking the course which he had taken; but if otherwise, he
wan wrong, and it was their duty to acquit the prisoner.
The Lord Chief Justice then summed up the case to the
jury, He pointed out the benefits and the large degree of
liberty at present enjoyed by this country under its con-
stitution as existing. and the danger which might re-
milt from any violent and sudden overthrow. The
liberty given at present to the public expression of
opinion was quite as great as was consident with
public order and safety, and when they passed the
boundary which the law allowed, it was for the law to in-
terfere. His lordship pointed out the law relating to sedi-
tion, and considered it to be obvious that in a well-regulated
state an individual could not be allowed to address to a
public assembly language calculated to disturb the public
peace. The question for them to consider was, whether the
speech uttered by the defendant had that tendency, and
whether such an effect was intended by him. If their opinion
was in the affirmative, it was their duty to find the de-
fendant not,to acquit him. His lordship wentover
the principal passages of the speech contained in the indict-
ment. They should look at nothing but the evidence, in order
to determine the question which they had to consider ; but in
order to do so they should consider the state of society at
the time when the words were uttered, and consider whe-
ther the words were likely to carry any influence with
them. Because it often happened that the value and
influence of an opinion depended entirely upon such circum-
stances. He urged them to weigh the whole tendency of
the speech, and to consider what it was that-the defendant
wished his hearers to understand. He had a right to advo-
cate the charter as long as he liked, so that his advocacy did
not endanger the public safety; and it was for them to
determine whether the speech had that tendency or not.
The defendant bad counselled the assembly not to disperse at
the bidding of the police. Now he (the Lord Chief Justice)
was bound to tell them that any meeting that was ordered to
disperse by the police, and refused to do go, became from
that moment an illegal assembly. A man who cennselled •
meeting to take any such course took upon himself a serious
and important responsibility; and it we for them .
to consider how far the defendant had taken that
responsibility on himself. With regard to the organisation
which had been advocated by the defendant, it was not in