The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-14 00:00:00

NUM Al ITH S PECIAL

Vi ISSION.

------:a;.--

CONVIC'I'ION OF ZEPHANIAH
WILLIAMS.
MoNsz.)tyrn, Most-Lot E'rPINIXO.
The Court sat this morning- at nine o'clock.
On the prisoner being placed et the bar, Baron Parke,
addressing him, said—Prisoner at the bar, you intimated on
Saturday that y,,,u possibly might wish to address the Jury
this morning..

Prisoner--I djtl, my Lord.
Mr. Barua Nrke—lf you persist in your doormination,
this ie the p;oper time.
The !.r loner Williams here turned ghastly pale, paused
for a f,c..v moments, and then, in a faltering tone of voice,
salt,—My Lords, Gentlemen of the Jury, [ am entirely in-
r.ocent of that with which I stand here charged. I never
entertained any notion of the kind imputed to me. As re-
lates to what was said by the witnesses examined, I assure
you it is extremely false—at least, the greater pa. tof it,
I never entertained the least design of revolting against t'ne
Queen, so help me God !—( [Lire every feature in t±,e
soner's face quivered as with the most intense agony, His
eres closed, and when he again opened them they seemed
to hay" lost the power of beholding thtt objects around
him. He leaned his head uoon his hand. tad it appeared as if
he were about to drop fainting in th^.., dock. The .fudges
waited a tew minutes as if aviih:,,g. to give him the oppor-
tnnity of proceeding. After +.:4.e pause)._
Mr B on Parke-11t?l- is al! vou wiAl to say'
PIA, rny Lora.
The Court their, allt.d upon the Attcroar-Alenaral to
proceed.

The Atterney_General—My Lerch, and Gentlemen of
the Jury, it eow becomes my duty to reply in this lane—
' this meet oneortant case, on the
art of the Crown. You
e have .•,,_d the dedarition of hisp innocence on the part of
the awisoaer et the bar. you will pay ec-ery attentiatt to
l e.hat he Anys himself, and to -wliat has been said on the
part of the Learned Count:el. Ile has been very zealously
defended. It 'night be areeurreatueus ib.: me to offer soy
opinion wi:h respect to my Learned Friend Mr. Thomas,
a gentleman of great exrietience and long standing at the
bar ; hut I may us.: 1.,-.e liberty, ronaidering the station to
which [ have had tile honour to be elevated, to :say with
respect to Mr, 'Rickards., who is so much junior to me,
and who it wily entering the profession, that his Was
one of Ord abkst addresses to a Jury which it has been
my gored fortune to listen to. It was marked by do-
quetece, it was distinguished by argument, it was
iu the aney best tone which an advocate ran assume
in eddresting en English Jury. I venture to foretel
of the taentlemen by whom that speech was made
that he will turm an ornament to the profession to
which he belongs. Still, Gentlemen, it is my painful
duty to make observations to you on arguments thee. hive
been addressed to yon on the part of the prisoner. I hope
to do so with candour and moderation, but I must not
shrink from the
_p_ublio duty imposed uprin me. My
Learned Friend Mr. Thomas complained that we have
prosecuted this and the other prisoners included in the
same indictment for high treason. Whatever be the re-
sult of this trial, I think that you and alt impartial men
will say that no other course could be pursued, Mr. Tho-
mas says there ere millions sympathising to ith Lire result
of these trials. I believe so, hut they arc eveapathising
with the proper administration of the law t and that they
will receive your verdict with reverence and respect. It is
a matter of history, as it has been said by my Learned
Friend, Mr. Rickards, that there has beets an armed in-
suerection in this country; that thousands of persons have
earned themselves in a most formidable manner, that they
entered the town of Newport, and there attacked
the Queen's troops, and that there was the loss
of many lives, and that great disarey was occa-
sioned, not only in this county, but over the United '
Kingdom; that Government would then have aban-
dialled their duty—they would have failed in the pro_
.action they owe to the peaceable subjects of her
Majesty, if this solemn investigation had not been insti-
tuted, Mr. Thomas says that he is surprised that there
should be trials for high treason. The euepriee of Mr.
Thomas should be that treason has 'ocean committed ; not
that, when committed, it shoul.l be prosecuted ; and to
my surprise Mr. Thomas seal we ought to follow what
was done in the rebellion of Jack Cade and Wet Tyler,
because he says in those cases there was no prosecution
for high tr eason, and the persons who rose against the
Governreent were punished by martial law, We appeal ,
to a constitutional i'arv, but, not like :Mr. Thomas, give to
the accused ever, advantage. We asked. a Jury to con•
cider deitteneetely and seriously upon the guilt or innocence
of the ate:Geed. Allusion cgs been toads to a former
trial, wed therefore I am justified in observing, that the
Coureeel who so ably, so powerfully, and judiciously dee
feeded Mr. Front, acknowleriged that the Government was
fully justified in the course that has been adopted. To my
surprise, likewise, Mr. Thomas says that it would have been
much more fur the benefit of the prisoner if he had keen
tried under the Riot Act ; but how tne Riot ;tee applies
to cases like this, I, as a lawyer, do net underetand. But if
the prisoner had been capital's. indicted under the Riot
Act, he could have been instantly brought to trial upon
the indictment being foure_..he could have been tried
without having a cop,: of the indictment—without having
a list of witnesses, and without having a list of the Jury
who were to J.:A upon his trial. The law has most hu-
manely and preperly given to those prosecuted for hieh
treason advatietages for making the defence which belong
exclusivel-y to this mole of proceeding. But then it is
said thele this prosecution has been conducted with harsh-
ness. On that I must appeal to you, to my Lords, and to
tb', country at large. All who read these proceedings will
'say whether vindictive expressions have been used, or arts
employed unfairly to produce a conviction. If I em not I
much mistaken, whatever be the result, it will be admitted
the prisoner has had a fair trial, and that he has had every
advantage that sn accused can desire in vindication of his
innocence. But then Mr. Thomas S&:;3 that thie is an ea-
! tempt to crush public opinion ! On my entering the Court
on Saturday morning I heard with astonishment Mr.
Thomas say that this trial was to determine whether
the Government was ,o bAye the power to crush the ex-
pression of public feeling, The same sentiment, Gentle-
men, occurred in variotes parts of his address. God for-
bid, I say, that any B..tempt should be made to interfere
with public opining *et this country. God forbid that any
attempt should :)e made to prevent the aubjects of her
Majesty from, meeting peaceably, and in numbers peaceably
to deliberv.e on grievances, and while acting as men deter-
mined to, act peaceably and constitutt,nally. But then,
shall i'. be said that public opinion is crushed because men
are teot permitted to assemble in thousands, nearm them-
sole/es, to collect from various parts of the eceintry, to march
upon one point in the dead of aitas'nt, and to make an
attack upon a peaceable town? Our liberties, in my opi-
nion, can be beat defended and maintained by respecting
the law. I would even err on the side of allowing 47spres-
sion to public opinion, for you may, I think, give the
most unbounded opportunity to the subjects of this country
of discussing that which. affects them, either locally or
generally, without, the smallest danger to the public peace
.f the country. Another complaint has been made by
Mr. Thomas, It has been said bt him that those unhappy
men were 'seduced into those nutregea by the remiss-
ness o( the Government in checking public meetings.
Wei it not the place for me to enter into a general vindi-
cration of the Government of the country ; but, as counsel
for the prosecution, I am warranted to warn you against
'aeing led away by an argument so fallacious. This outrage
' took place on the 4th of November. You will observe that
public mcetinga became dangerous and alarming during
the spring and summer of last year. The Government did
interfere, prosecutions were instituted, and various trials
took place. There were trials against persons called
Chartists, who violated the law; trials were carried on at
Warwick, Chester, Liverpool, Weles, and in this very
place iii which 'Se are now assembled Jurora did their duty ;
there was a conviction in every case in which a prosecu-
tion was instituted. Judges propounded the law, and Ju-
rors determined the fact. In this very place Vincent and
three others, I think, were brought to trial for illegal con-
demn They were convicted, and sentenced to imprison-
ment. A mild and proper course was then pursued. It
Iwas then expected that when those persons saw that the
law would be enforced, and Jurors were determined to do
their dote, their eyes would be opened—they would
have abandoned the course in which they were engaged,
and reapecteel the laws of their country. Can it then be
said thee those men who have engaged in illegal transac-
tions, which they allow to hare been of a highly dange-
reels character; did it without warning, whet> they saw
'Vincent and three others confined in gaol for much less
criminal proceedings? Nay, the observations of counsel
take a different course : for it is said 2,,,,,tin, that because 1
Vincent was imprisoned this insurrection took place, and
the object of it was to march to Monmouth and rescue
hitn from gaol, My Learned Friend (Mr. Thome e) argues I
as a reason for your acquittal of the prisoner, that he
(Mr. Thomas) approves of the ive points that con-titute •
the Charter. Now, whether Mr. Thomas be right or •
wrong in thinking that there should be Universal Suffrage.,
Annual Parliaments, Vote by 8a11,,t, no qualification for
Members of Parliament, and that Members of Parlia-
nadnt should be paid for their attendauce—whether he be
right or wrong on any or all of those things is net of
the smallest conseqw•nce in the iequiry on which you
are engaged. Upon those sp culative points it is im-
material—it is a matter of perfect indifference to me_
whether any of You, Gentlemen, whom I now address,
entertain the seine opinions as those uttered by Mr. Tha- i
mas. Those that are tat that opinion, let them, I say,
express it in a lawful manner. But because they may be
the trite principles upon which Government ought to be con-
cluded, are they to be carried into effect by force, by revolu-
tion, and by rebellion ? This is the rtuestioe which you are
to determine. There was one remark made by Mr. Thomas
upon which I must observe, because I am sure it wits not
intended by him to bear the inference that might be drawn
from it. He said that Magna Charta was obtained by force,
and that no charters were ever gained except by force.
Now it seems to me that it would not be the intention of
Mr. Thomas to say. that because Magna Charta was ob-
tained by force, the people are floss to rise, and by
force to obtain the fire points, or that Newport was to be
another Runuymede. My Learned Friend Mr. Thomas,
like myself, wishes the laws to be respected, and whatever
doctrines or speculations men may entertain, i am sure
that, with me, he is moot ardent in his anxiety that her
Majesty's subjects may be dissuaded from any violation of
the law.
Mr. Thomas here rose, and said that the AttoreeteGa-
neral yes doing him great itstice.
The Atterney-General—, y Learn-ti Friend says that
I am doing him great injustice. because I am contending ,
that be never wished to eneourag,t people to a violation of 1
the law. All I am doing is to guard others from draw- 1
ing an impropor interlace from the language which he has
employed.
Mr. Thomas here again rose to speak.
Baron Parke said that it would be better rot to Leer-
' rupt the Learned Attneney-General. i
The AttorneyoGoneral— My Learned F, lend Mr,
Thomas, then, said that the Bill of Rights gave a libety
drew to persons to carry VIM and my Learned Friend,
that as a justification for thouse.nds ef persons to arm pub-
licly
to join together, and thus armed to march upon a 1
peacable 1:0111n,.. The Bill of Rights has given liberty to ,
caffy angh put A is for lawful purposcs—t 'la a man may ;

defend his personsi ng from robbery and as-
sault. Bet isayta it a a use in the Bill of Rights
ban been most raiaehiavouly perverted. a person ob-
tem arms, or carry arms !oi unlawfui purposes, he violates
the law, and ie liable to punishment. He (the Attorney-
Geeeet.) having made these preliminary ebtereatiohe,
would proceed to call the attention of the Jury to the law
as applied to that
partiniar case. The Jury would re:
ceive the law from,
rile Judges and decide upon the facie.
They would eof consider, as hid bean suggested by Mr.
Thomsee, and he'd Onde been stated before in one of the
I euurta Af .!ustice, that there were but two parties—the
rlt 'Taff and the defendant, while the only oteupatieti of
the Judges and the crier was to keep order. It was not, he
sad, his intention to refer to the cases in Luder, cited by
his Learned Friend Mr. Thomas, for he rested here upon no
doubtful decision. He read for them the opinion of Sir
Michael Forster upon treason—an opinion which all allowed
to be a just explanation of the law, except Mr. Thomas;
white, according to the law laid down by Mr. Thomas, a
person might march an army of 50,000 men to put down
'eoth Houses of Parliament, and establish a convention, and
yet not he guilty of treason I The prisoner, in his short
addeees, said that he did not contemplate revolt against
the Queen; and yet, because he did not contemplate pull,
inst the crown from the Royal brow of the Queen, he might
fancy himself innocent, in one sense, when, in fact, he was
eeete of treason. The ease resolved itself into a question
ut tact, whether there was a design to take Newport, to
stop the emit, to blow up the bridge, and to make that the
commencement of an ilisurrectien, which, oh its success
known by the delay of post, was to break out also
in Birmingham and the north of England. If there was
c• Ruth plan; if the prisoner did not partieipate in any
eech plan., he was entitled to their acquittal, but if there
was such a plan, and he participated in it, he (the Attor-
eey-G seers!) was afraid the prisoner could not ask far a
verdict in his farnur. He was afraid the facts proved in
evidence, even without the declarations made by the
prironer and others concerned in the transactions, Went tar
to establish the existence of such a plan. The Learned
AttorneyaGeneril then recited to the Jury the facts proved
as t 3 the assembling of the three bodies; their military
order and aretty ; their intention to meet at a 'c:tettain point,
which was frustrated be the tempestuous state of the
father; the atteretrc made by Frost's body on the Westa
gee Inn tfter Frost bad made the inquiry as to the pre,
sense of the soldiers there ; the order given to fire imme-
diately upon the refusal of the special constables to sur-
render their prisoners; the tire of the soldiers, and tho at-
tempts of the insurgents within the house to force the po-
sition of the military, even after their fire z and the subsea
Zsent rout of the people. He then traded the march of
ephaniah Williams from the Welsh Oak to Stow-hill
with 5,000 men, and said that the Jury would judge from
his declarations at that point whether there could be the
slightest doubt that be was marching to assist Frost in the
common design, which, in their former consultations had
been laid down between them They would see whether,
upon the evidence, there could be any reasonable doubt
that Zephaniah Williams had taken any part in the design
to take forcible possession of the town of Newport, They
were not going to petition the Queen or either House of
Parliament; they were not going to any public meeting
to deliberate upon their grievances, or to express their
feelings ; they were going with arms and ammunition
to enter the town of Newport, in the dead of
the night. His Learned Friend, Mr. Rickards, had
said that there might be a demonstration of what was
called moral force. He was bound, in the discharge of
his painful duty, to itek. to whom was that demonstration
to be directed' Who was to see it at two o'clock in the
morning? bf what use, for such a demonstration, would
be thirty rounds of ball cartridge ? Had there been any
puhl'c intimation given of this intended demonstration ?
There had hewn ho notice, no advertisement, no placard ;
it was not even known to a tinsiber of persons called Char.
tists, living in Newport, that this army was approaching.
Were they, sheet having marched through Newport with.
out has' ed been seen by any one, to have returned to the
hills? To whom was the demonstration, he must again
ask, to be exhibited, and for what purpose or object were
loaded guns, loaded pistols, and the large provision of
arms and ammunition which bad been made intended.
The Jury would consider whether, independent of any
declaration proved to have been made by the prisoner,
there could be no reasonable doubt that there was a
design to take forcible possession of the town of Newport.
His Learned Friend Mr. Rickards, as well as his friend
Mr. Thomas, cautioned the Jury, and he (the Attorney-
General) would join in cautioning them, not to take
mere words in proof of treason. Mere words did
not, and he hoped never would, amount to treason, al-
though they might be proofs of sedition, and subject the
party using them to the punishment which the law
accorded to that °Fence ; but there was more than words
proved in this case. The words which were proved
were words accompanying acts ; they were orders, direc-
tions, words accompanying acts—the very acts of insurrec.
tt,n. The learned Attorney-General then proceeded
to remark upon the evidence, and first adverted to that
of the witness Bowen as to the declarations of the pri.
soner. God forbid that they should pick out any par-
ticular words upon which to put 4 construction which
was not consistent with the purport of the whole ;
for, as his learned friend, Mr. Thomas, had said, if but
a part of the text which had been quoted—" the fool
saith in his heart, ' there is no God'"—if but a part of
that were taken, it would seem to signify, " there is no
(led." Whereas, if the whole passage were taken,
the meaning of it was that an stillest was a fool.
Bat let the Jury take the whole of the declaration
proved against the prisoner. It was true he had said
that the people were to be peaceable, and to shed no
blood ; but the Jury would also recollect that he had de-
sired the men to come armed to the mountains; that he
talked of the soldiers, and said if they were so cruel as to
fire upon them, they, his friends and associates, were to
do the best they could. It would be for the Jury to say
whether or not this was a deliberate purpose of assembling
an armed body prepared to act against the military if neces-
sary, for the purpose of carrying their object into effect.
Having made a few remarks upon the evidence of George
Lloyd, the Learned Attorney-General said that he did
not desire that the Jury should place much reliance
upon the evidence of Richard Hawkins, who spoke to
seeing what he called cartridges. It bad been suggested
that these might have been rolls, or, as he believed they
were called, " screws" of tobacco, and if the Jury thought
so, he would advise them to place no reliance upon the
fact ; but, at the same time he must observe, that it cor-
responded with the evidence as to the insurgents being
armed, and carrying a large quantity of ammunition. Hav-
ing made a few observations upon some succeeding evi-
dence, which was not quite so material to the case, the
Learned Gentleman proceeded to remark upon the testi-
mony of John Nichol Hawkins, as most important. This
witness was not a Chartist. He was a respectable medical
man, practising in the town of Newport. He deposed
that having overstated the amount of a military force in
Newport, in order to induce the mob, whom he met ad-
vancing, to return, Williams said, " Damn the soldiers
come on, and show thorn what the colliers can do at
Newport."
Mr. Rickards requested that the cross-examination of
the witness should be read.

The Attorney-General very willingly consented to read
the cross-examination as requested. The witness said
that the prisoner seemed to be pressing the men on, and
they seemed to be hanging back. He would not swear
that Williams bad not said, " What have we to do with
the soldiers ?" it was for the Jury to say whether this
cross-examination in the slightest degree impeached the
evidence of Mr. Hawkins ; for it appeared from it:that the
men were hanging back ; were rather willing to return,
hut were urged on by Williams, who said " D---n the
soldiers, come on and show what the colliers can do at
Newport." The Learned Gentleman next commented
upon the evidence of Thomas Saunders, as to the press-
ing of men, and marching to Stow-hill ; and as to the
prisoner saying, in answer to the question from the people,
" What, have you brought us here to be slaughtered ?" on
seeing a man brought from the Westgate, shot through
the ancle, " Go on, go on, don't be cowards ;" and also
as to the prisoner cutting a ball to make it fit his pistol,
and having loaded the pistol, saving, " Here's two for
them, however." If the Jury believed this evidence, it
was a direct proof that the prisoner was eagerly participa-
ting in the general object, and,urging on his men, after
the repulse, to renew the engagement. The Jury were
to consider what weight was to be given to this witness's
testimony, or how far his credit was shaken by the evi-
dence of Lewis and Marsden, who were called to impeach
his veracity, but whose attempts to that effect, he con.
tended, ought to be received with great caution. The
I same witness, Saunders. deposed to Williams saying, " We
are going to Newport, and very likely to Monmouth." His I
Learned Friend, Mr. Rickards, said that this might account
for the hour at which they reached, or were to reach New-
port. But he (the Attorney-General) knew no reason why,
if they were going to Monmouth, they should have taken
the route of Newport at all. It was for the Jury to say
whether they had any intenti :n of going to Monmouth until
they should have accomplished their object at Newport, and
whether they were not going to Monmouth, as they might
to any other place where the usurped authority was to be
established. These were the witnesses who spoke di-
rectly to the declarations made by Zephaniah Williams.
He should now call the attention of the Jury to others,
who deposed to expressions made use of by Frost, Jones,
and others engaged in the conspiracy. These de-
clarations were admissible by law, because otherwise
it might. be impossible to bring to punishment those
who were the most culpable. A wily leader of rebellion
migla't be cautious—might hold his tongue—might never,
before any persons who could give evidence against him,
disclose his designs ; but others, who occupied less promi-
nent stations, might be less on their guard, and in a com-
mon enterprise what was said by one was admissible as
evidence of the intentions of all. But it was by no
means so strong as that which was said by the prisoner
himself; and it was for the Jury to judge what weight did
properly belong to them ; but it would be contrary to rea-
son to exclude them altogether, because they would assist
the Jury in arriving at the truth, and coming to a just con-
clusion. James Hodges deposed to the declarations of
Frost, as to taking the town of Newport, blowing up the
bridge, and stopping the mail, as a signal to other parts
of the country; and to his saying, when told that he was
leading the people to be.slaughtered, " Do you think so?"
mid turning away with a scornful look, as the witness de-
scribed it. John Harford swore to Frost's declarations
that they were to take the soldiers and their arms, to blow
up the bridge, stop the mail and the coach, as tidings that
the rising was to commence elsewhere, and that he should
be able to see two or three of his friends or enemies at
Newport. Here were two or three witnesses, who could
hardly be in concert, speaking to expressions which cir-
(llllstantially varied, but were substantially the same. The
Jury would recollect the evidence of the two boys, Rees and
Colas, as to the inquiry made by Frost with respect to the
soldiers, and the message sent by Jack the Fifer, in his pre.
ssnee and hearing, that they meant by and by to have the
Westgate to themselves. The • Jury ,would judge of the
credit to be attached to this evidence; it appeared to him
that the witnesses were actuated by no desire to misrepre-
sent fects, or to do anything but speak. the truth. Now,
with regard to William Jones, the principal witness, as to
declarations made by him, James Emery, in addition to
other :tatcments, deposed to Jones having, spoken of a nro-
ciamation which was to be posted at Newport on the Mon-
day morning, to commence, .‘ We, the Executive Govern_

anent of England," and to be signed John Frost, President." '
Instead of disguising from the Jury, be was desirous of
calling their attention to the fact that the expressions
stated, which Emery said had been used by Jones with re-
spect to the proclamation on the Monday morning, were
hot mentioned by him in either of his depositions; but they
would recollect that he bad tieser been examined against
Jonei. fle bad been eitimined ilrst against Shellard, and
in the second instance against Llewellyn, neither of whom
made as. of any each expressions. If he had been examined
against William Jones, and desired to say all he knew as
to the declarations used by him oil the Monday morning—
if in the original examination he had suppressed this
statement, and afterwards added it, then it would
be extremely dangerous to listen to his amended
declaration ; but when his evidence was only against
Shellard and Llewellyn, who were unconcerned with
the expressions, the Jury would consider• whether his
withholding it had the effect of shaking the value of his
testimony. lie (the Attorney-General) did not withhold
from the Jury—on the contrary, he called their attention
to the fact=that in the case of John Frost, these declara-
tions Were not mentioned. The witness said he had not
been asked about it, and probably not thinking the express
sions fnaterial, he had not stated them ; but the Jury would
recollect his appearance—his demeanour—the manner in
which he had given his evidence—he had no purpose to
serve by the evidence he gave, and which he seemed to
give, as far as he (the Attorney: General) could judge—
bat that Was entirely for the jury—with perfect fairness.
The Jury would judge, therefore, whether the circumstance
of his not having mentioned the expressions in his first exa-
mination and in his deposition, rendered him in their
judgment unworthy of credit. Joon Mathews deposed to
the fact of the mob dispersing at Malpas when they heard
of the defeat of the Frost; and Woolford, the gamekeeper,
Stated that the mob declared they were going to take New-
port. He would now remind the Jury of one remarkable piece
of evidence which he had nett been aWart, that he should be
in a condition to bring before them until the pfosetution
had been actually begun; he meant the letter of George
Shell-s-sa most remarkable piece of evidence, not retting
upon frail memory, but upon a writing actually produced.
He concurred in the observations made by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Rickards, as t• the unfortunate influence
under which Shell appeared to hare acted. He seemed
to have bead deluded ; and undoubtedly, in moral guilt,
those who had instigated him to commit the offence were
more guilty than he ; but it would be for the Jury to say
whether, having considered the contents of that letter,
they would have the smallest doubt as to the nature of the
enterprise in which the writer had been engaged. The
letter was admissible in evidence, on the ground that
Shell was engaged, in the insarrection-s-that he look an
antiVe 'part in it—that he actually fell in the assault upon
the Westgate—and (he had reason to believe) in the
very act aiming a blow et the Mayor. of Newport.
Anything said by any' of the party at that time would be
eidence against others engaged in the same object, at d
anything written by them would he entitled to still greater
weight. On the very evening of Sunday, the 3d of
November, he wrote a letter to his parents, and the Jury
would judge from it whether he was going from Pontypool
to show a moral demonstration of the strength of the
Chartists, and then to return td his usual peaceable occu-
pations. The letter was in these words:--
Pontypool, Sunday night, Nov. 3, 1839.
Dear Parents—l hope this will find you well; I am
myself at present. I will this night be engaged in a
struggle for freedom ; and should it please God to spare
my life, I shall see you soon ; but if not, grieve not for me.
[At this passage the Attorney-General was affected to
tears. On recovering his self-possession he continued the
reading of the letter.] I shall have fell in a noble cause.
My tools are at Mr. Cecil's, where I lodge, and likewise
my clothes, Farewell.
" Yours truly, GEORGE SHELL."
Before the unhappy parents received this letter, their son
lay a corpse in the Westgate Inn. Was there any doubt,
therefore, that this struggle in which he was to be engaged
was one which ,vas to be attended with force ? His life
was to be risked, he anticipated the probability of his falling
in the enterprise, and he told his parents in that case not
to grieve for him, for " he should have fallen in a noble
cause." It would be for the Jury to say whether Zephaniah
Williams, who was a leader of the enterprise, had not the
same object. His Learned Friend Mr. Rickards suggested
the possibility that some hot-headed individual might have
notions which he exclusively entertained, but the Jury
would say whether common sense and reason would not ne-
cessarily lead them to draw a different inference, and whe-
ther the leaders of the enterprise must not have had the
same object as the men whom they led on.
seswaaoxrhwnTii
ylthwßero keo.
existed in
ooTe4i
junwtshg.
heottheohi
hm:ri
eesi
nasndseewt
yet handwriting;
Bbr.riherrGt gioeumegupr
I,gteisaiedhotmr.nati
n l
ddeshiurii;detgayegwnn deh lettersi
itl
it
thatpwrFaorsvo
provedSes
dthestl
the
eewf
moment
ysroc tmßeh
er ewon
hutpgi ehchreh:
oatdmcoimttepdlatinhaotf
sthhellirregu-
bheavwe
aasssaisctteindginintakfuinrtgheßrarnocuegho;f btuhtethcaotmomnloynshdoewseigdnt,haint
Shell might
pressing all he met. Shell did no more than those who en-
tered the house of Woolford and took his arms. He could
not have had the anticipation of meeting with Mr. Brough,
the brewer, on his return to Pontypool. His anticipation
must have been that he7was engaged in a desperate enter
prise against the Government of the country. Another
fact, upon which, however, he was disposed to place little
weight, was the capture of the prisoner on board a vessel
bound for Oporto ' • for it bad been truly stated, that
having committed a high offence he might, al-
though not conscious of treason, have tried to escape
the punishment which he was conscious he deserved.
Upon these facts, Gentlemen (said the Learned Attorney-
General), so before you, you have to say whether this was
the enterprise with which these parties are charged, and
whether the prisoner, Zephaniah Williams, actually par-
ticipated in that enterprise. It has been said, that this en-
terprise was not only dangerous, wild, and extravagant,
but improbable. I admit it was all that ; but still, if you
should be convinced that such an enterprise was under-
taken, it is not the less treasonable because it was wild,
visionary, and extravagant; and though the character that
attaches to it be such as to render its success most impro-
bable, it does not follow that it should not have been en-
tertained. On this subject, I will read you an extrac,
from the charge of Chief Justice Tenterden, on the trial
of Arthur Thistlewood, which is most applicable to the
present case. He says, " Such ulterior designs, if they
shall appear to be of the nature to which I hays
alluded, and to relate to the usurpation of the Go-
vernment of this nation, or of this metropolis alone,
in opposition to the constituted authorities of the na-
tion, even for a season, will appear to the calm eye
of sober reason to be wild and hopeless. But you,
Gentlemen, know that rash and evil-minded men, brood-
ing over their own bad designs, gradually lose sight of the
difficulties that attend the accomplishment of their
schemes, and magnify the advantages to be derived from
thew' ; and as it is the natural character of vicious men to
think others not less vicious than themselves, those who
form wicked plans of a public nature easily believe that
they shall have numerous supporters if they can manifest
at once their designs and their power by striking some one
important blow." These words appear to me extremely
applicable to the case before you. My Learned Friend
has argued upon the improbability of men in the prisoner's
situation of life—of a publican, a linen-draper, and a
watchmaker, conspiring to form themselves into a provi-
sional government for this country. But, Gentlemen, it
is a matter of history that similar acts have been contem-
plated by persons in similar situations in life. It was con-
templated by Brandreth, who was tried at Derby in 1117.
Thistlewood had the same object in view in what is called
the Cato-street conspiracy, and with the same improbabi
lity and extravagance of the design formed. But (says
my Learned Friend), the force was contemptible; and he
says ao because we merely produced a few specimens of
the arms picked up on the ground after the flight of the
mob. But, Gentlemen, instead of contemptible, the force
was a most formidable one; and I believe that for more
than a century past a more formidable force was never ar-
rayed against the Government in the island in which we
lite. Their numbers they themselves estimated at 14,000.
Upwards of 5,000 were with Frost, 5,000 with Williams,
and 2,000 with Jones. The.' amounts to 12,000; but one
of the expressions which tell from Williams was, that they
were to march and meet 14,000 more. These numbers were
armed in a most for midable manner with guns, with pikes,
and with bludgeons. They must have been drilled before-
hand; for they marched in what is called, in the old law
books, more guerrino—in a warlike manner—the guns first.
the pikes next, and the bludgeons behind; and thus they
marched into the town of Newport—not a mob but at,
army—an army which I believe exceeded in point of nutn-
bet s the force under the Pretender in 1746, when he reached
Derby, and spread alarm and consternation throughout the
realm ; and the battle of Prestonpans was a mere skir-
mish of a very small force compared with that assembled
under Mr. Frost in Newport in the year 1839. Many ob-
servations have been made on the probability of that part of
the design attributed which relates to giving notice of
success to the conspirators at Birmingham, by stopping the
mail. But nothing seems to me, Gentlemen, to turn on
the fact, which, though not sufficiently proved, I am ready
to admit that the stoppage of the mail coach from New-
port to Bristol, which conveys the bag there which is af_
terwards to go on to Birmingham, would not prevent the
mail coach going from Bristol to 'Birmingham as usual.
We are not on the part of the Crown bound to explain all
the details of the transaction, and to prove that they wer,
practicable and efficient ; but it seems to me that there was
no impossibility in the means alluded to of communicating
to Birmingham that their attempt had been crowned
with victory at Newport; for if they had blown up the
bridge, and stopped the communication, the bag from
Newport could not have reached Bristol, and consequently
would not have arrived at Birmingham, a fact easily to
have been ascertained by those on the watch there,
and thus the non-arrival of the mail bag at Birming-
ham might easily have been the signal for an insurrection
there, and for a general insurrection throughout the
country. But then it has been said there was no rising
at Birmingham ; but why was there not? because, under
Providence, by the firmness and vigilance of the Mayor
and the Magistrates, and by the gallantry of the troops,
the mail was not stopped, and the bag did, as usual arrive
at Birmingham, and the parties on the watch must there-
fore have known that the enterprise had failed, and that
the time had not arrived for a general rising. It has also
been said that the powder magazine was not seized nor
the bridge blown up, it is true; but why? The crowd
had not reached the bridge, they had to pass the West-gate
before they reached the bridge—they were defeated there
and fled—they could not therefore blow up the bridge,
because of the gallantry of the troops, and the firmness of
the Magistrates they were immediately dispersed. My
Learned Friends have also contended that it was impos-
sible to show on the part of the prisoner what the real
design and intention of this enterprise was, because the
witnesses themselves must necessarily avow themselves to
have been implicated in the transaction, and would con-
sequently be liable to prosecution tor high treason. It
is not disputed that witnesses might be produced who
knew what the design was ; indeed, looking at
the number of persons who were in communication
with the three leaders on the Friday before the out-
break, about thirty persons must have been aware of it.
Now, if the design were an innocent one, where would be
the difficulty of calling some of those persons who wer, at ;
the Coach and Horses en the Friday—where the di;fi-

culty of calling Barwell, the Secretary, to tell with what
design they resolved on marching to Newport and back.
If they came here to vindicate their own innocence and
that of the prisoner, can my Learned Friend say that in a
Court of Justice one hair of their heads would be hurt?
My Learned Friend did call some witnesses, and the first
witness called was called to speak to the intentions of the
prisoner, and he said he knew not what his objects were.
Why not, then, have called some witness who did know
his objects, and who would hate stated whether they were
innocent or not? It has been stated that the pressing of
men—and it was very ingeniously argued—is a proof
that the design was innocent, because pressed men could
never he forced into the service if the enterprise were one
of difficulty and danger. lam afraid that argument
is not worth much, for it often happens that of men
pressed into a service, some imbibe the spirit of those
with whom they are associated, and yield to the influence of
these around them. I need not remind you of the spirit of
sailors when pressed--of militia men—of the conscripts of
Buonaparte, but we have art historical fact applicable to
the present point—Brandreth's case. Brendreth wished
to take the town of Nottingham, and procured a number of
men from different parts of the country, and compelled them
to erigage in the illegal enterprise. into which they entered.
From the cross-examination of my Learned Friend, Mr.
Thomas, I thought it was intended to be proved that women
acre engaged in this enterprise, and that consequently it
was highly improbable that the design could have been such
ar I have represented it to be No such witnesses were
called ; on the contrary, it appears from the prisoner's own
witness, that the women all over the country on that fatal
eight were in a state of fear and alarm ; that thei did not
eo to bed—that they were up a;l night, and in the morn-
ing were eagetly watching for their husbands and thcir
sons; some of whom they were never to see more. A more
powerful argument, urged on the part of the prisoner is,
that he was not at the Westgate, and that he did not en_
cage in the assault on the Magistrates and the military.
The case of the Earl of Northumberland was alluded to.
In that case the Earl of Northumberland was marching to
Shrewsbury with an army. and did not arrive till the en-
gagernent was over, and he was held not to be guilty of
treason. But he Was held not guilty of treason on one
of two grounds, either that he was marching to the King's
assistance, or to mediate between the King and his son.
13ttt had it been proved that the Earl of Northumber-
land had been going to assist his son—had come in at
the close of the battle--had met the fugitives, and had
urged his men to advance to the rescue, there is no
doubt that he would have been guilty of treason. Now,
if you believe that 7ephaniah Williams had no object in
marching to Newport but to assist the Magistrates, and
to act in co-operation with the military—if you believe
that he was not engaged in a common enterprise
with Frost and with Jones, he is undoubtedly enti-
tled to your verdict of acquittal. But if he were engaged
in a cornrisori enterprise—if he intended to take part in the
insurrection and join hie, foreee with those of Frost at Risca,
,t the Welsh Oak, or at Newport, although he arrived
too late to participate in the attack—then I fear he is
clearly ettiltse Great reliance, Gentlemen, has been
placed upoti lHb case of Lord George Gordon, and my
Learned Friend say§ that great reliance will always be
placed upon it in cases of hie treason. I believe that
there will, and that in every case in which it is relied on
the same answer will ne given: It never was doubted
that if it had been proved that leotal George Gordon in-
cited and instigated the acts of outrage committed by the
mob, he would have been guilty of
;411 treason, But
the mob which burnt so many houses, amongst hers that
of the venerable Lord C. J. Mansfield, and which he,..
possession of the metropolis for some days, was not even
the same mob as that which Lord George Gordon
had very imprudently convened on several occa-
sions to petition for the repeal of Sir George
Saville's Act ; and Lord George Gordon had
previously gone to his Sovereign to offer his aid and
influence in quelling disturbance and outrage, and
acted in co-operation with the Sheriff of Middlesex for
that purpose. And on that occasion Lord Mansfield laid
down that, whether a grievance be real or pretended, whe-
ther the law be good or bad, it was clearly treason to seek
by the strong hand of the multitude to enforce repeal or
redress. The prisoner at the bar has received from se-
veral of the witnesses for the prosecution a peaceable and
quiet character. This shows that those witnesses bear no
grudge against him, and he is entitled to the full benefit
of their testimony. But should you find by clear,
strong, and convincing evidence that the prisoner has been
guilty of the acts proved with the design imputed to him,
I fear this will only prove that a person who up to an ad-
vanced period of life has maintained a good character, may
yet unhappily, be guilty of treason It has been stated,
and in that statement I most heartily concur, that your
verdict is not to be in any degree influenced by that
which has been given in the case of Frost; nor should I
have even alluded to that verdict had not my Learned
Friends drawn your attention to it. God forbid, Gentlemen,
that you should not exercise a free and independent judg-
ment for yourselves in the case of Zephaniah Williams, ant
on the evidence before you in that case alone. If you should
be of opinion that we have not in this case, by clear,
strong, and convincing evidence, proved the guilt of the
prisoner at the bar, he is most undoubtedly entitled to
your verdict. But if that guilt be proved by clear,
strong, and convincing evidence, you will not shrink from
the duty cast on you by the laws of your country. You
will consider that you have the life of the prisoner in
your hands; you have likewise in your hands the peace,
tranquillity, and good order of the country in which we
live. You will not forget what would have been the
lamentable consequences of this enterprise had it even for
a short time succeeded—what ruin would have been spread
over the land ; and you will consider the danger to which
the country must be exposed, if in a case of this sort,
where the evidence is so clear, strong, and convincing, a
Jury should shrink from the duty imposed upon them.
Gentlemen, I am sure from the anxious—most anxious at-
tention which you have shown to the evidence, on both
sides, and throughout the whole of the investigation, that
your verdict will be satisfactory to your own consciences,
and I am sure it ought to be satisfactory to your country.
The Jury then retired for a short time.
Before the summing up commenced,
Mr. Thomas, addressing the Bench, said—My Lords, if
lam guilty of any irregularity in what I am about to say,
I trust your Lordships will impute it only to my deep
anxiety, which is increased by the consciousness of my
own want of experience in cases of this kind, lest the inte-
rests of the prisoner should be in the least degree preju-
diced in my hands. My desire is, before your Lordships
proceed to lay the evidence before the Jury, again to re-
cord my solemn protest against any part of that evidence
going to the Jury, and to declare that nothing that has
passed, or that has fallen from me, must be understood as
abandoning the objection to the want of service of the in.
Mr.
not Baronsay
an Parkeun
nneoc we s
sparroyc
leeendge
tdh toof sumtime, p u
dictnsent and lists, according to the statute.
THE JUDGE'S CHARGE.
c.on sGi deenrtilneg.
men of the Jury—This inquiry, which has now lasted, I
wtlll
its deep importance to the interests of the country, and to
those of the prisoner at the bar, has now drawn to its close,
and you are now to pronounce your opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the prisoner at the bar in relation to the
ecinous offence with which he has been charged, upon the
evidence which has been given before you. I should have
thought it unnecessary to have troubled you with any ob-
servations in order to dispossess your minds of any pre-
possessions which they may have entertained prior to your
entering that box, knowing as I do how inconsistent it is
with the habits of British juries to suffer any previous im-
pressions to influence their verdict, had I not in
some measure been called upon by the Learned Coun-
sel for the prisoner so to do. I exhort you, there-
fore, to dismiss from your minds everything you may
have heard of or relative to this case before you came
to this Court, all improssiens derived from the public
prints, or from public or private discussions, and to leave
your minds free for the unbiassed and unprejudiced consi-
deration of the evidence before you. It is your duty also
not to suffer your minds to be impressed by any decision
which has been previously come to against any person in-
lieted for a participation in these transactions. On the
other hand, if you should be of opinion that the prisoner is
guilty of the crime of high treason, you must do your duty
firmly on this occasion, without any regard to the conse-
quences which the law attaches to the commission of such
an offence. It is net improper for the here to warn you
against paying any attention to a very considerable portion
of the speech of the Learned Gentleman who first ad-
dressed you on behalf of the prisoner—on topics which I
consider to be perfectly irrelevant to the present case. You
have heard a great deal from him about the conduct of in-
•Jividuals—some alluded to, and some mentioned by name
in the getting up of this prosecution—and the reasons
why it should or should not have been instituted. It
is not for you to pronounce upon the reasons for which
any public prosecutions are instituted : you are not to
decide whether in this respect the Attorney-General
has vindicated the institution of such prosecutions, nor is
it the duty of the Attorney_General to vindicate it; and
you will, therefore, dismiss all such topics that have oc-
cupied the time of the Court from your minds. The con-
duct of the Attorney_General or of the government
cannot alter the law, and the law must be on the case
itself received from the Judges, and nothing has ever
fallen from them to show that the law, as it regards
sedition and treason, has been altered, or that it has been
in late years different from what it was in the times of
our forefathers. You
must, therefore, pay no attention
to the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the pri-
soner in this respect. A great portion of that Learn-
ed Gentleman's speech which had been addressed to
the Jury in :point of form, but substantially to the Court,
was composed of a discussion of the law of the case;
but, as the Learned Attorney-General had very
correctly stated, the Jury were bound to receive the law
of the case from the Judge who presided_ He (the
Learned Judge), with the .sanction of his brethren, would
therefore state it to them, and it would be their duty to
apply it to the facts shown in evidence, for as it was the
dnty of the Judges thus to explain the law by which the
facta of the case were to be governed, so it was the duty
of the Jury to judge conscientiously upon every question
of fact, and any observations he might make upon these
facts would be simply for the purpose of assisting them in
eheir judgment upon it, and no further. The charge
against the i
pr-sonee, as stated in the indictment, alleged
that he had committed three acts of treason : first, that he
was guilty, with others, of levying war against the Queen
in her realm ; secondly,
—se that he conspired with others to
depose the Queen ; and, thirdly, that he conspired with
others to levy war against the Queen in these realms, in
order to oblige her by force to change her measures and
her councillors. The two last heads of the charge were
framed under a statute made in 1796, which had been
subsequently continued, and here he might say, with-
out any injustice to the prosecution or the pri-
soner, that they should confine themselves to the first
charge in the list; for if it were proved that the pri-
.oner had been guilty of the crime charged under that
head, " levying war against the Queen in her realm," then
an inquiry into the other two charges would be immaterial;
and it it were not immaterial, there had been no evidence
produced to show that the prisoner had conspired to de-
pose the Queen, or to levy war, in the sense charged under
the third head in the list. The duty of the Jury would
therefore be to Lee if the prisoner had levied war, in the
sense in which lie would tell them it must be levied, in
order to prove him &uilty of treason under the first head of

nieu ._

the indictment. The charge against the prisoner had
; been framed upon the ancient statute of Edward the Third.
The meaning of that statute had been considered, and many
,
opinions had been given upon it by text writers ; but the
law had been so clearly explained by Mr. Justice Faster,
in a passage which had been read to them by the
Attorney-General, that he could not do better than
read it to them again. Mr. Justice Foster lays down,
"that every insurrection, which in judgment of law is in-
tended against the person of the King, be it to dethrone or
imprison him, or to oblige him to alter his measures of
Government. or to remove evil counsellors from about him,
these risings will amount to levying of war within the
statute, whether attended with the pomp and circumstance
of open war or not ; and every conspiracy to levy war for
these purposes, though not treason within the clause of
levying war, is yet an overt act within the other clause,
compassing the King's death, for it cannot exist without
danger to the King's person. Insurrections, in order to
throw down all inclosures, to alter the established law, or
change religion, to enhance the price of all labour, or to
open all prisons; all risings to effect these innovations of a
public and general armed force, are in estimation of law,
within the clause of levying war. For, though they are
not levelled at the person of the King, they are against his
Royal Majesty ; and besides they have a direct tendency to
dissolve all the bonds of society, and to destroy all property,
arid Government too, by numbers and armed force. Insur-
rections likewise for redressing national grievances, o for
the expulsion of foreigners in general, or indeed of any
angle native living here under the protection of the King, or
for the reformation o: real or imag,:nary evils of a public na-
ture, in which the insurgents have no special interest;
risings to effect these ends by force and numbers are by
construction of labs within the clause of levying war, for
they are levelled at the King's Crown and Royal dignity,"
That construction of the law had prevailed since the time
of Sir Michael Foster, and had been so expounded by many
great lawyers Lord Mansfield had expounded to the same
effect ; and Lord Tentcrden, who had been the last Judge
who had occasion to give an exposithin of the statute in un-
fortunate cases of this kind, had given the same construc-
tion of it as Sir Michael Foster. He had then ,tared "It
may be proper for me to add, that it has been established
in the like manner that the pomp and circumstance of mili-
tary array, such as usually attend regular warfare, are by
no means necessary to constitute an actual levying of war
within the true meaning of the ancient statute ; insurrec-
tions and risings for the purpose of effecting by force and
number —however ill-arranged, provided, or organised—any
innovation of a public nature, or redress of supposed public
grievances, in which the parties had no special or particu-
lar interest or concern—have been deemed instances of the
actual levying of war ; and, consequently, to compass or
imagine such an insurrection, in order, by force and num-
' bers, to compel her Majesty to alter her measures or coun-
sels, will be to compass or :imagine the levying of war
against her Majesty for the purpose within the just mewl-
ing of the modern statute. Rebellion at its first commence-
ment is rarely found in military discipline or array, although
a little success may soon enable it to assume them."
This, therefore, the Jury will take to be the law. The
Learned Counsel for the prisoner had read to them copious
extracts from an able pamphlet, written by Mr. Lender,
upon the law of treason ; notwithstanding, however, the
arguments used „in that pamphlet, the law is and has
been laid down as I have quoted it to you.
But the present case appeared to be clear of
the objections urged in the pamphlet of Mr. Len-
der, whose two great objections to the law of high
treason, as had been laid down, were first in order to con-
stitute an act to be a levying of war, it must be accompa-
a by an armed force; and, secondly, that a mere public
n. sufficient, unless accompanied with an attack
-s. The present case, however, steered
it was alleged that the acts of
- armed force, and that
--rnment ; and,
-'rent of

object was it..

upon the Governmt-.... -
clear of those objections; toi _

the prisoner were accompanied by a.._
his intention was to subvert the present Go.,
therefore, if there were any weight in the erg.--
Mr. Leuder, still it did not bear upon the present cob:
It was for the Jury, therefore, to decide if, according to
the evidence, a case had been made out satisfactorily of
levying war against the Queen in the sense in which be
had explained it, and it was their duty carefully and dis-
passionately to consider the evidence, and if it did not
prove beyond all moral doubt, that the prisoner was guilty
of the offence with which he was charged, he was entitled
to their acquittal. No doubt could exist that the facts pro-
duced in evidence proved levying of war, and it was for the
Jury to say whether it was levied with the purpose with
which it was necessary to constitute high treason. It
was the duty of the Crown Counsel to prove this, and they
state that the object of these with whom the prisoner was
concerned was to take Newport—to subvert the authority
of the Queen and Magistrates—to stop the communication
of the post, and thereby make a signal in the north of
England, and ultimately establish the Charter the law of
the land, The Attorney-General properly said that it is
not necessary that he should establish all these facts, hut
that it was sufficient for him to prove any one of them
which was of a public nature, showing the intention of
subverting the Queen's Government, and substituting
another. The Jury, therefore, would see whether any
one point of this kind had been made out. On the other I
hand, the prisoner had properly urged bylhis Counsel that
he was not bound to explain any acts that might have
been committed by him, but the Crown was bound to
make out the object and intention of them. He said,
however, through his Counsel, that the object of those
for whom he was concerned was to make a moral de-
monstration—that they intended no act of violence, but
merely to show the force of a body of men
who held certain political opinions, and to show to
the Legislature that their strength was such that they could
take by force that which they required if they did not ob-
tain it otherwise. The prisoner himself having been called
on, contented himself with saying that he was innocent of
the offence imputed to him—that he had no design to sub-
vert the Queen's authority, and that some of the circum-
stances stated by the witnesses were untrue, but he made
no specific declaration of what his object or intention was.
It:was for the Jury to see if they were satisfied with the
facts that were produced No doubt the prisoner-was not
bound to explain his conduct or his objects; but, on the
other hand, as had been said by my Lord recently in that
place, if there was evidence as to certain facts and the in-
tention of the prisoner in reference to them, although he
was not bound to make any explanation of his objects,
yet, if he made no such explanation when the opportunity
was afforded to him, it might be taken, in some mea-
sure, as a presumption of his guilt. It had also been said
on the part of the prisoner, that he had not produced
witnesses who could prove that his real designs were not
treasonable, lest they, when produced, might be indicted
for high treason, as being also concerned in these transac.
tions ; but if the • object and intention amounted to less
than high treason, and could be proved to be so, why were
not those witnesses brought forward? He would now call
their attention to the mass of evidence which had been
produced to them ; but first he would address one or two
observations upon it. It was divided into three classes ;
the first of these embraced the history of a body of men
with which the prisoner was connected, which left Nantyglo
on Sunday, the 3d of November ; it traced it to Newport,
and gave the declarations and conversations of the men to
show what was their intent in marching down. The evi-
dence next proceeded to show that in this object the pri-
soners Mr. Frost and Jones, a prisoner who would be tried
hereafter, were all combined, for they were all three found
in the Coach and Horses public-house two or three days
before. This tended to show some evidence of a common
design. It then traced the acts of Frost, and proved by
declarations and by acts that Frost conducted the body
of men led by him with treasonable intent. It then deals
in the same way with the body which left Pontypool, and
proceeded to prove that the object of this, on going to
Newport, was treasonable. If, then, the Jury were satis-
fied that the intentions of Jones and Frost were treason-
able, and that the prisoner entertained the same design
with them, he was guilty of treason also. But the Jury
should be told that they should see whether the prisoner
concurred in those acts of Frost and Jones which were
treasonable ; for, as it has been well observed by the Coun-
sel who last addressed them for the prisoner, those per-
sons might have gone beyond what were the intentions of
the prisoner at the bar. They must, therefore, look
to the conduct and declarations of the prisoner himself,
which would be evidence much stronger than any other
as to whether he was guilty or not. They were to
judge of the credibility of the witnesses produced from
their conduct and demeanour. It had been said that
they were accomplices, 'but the witnesses themselves
denied this, and stated that they had been forced to join
the bands who Were concerned in these transactions. But
even accomplices were admissible as witnesses, although it
was the duty of the Jury carefully to watch the evidence
elicited from them. It would be most injurious to public
justice if no credit were to be attached to the evidence of
accomplices, for if this were so the most heinous offences
might go unpunished. The Learned Judge then recapi-
tulated the evidence at great length, and said that the
Jury would have to give their opinion upon that evidence ;
the law they would have to take from him. If the object
of the insurrection of these armed men was either to take
Newport, and subvert the Queen's authority there, or
stop the communication by post, so as to make it a
a signal for a general insurrection—if either of these
objects was contemplated by those persons in arms,
that unquestionably, according to the Act of Parlia-
ment to which he referred, was a levying of war; and
then if the prisoner had concurred in it, and was on
his march towards Newport to effect it, even though he did
not enter the town, he was guilty of treason. It was for
them to consider how the case for the prosecution was con-
tradicted or explained on the part of the prisoner, and for
them to come to a conscientious conclusion. As to the
admissibility of the evidence, there could be no doubt re-
specting it. There was very strong evidence to show that
Frost and Jones were guilty of treason; but then the jury
had to see whether they could come to the like conclusion
as to Zephaniah Williams. Upon this point he advised
them to pay the greatest attention to the evidence ; the
most satisfactory evidence was that which proved his acts
and declarations, accompanied as they were by the expla-
nations that had been given to them. They were to
say what effect they would give to these declarations.
He should call their attention to the declaration alleged
to be made by the prisoner, and they as men of judg-
ment would declare what conclusion they came to con-
cerning them. The Learned Judge here referred to evidence
given by Saunders, Hawkins; and Anthony. They gave
evidence of his declarations and his acts, and they were to
take these in conjunction with the prisoner's going from
Nantyglo to Newport, and the explanation be gave as to
his purpose in going there. It was not necessary for him
to show that his purpose was an innocent one, but only
that it was not treasonable ; and they would then judge as
men of sense whether his explanation was a reasonable one
or not. The crime of high treason was to be proved in
the same way as every other cr.,ne. No man should be
found guilty except on testimony which would leave no
Imonable doubt of his guilt. If they entertained a doubt,
the prisoner had a right to demand an acquittal. If, on
the other hand, they took an opposite view, and thought
the case was fairly made out, then their duty to their
country, although a painful one, required them to find a
verdict of guilty. In whatever way their verdict might be
given, he was sure, from the attention they had paid to
the case, and the manner in which they had conducted
themselves, that it would he satisfactory to the public
The Jury having retired for twenty-five minutes, returned
a verdict of Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

Mr. Baron Parke said—l will take care to forward your
recommendation to the proper quart,r ; tat al w,
can say.
. . _

The prisoner, although he had appeared: dreadully de-
pre,sed during the proceedings, beard the verdict
great firmness and composure.
Before thy. Jury returned,

Chief Justice Tindal asked it -here were any bills .o
before the Grand Jury, or whether they could be now dis-
charged.

Tile Attorney-General regretted that the exigencies of
the public service would not permit the discharge of the
Grand Jury at present. The circumstances, however, he
was not at liberty now to mention. On Thursday, per-
haps, they might be discharged.
The Chief Justice communieatoil to the 'Foreman of the
Grand Jury, Lord Granville j, n rs t, t),O reAVt of the
application.
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JONES, THE WATCH-
MAKER, THE THIRD LEADER OF THE
INSURGENTS.

During the absence of the Jury in Zephaniah Williams's
case, William Jones oas ordere:l to be placed at the bar,
which was accordingly done.
Mr. Owrn, the prisoner's attorney, appli, d that do
trial should be pgstponed, on the ground, as we understood,
that the prisoner's Counsel were not present.

Chief •Justiee Toidd s:l4-1 t.%, <et,4l;l as he wt-+e,l
a Jury to be empantieilcd, in order to viloa the o'ber per-
sons who had been summoued r‘t thoir honiei for
day or two. Th, prisoner, t!lq be". put ,o 1
his trial till to morrow morniniz. To,y would (tidy take
the ehallentres to-nin-ht.

The empnnelling a Jury then proecoded. togr:Jimr with
the challenges.

Up to the hour when OUT ezpri•ss left, only three Jurors
had been sworn.

SI,ORTESti IN'rELLIGENun,

TATTERSALL't=i—YFSTERDAY.
The betting commenced e:trlier than usual, and if we were
to judge by the bustle which prevailed to the close of the room,
we might venture to call it a busy afternoon; looking, howe-
ver, at the actual amount and character of the betting, we are
bound to state that there was '• much cry and little wool." A
formidable list of favourites will be found under the Deibv
heal, but not many changes of moment. Theon was backi4:
at 12 to 1 in hundreds, and afterwards at a point more for a
small sum ; 12 to 1 (and in one quarter 12i to 1), was the
offering price at the close. The Angelica colt left off at 16 to
1, takers, and had several friends; ditto Launeelot at 18 to I,
and Bokhara at 20 to 1 ; Ottoman opened at 30 to I, taken,
and receded three points, also taken. An opposite movement
gave Confederate a lift of three points, with a tolerably strong
party; the same (30 to 1) was accepted about St. Andrew,
whose backer was anxious to "go on." Except in the case
of May Boy, who was on the decline, and Scott's lot, which
advanced half a point, nothing else worth any record beyond the
(potations below occurred; 1,000 to 5 was betted agst Na-
worth, qualified or not. In the Oaks we have only to point
nut an improvement in Black Bess; the highest odds offered
against her were 13 to 1, but whether this was her actualprice
se e could not positively ascertain; we believe, however, that
an advance of a couple of points would not have been made ix
vain. Crucifix still first favourite, but no odds named.

THE DEXIT.
4 to 1 agst Scott's lot—taken and afterwards offered
12 to 1 agst Theon (Brother to Euclid)—take 13 to 1
16 to 1 agst Angelica colt—taken
18 to 1 agst Launcelot—taken
20 to 1 agst Bokhara—taken
25 to 1 agst Wardan
25 to 1 agst Gambia—taken and afterwards offered
SO to 1 agst Confederate—taken
30 to I agst St. Andrew—taken
3.3 to 1 agst Lady Sarah—taken.
33 to 1 agst Ottoman—taken
35 to 1 agst Prince Albert
40 to 1 agst Velvet colt—taken and afterwards offered
1000 to 20 agst Assassin—taken
2000 to 35 agst Monops ( Wing's colt)--taken
1000 to 15 agst Molyneux—taken
'"00 to 15 agst Chameau—taken
1,,
40 agst May Boy—taken
4000 to .
1::st
~Blacktm.et ta—takenßess--taken and afterwards offered
4000 to 40 a
4000 to 40 agst
ate
_taken
19 to 1 agst Confede: and Fitzroy
3000 even taken between
uncelot and Bokhara—taken
1000 to 5 agst Naworth, qualifiet: or not—takea
(The bet agst Christinetta was 1ai.".1 on Thursday last.)

THE OAKS.
ft to 1 agst Lalla Rookh—taken
13 to 1 agst Black Bess
25 to 1 agst Welfare—taken
700 to 100 agst Black Bess—taken

MESSRS LOVETT AND COLLINS.--Sir Eardley
Wilmot had addressed a letter to the Marquis of Nor-
manby defending the Warwick Magistrates for sub-
jecting Messrs. Collins and Lovett to the prison
regulations and maintaining that it belongs to the
Secretary of State to order them any particular fa-
vour or treatment. Sir Eardley then shows at some
length, with great humanity, that the health of the
two prisoners is likely to sink under their treatment,
and pleads for a remission of their sentence. Fol-
lowing up this, a petition to the House of Com-
mons has been prepared, which will, no doubt, be
numerously signed by the working classes of Lon-
don, setting forth that in former similar offences the
punishment was limited to the security of the per-
' son ; that Lovett and Collins have been restricted to
gaol allowance, and treated like felons ; that the
change of diet made them both ill, that they were
allowed a little tea, being unable to eat the por-
ridge ; that they had no other animal food than
was contained in soup given twice a-week, and
eaten with a wooden spoon out of wooden bowls,
the-appearance of the gaol soup being such so
caused their stomachs to revolt ; that they
had been confined in a cell with a brick floor,
and were not allowed any covering for their
feet except stockings, and had neither fire
nor candle ; subsequently they had a better cell,
and were allowed a part►al fire ; their money was
taken from them, and neither food nor drink beyond
the gitol allowance was permitted ; once in a quarter
of a year only, avid then only for one hour, and by
one person at a time, in presence of a turnkey, were
they allowed to see a visitor; they could neither
write nor receive a written communication ; they
had no books, except such as the chaplain sanc-
tioned, in the better cell they were compelled to
sleep together in one narrow bed, a second bed
being occupied by a convict ; their diet for nearly
six months consisted of per day 1/lbs. of good
bread, llb. of bad potatoes, tea twice a day, salt,
and water ; and thus these respectable men were
reduced to a comparative state of starvation ; that
all applications to obtain better treatment had been
answered in the negative ; that these respectable
men are sinking under this treatment, which is a spe-
cies of torture to which no nign should be subjected,
and an approximation to the abominable practices
of the Star Chamber ; that such treatment, if not
discountenanced and made illegal, will become a
fearful precedent to be afterwards extensively ap-
plied. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the
House will provide a remedy, and prevent the coun-
try- falling into a worse state than formerly. The
whole subject will, we understand, be brought
before Parliament almost as soon as it assembles,
in order that the severe treatment which these two
gentlemen have suffered may not be formed into
a precedent.
PENNY POSTAGE.—We have received several
letters complaining of twopence being the charge
on each letter instead of a penny, because the
letters are not pre-paid ; of the additional sum
charged for over-weight, of the burden of pre-pay-
ment to those who have not before paid at all, &c.,
&c. We beg our readers, correspondents, and the
public at large to have a little patience, and they
will soon find means to surmount these difficult:es.
For example, the weight may be reduced by using
only fine paper, for letters, proofs. manuscripts,
&c., sze. For example, also, whet► it is con-
venient to merchants to send their invoices by
post, though they have not been accustomed
to pay the postage, it will be easy for them
to arrange the business with their customers, and
charge them a penny, where they now have to pay
fourpence or sixpence to the postman, with a great
saving to both parties. We cannot possibly insert
the many communications we have already received
on this subject. We must mention, however, with
approbation the recommendation of one Corie•.
spondent to all merchants and traders to avoid
sending letters and invoices in parcels of goods.
If they send them by post, they will then have two
chances to one of the things arriving safely at their
destination. One Correspondent suggests to those
who will not wait half-an-hour at the Post-office
to pre-nay letters, to inclose- the postage under
cover to the Postmaster. We cannot see what
end this would serve. The twopence under an en-
velope would not enable the bearer to get quicker
through the crowd, nor diminish, but rather in-
crease, the labour of the letter-sorter.

DEATH OF THE DOWAGER MARCHIONESS
OF HASTINGS.—The decease of this Noble Lady took
place at Kelburne House, the seat of the Earl of Glas-
gow, on Thursday, the 9th inst., at half-past eleven
o'clock P.M. 'Her Ladyship died in perfect peace, and
apparently without pain. The Morning Post says,
"her medical attendant is of opinion that the immediate
cause of death was water on the brain, and that this
disease was the result of extreme mental anxiety and
distress." The Marquis is now, of course, Earl of Lou-
doun, and combines in his own person an English Mar-
quisate, a Scottish and Irish Earldom, with the subordi-
rrate titles attached to each.

RE-EXPORT OF WOOLLEN GOODS.—Within
the last three weeks, over a million and a half of wool-
len goods have been re-shipped back to England. These
shipments have been made for two reasons. First, they
would not pay a profit, and, next, the parties were fear.
ful that the Collector would seize them, as he seized a
large portion of woollens that have been before im-
ported. The difference to the revenue will be very
great.—New York Paper.

CORN-LAW CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE ,NIANUFA(;TURERSOF ENGLAND,
IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND.

_.~,..

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN,

gnu do me the favour to insert in your in-
!.ellient alto, w;dely circulating J.,urnal the following
fouls to he Corn-saw repr•alers. lam a farmer, and a
repealer of the Corn-laws, but the manufacturer should
suggest to the farmers that he will advocate a repeal
of the malt tar, and a repeal of the post-horse •duty',
and, in fact, all duty chargeable to horses and veki.
des used by all classes of people ; by this plan yoxt
will materially increase the use of horses, and also increase.
tee consumption of corn, and will give a stimulant to
employtnr•nr., end bring over many of my farming friends
to ;. sere.., of their own interest. That is the plan to get the
tamer t.• of service to the manufacturer in this great
nalioa:d slrtwele for some alteration in the abominable
Corn Starvation-law that now exists; as you know that
the duty on horses and posting at present is ale
means of closing up this sort of business; so that if some-
thing ,s not done, we shall have a superabundar,:•e of horses
and no employment or them.
I remain, Sir, a Subscriber,
And a constant admirer of your talents,
A FARMER.
N ar Sun,,erlatri, 11th Jan., 1840.