The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-07 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON,

THE CHARTIST TRIALS.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
THE TRIAL OF WILLIAMS AND VERNON.

- -
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
On the return of the jury,
Mr. PARRY proceeded to address the jury on behalf of
the prisoner. If, he said, he could believe that the minds
of the jury were entirely unprejudiced against the pri-
soner, the duty which he had to perform on the present
occasion would have been much more easy, and of a
more pleasant nature than he anticipated it would
be. If, however, he was compelled to occupy
much of their time, he trusted that the importance
of the case would be a sufficient excuse. It had

been said that if twelve Englishmen were empa-
nelled and placed in the box, and an Attorney-General
were to appear before them as a prosecutor, and say that
the prisoner had been guilty of disturbing the peace and
speaking seditious language, the fear of panic was so
great in this country, in consequence of the late
events on the Continent, that the jury were
certain to convict the prisoner. He trusted,
however, if they were embued with any prejudice
that they would wrestle with it and expel it from their
minds. A great deal of abuse had been heaped upon
those who were called Chartists, but did they know
that Charles James Fox, who was one of the most
enlightened meet of his day, gave his consent and support
to the principles contained in the People's Charter,
including the payment of Members of Parliament, which
part of it was considered so absurd and ridiculous?
That was in 1780, before Mr. Fox became contaminated
with the conduct of Lord North, but he lived
to redeem the error he had committed by assisting in
passing many measures of political reform. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the Reform Bill agi-
tation, and quoted passages from speeches delivered by
Lord John Russell and others, to show that equally
seditious and inflammatory language as that alleged
to be used by the prisoner was then uttered
with impunity. He admitted that the meeting on
Clerkenwell-green was an unlawful meeting, and
he regretted that under such circumstances it should
have taken place, believing that instead of pro-
moting the progress of reform it had, in a great degree,
tended to retard it. But during the time of the Reform
Bill agitation there were repeated instances of monster
meetings taking place and marching in procession
through the streets of London to the King's palace and
the House of Commons, without any prosecution being
instituted by the Attorney-General. Indeed, if the
Whigs, instead of being in power were on the opposite
side of the House, they would in all probability have
given their support to the parties now under prosecution.
The jury would no doubt remember the trial of Mr.
O'Connell—the enthusiastic manner in which that emi-
nent man was received by the Whigs in this metropolis,
after his trial, and the fact that the Duke of Bedford
and Lord John Russell subscribed towards defraying
the expense of his defence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took an exception to this
statement.
Mr. PARRY said the Atterney General might take
what exception he liked; but he was speaking to a
matter of tact, and not to a point of law, and he again
repeated, in spite of what had fallen from the Learned
Attorney-General, that the Duke of Bedford and Lord
John Russell did contribute towards Mr. O'Connell's
expenses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appealed to the Court
whether the Learned Counsel ought to persist in a
statement that could neither be proved nor controverted
on that occasion.
The COURT thought the Learned Counsel ought not
to persist in such statements.
Mr. PARRY said their Lordships did not stop the
Attorney-General yesterday, when he was alluding
to Communism in France, and the horrors which had re-
sulted there from the adovacacy of such principles; and
whatever interruption he might meet with, no matter
from what quarter it came, he was determined to perse-
vere in that course which his deliberate judgment might
dictate was fur the benefit of his client.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE insisted that the Learned
Counsel was most irregular in making such a statement.
lie was desirous to give every possible license to counsel
fur the benefit of a client, but it' counsel persisted in fol-
lowing the dictates of his owl, mind, however irrelevant
and opposed to the practice of the Court, be for one
would protest against such a course.
Mr. PARRY said no doubt the Court had decided
against him, but there were numerous instances at the
bar where counsel had pursued a coarse which the bench
had protested against. There was tie well-known case
in which Mr. Cockburn was engaged on the Western
Circuit, when he told the jury not to pay any attention
to the law which made duelling murder, and was not
interrupted by Mr. Baron Parke. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded at some length to observe upon the evi-
dence for the prosecution, and contended that there
were no sufficient grounds to criminate Vernon.
Henry J. Potter (the reporter) was then called and
examined by Mr. METCALFE—He attended the meeting
on Clerkeuwell-green, on the 29th of May, us a reporter.
The witness Fowler was also there. lie saw Vernon
get into the van. When the meeting broke up Williams
told the people to fall into marching erder, and the per-
sons in the van all got out. He (witness) was the last
who remained in the van. The procession then moved
off, and in Red Lion-street he saw Vernon and his three
friends who were with it go into a public•house, and
there he lost sight of them. He met the procession
again at the corner of Wilderness-row, and followed it
as tar as Finsbury-square, where he saw Vernon and
his friends again. He was not able to swear whether
Vernon was at the head of the procession. They re-
mained some time in the square, and he followed the
procession afterwards to Dean-street; Soho. He saw
Vernon again in Holborn.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Vernon
and a man with mustachios got out of the van together.
Vernon was present during part of the time that Fussell
was speaking, but he could not say whether he was
there when he spoke about private assassination. When
he saw Vernon in Holborn he was near Little Turnstile,
walking by the side of the procession. He tried to
speak to Vernon, as he seemed to be the most re-
spectable man in the mob, for the purpose of knowing
what their object was, and where they intended to go.
Saw him again opposite the Land and Labour Bank, at
the junction with New Oxford-street.
Re-examined by Mr. PARRY—IIe was unable to get
any answer from Vernon.
Charles Smith, picture dealer and bookseller, in
Wardour-street, said on the day in question he went
to the meeting at Clerkenwell-green. He arrived a
few minutes past seven o'clock, and saw Ver-
non get out of the van, and did not see him
again until he was in Old-street. He was then walking
with another person about 500 yards behind the
stragglers of the procession. Saw him again in Finsbury-
square ; but he did not appear to be in the procession.
Witness then took Vernon's arm, and they walked
together to a public-house in Chiswell••street for some
refreshment, where they remained a quarter of an hour.
He parted with Vernon at the corner of Chiswell-street,
and he then appeared to go in the direction of Moorgate-
street. Witness then went ahead of the procession to
Smithfield Market, where he saw it pass, but did not
see Vernon with it, although he looked in all directions
for him. Met the procession again in Leicester-square,
but did not observe Vernon.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Had
only known Vernon as a public man.—(Laughter.) He
meant he only knew him as a lecturer on phrenology and
mesmerism. Had not seen any placard calling the
meeting, and attended at the invitation of a person named
Dalrymple.
John Dalrymple, carpenter and builder in Pulteney-
street, Golden-square, who was also present at
the meeting, gave similar testimony.
William Godfrey, a police-constable, stated that he
apprehended Vernon in Sussex-street, Tottenham-court..
road, which he understood was his residence.
The witness was cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL with the view of showing that the route it
was proved Vernon took was not in a direction towards
his residence.
This was the case for the defence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury fur
the prosecution, and
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up the case.
The jury retired at ten minutes past six to deliberate
upon their verdict, and at seven o'clock they returned
into Court and delivered their verdict, finding Vernon
Guilty upon the first count of being present at an un-
lawful assembly, and Williams Guilty of the whole charge
of being present at an unlawful assembly and riot.
NEW COURT.
(Before the REcoRDER.)
Ann Fuel, a girl about 16 years of age, and Ann Wood-
house, aged 25, were indicted for stealing several sums
of money, the property of John Woodhouse.
It appeared that the elder prisoner was daughter-in-
law to the prosecutor, who is a farmer and market-gar-
dener at Edmonton. The younger prisoner was prose-
cutor's servant, and, under the direction of the elder pri-
soner, had for months past been in the habit of plunder-
ing the prosecutor, who, not being able to read or write,
did not keep any account of the monies he used to put
away, and would not, upon this occasion, have known
ho had been robbed but for the sum extracted from his
drawers, namely, twelve sovereigns, being sufficiently
large for him to know there was a diminution of his
store. Is being discovered that the two prisoners had
been spending a quantity of money in wearing apparel,
the younger prisoner was taxed, and she admitted the
theft, and said the elder prisoner had instigated her to
commit the act.
In answer to the Court, the prosecutor said the
daughter-in-law and his son were most abandoned
characters, and he did all he could for them, allowing
them to live on his farm and support them. His son
had threatened to shoot him if he proceeded with this
ease, and had refused to leave his farm. They were
continually plundering him, and he did not know how
to protect himself.
The Jury found the younger prisoner guilty, but the
evidence against the elder one not being conclusive iu
legal view, the Recorder directed her acquittal.
The Recorder told the prosecutor that the sooner he
got rid of his son and daughter-in-law the better, and
cautioned the woman against any act of violence to-
wards the prosecutor, as a severe punishment would be
awarded to her and her husband, if convicted of such an
offence. Had the Jury been allowed to convict her
upon the present indictment, he should have passed
a heavy sentence. The judgment upon Fuel was re-
spited.
No other case of any interest occurred during the day.
THIRD COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BuLeocx.)
Daniel Rush was indicted for a misdemeanour in
selling a scurrilous pamphlet, reflecting disgrace upon
the character of Mr. William Cluff.
The defendant said he did not know the contents of
the pamphlet he sold.
The Jury found him Guilty, and he was sentenced
to two months' imprisonment.