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

V7HITECHAPEL.

Our Market was steady to-day, and last week's prices
ware well supported in every instance. Beef, from
2s 10d to 3s 8d ; Mutton, 3s 4d to 4a 8d; Lamb, 4s 8d
to 3s 6d; Veal, 3s 4d to 4s 2d; and Pork, 3s 6d to 4s 6d
per Bibs. by the carcase.

THE CHARTIST TRIALS.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
THE TRIAL OF FUSSELL.

The body of the court became crowded soon after
half-past nine. The attendance of barristers was very
large. The gallery was but thinly attended.
The Attorney-General entered the court at ten o'clock.

Shortly after the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
accompanied by Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Justice
Mettle, took their seats upon the bench.
Joseph Irenteus John Fussell was then called upon,
and surrendered on his bail. The defendant was placed
immediately under the dock ; when he took up his
position he became an object of curiosity for some
minutes to the Learned .Tudges and those present. The
following is the charge as set down in the calendar—
" Remanded from the last session, standing indicted for
unlawfully, in the press ace and hearing of divers sub-
jects of our lady the Queen, uttering, &c., certain sedi-
tious words against our said lady the Queen and her
goverament, &c."

" The Attorney-General, with whom were Mr. We'shy,
Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Clarke apreared for the prosecution.
Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Huddlestone appeared
for the defendant.

Mr. Staight, the Clerk of the Arraigns (to the
defendant)—Prisoner at the bar, are you guilty or not
guilty?
Fussell (in a loud voice), Not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN then applied to their Lordships
to quash the indictment, or to call upon the Attorney-
General to elect on which eounts he should proceed.
The offences charged against the defendant were—
sedition' attending an unlawful assornbly, and with riot.
As each count charged a separate and distinct offence,
and as the evidence on each would differ, be contended
that the application he bad made should be acceded to.
If it were not, the defendant would be embarrassed in
his defence. He cited authorities in support of his
view.
Mr. HIIDDLESTONE followed.

The Learned Judges, having consulted,
Chief Justice WILDE said, his Learned Brothers
agreed with him that the application could not be enter-
tained. It was the duty of the Court to see that the
case against the prisoner was not conducts d in in a way
likely to embarrass him in his defence. The whole of
th• offences charged might have been committed on one
occasion, and one might resolve itself into the others;
he could not well see how they could be separated. One
of his Learned Brothers had informed him that he once
tried a man who was charged with wounding nine cows
in the same stable. There were nine counts in the in-
dictment, and an objection was made to the indictment,
on the ground that it might resolve itself into nine dis-
tinct charges, and that the prisoner might be
punished on all, but the Court, entertaining a different
opinion, overruled the application. As it appeared from
the indictment that the offences charged were com-
mitted upon one occasion, the Court did not consider
that the prisoner would be embarrassed in his defence.
They could not, therefore, entertain the motion.

The defendant having been again arraigned and
pleaded " Not guilty," as before,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded to address; the
jury. He said he could assure them that he should
have been well pleased if he could have terminated his
official career without appearing before them as a public
prosecutor, in any proceeding arising out of the poli-
tical disturbances of the time; but the circumstances which
had led to the institution of this prosecution were such,
that he was quite convinced they would be of opinion,
when they heard them, that if he had hesitated to assert
the dignity of the law that he should have deservedly
laid himself open to have the severest censure pro-
nounced upon him. Not only had the prisoner at
the bar been guilty of conduct which at any
time would have rendered him liable to the utmo:st
punishment that the law could inflict upon him, but he
bad taken advantage of the temporary distress that pre-
vailed in the country to excite the passions of the multi-
tude, and this prosecution had been instituted not only
to warn others who may have become the victims of
such arts, owing to their distress and ignorance, but
to assure the well-disposed subjects of the Queen that
the law is strong enough, and that its administrators are
ready to punish with severity those guilty of a violation
of the public i.2ace. They would concur with bins in '
thinking that it was not right that tho country should
be kept in a continual state of alarm, and that those IN ho
came forward to maintain the public peace, and to assist
the Government in suppressing disturbances, should
be kept continually in a state of excitement by
those who acted like the defendant and others, doing
their best to p:tralyse trade, to the successful carrying
on of which alone could they hope for support. He had
made these prefatory remarks in justification, if justifica-
tion were required, with respect to the course which he
had felt it his duty on behalf of the Government to pur-
sue on this occasion; but it was altogether unnecessary
for him to warn them, who were gentlemen of great ex-
perience, that they must not allow themselves in the
course of these proceedings to be influenced by any
motives, save that which as good citizens, desirous of
preserving the peace of the country, they should be
actuated. They of course must take into consideration
the evidence alone which would be produced before
them, and dismiss from their minds, as tar as they could,
all which they had either heard, read, or seen, in rela-
tion to the matter before them, before they watered that .

box ; and decide, as was their duty, upon the evidence
alone. They had learned from the preliminary discus-
sion that had taken place, that the indictment contained
the main charge against the prisoner—that of sedition
—in various forms—namely, as having uttered seditious
language, taking part in an unlawful assembly, and of
taking part in a riot. Although it would not
become him, after what had been said by the
Lord Chief Justice to make any observations with re-
spect to what had fallen from him in answer to the ap-
plication of his Learned Friend, he might be allowed to
say, on the part of himself and of his Learned Friends,
that if he had been called upon to reply to the objec-
tions urged, that he should have stated that he should
feel it his duty to adopt no course in this proceeding
which might be calculated to embarrass the defendant
in his defence, and that, as his Lordship had said, he
should confine the prosecution to the proof of the main
charge, sedition, though the indictment contained three
charges, to each of which it branched off. The
charge, therefore, which the defendant would have to
answer would be that of seditious speaking, taking part
in an unlawful assembly, and with being guilty of riot—
the judgment of the Court upon all of which would be
precisely the same, but with respect to the count charg-
ing riot, it was in the discretion of the Court to super.
add the punishment of hard labour. Before he pro-
ceeded to state the facts of the case against the defendant,
which he should do as briefly as possible, they would,
ho trusted, forgive him if he availed himself of
this opportunity, so different from those that
presented themselves on ordinary occasions, of
making one or two observations upon the law appli-
cable to cases of this description; and although, of
course, in the formation of your opinion you will be
governed by the direction of his Lordship—and if I am
wrong in any particular I beg of the Court to correct
me—yet, standing as he did in a public position, he
might be excused if he stated, from authority, what the
law was, that others besides the defendants might take
warning as to the consequences which they would
entail upon themselves by acting as he had done,
and in order, if they did render themselves
amenable to the law, that they might not
plead ignorance when they were punished for taking
part in proceedings of this nature. The first count in
the indictment charged the defendant with sedition, and
the offence had not been improperly defined by the Com-
missioners appointed to inquire and report upon the na-
ture of the offence. And the offence was settled and
defined as this—as tending to injure and endanger the
political constitution of this country by violent public
tumults, by exciting discontent in the minds of the
people, and by thereby exposing the Sovereign and public
functionaries to public contempt, and thus exciting sud-
den political changes by unlawful means. The
Commissioners added that such offences might be re-
garded as " assaults upon the constitution, and though
they may not threaten destruction to the Crown and
Government, ought nevertheless to be punished." And,
in truth, although the offence be inferior in character to
the high and grave offence of treason, and though the
punishment differed greatly from that awarded to the
higher crime, yet, no doubt, sedition was an offence of a
most serious character, and did require to be repressed
upon every occasion by the strong arm of the law. The
late Lord Tindal in addressing a jury upon this subject
clearly defined the danger of the offence, how easily an
innocent person might be made to suffer for the guilty.
He looked upon the testimony of that eminent Judge as
of the highest kind, and as tending to the honour of that
profession of which he (the Attorney-General) was but
an humble member,.and to that of the public. He said in
effect that every person who was knowingly present,
and knowingly took part in a meeting which was made
the means of addressing language to the persons so as-
sembled of a violent and intemperate nature were
guilty of taking part in an unlawful assembly,
and though unaccompanied by any circumstances of
violence to give it the character of a seditious meeting,
yet, the mere fact of being present at similar meetings at
which such violent and intemperate language was ad-
dressed to the assembly, constituted an attendance at an
unlawful assembly, or the second charge is this indict-
ment. The Learned A ttorney-General then read the
charge of Chief Justice Tindal at Bristol, at the trial of
the Bristol rioters, in extenso—(as it has recently ap-
peared in the newspapers we do not think it necessary
to introduce it into our columns.) He thought their
Lordships would agree with him that this was a full and
clear exposition of the law applicable to charges of this
description—namely, sedition, but also of the conse-
quences of designedly attending a meeting of this de-
scription, where seditious words were addressed to the
people assembled. But there were other circumstances
that materially constituted such assemblies unlawful, and
as they were fully and clearly set forth
in the charge of Mr. Baron Alderson at the
special commission at Monmouth, at the trial of Mr.
Vincent in the year 1839. He did not know that he
could do better than read it. Having read the address,
he proceeded to say—That Learned Baron said, pro-
ceedings such as those adopted at assemblies like that
out of which the present proceedings had arisen, " con-
stituted an assembly of a highly dangerous character,
which ought to be suppressed by the strong arm of the
law." But there was a further circurnstasice which
ought to be well known to the public—if persons went
to such assemblies from mere idle curiosity, thus swell-
ing the concourse of people, creating and aggravating the
alarm, they had no right to complain if in the confusion of
the disturbance, though perfectly innocent, they were suf-
ferers. There was yet this further consequence resulting
from attending meetings of this description. If a person
went to one of them from idle curiosity they must take
the whole of the consequences if they were punished
with those who had confederated together to call toge-
ther designedly tumultuous public assemblies. Ile made
this observation in that public court in order that those
who felt disposed to take a part in such unlawful
assemblies might know the consequences to
which they were exposing themselves. If those who
were present at the meeting at which Fussell spoke the
words imputed to him were proved to have acted in
concert, they would all be amenable to the law. The
meeting in question, which had led to this proceeding,
took place on Monday, the 29th of May; it was held
after seven o'clock in the evening of that day. A
number of similar meetings had been held which had
excited terror in the minds of the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood. It was held without any previous an-
nouncement; they would hear from the language used by
the speakers on that occasion that by some secret
communication with those speakers the proceedings were
arranged by some private understanding till held with-
out any notice. Upon that occasion some thousands__
he believed as many as 2,000 or 3,ooo—were present.
A van was drawn out into the centre of the meeting,
and two persons addressed the assembly before
Fussell appeared. The first speaker was a person
named W tlliams, whose words he would read to
show that the assembly was an unlawful one,
not for the purpose of showing that the defendant
was responsible for words uttered by another.
" Div friends," said Williams, " the bloody aristocracy
has done its work at last. Although we have got a
Government spy amongst us, we don't care. That man,
I know, has transported his own sons; but keep the
peace, my friends. If any one disturbs you, IhopeNwyoou
have sufficient energy to defend yourselves.
keep the peace, and I will take you to a place where
you will meet five times the number of men collected

here. When I give you a signal I want you to fall into
marching order four abreast and follow where I will lead

you, no matter where. I will take you to a place where
you will meet ten times more men than are here, and there
you will be advised what to do. I don't fear banishment

any more than that brave, noble, and patriotic man,
Mitchel; he does not care for it. Mitchel has been
sacrificed by the ruling Government. He has been
murdered by those • base, brutal, and bloody Whigs,'
through the instrumentality of a packed jury and par-
tisan judge." Fussell, as he had said, was in the van.
Williams was followed by a man named Macarthy, who
said he agreed with Williams with respect to his con-
demnation of the Whigs. lie asked would the peo-
ple of Ireland allow John Mitchel to be taken
from his native land; if they allowed him to be
taken from his native land many other brave men
would fall victims to the diabolical Gagging Bill, and it
was now the time for all who valued liberty to strke the
blow. Ireland would rise in arms. If that country had
been quiet, it was only that it might recruit its strength,
and make a bold effort to release itself from the tyranny
at the proper time." Let the jury recollect that this
language was addressed to the lower orders of society—
persons suffering from the depression of trade at that time,
which was considerably aggravated by their being there
at all, and who naturally brooded over their wrongs,
whether real or supposed, and were, therefore,
the more readily open to the mischievous designs of
those who addressed them. Then the defendant Fussell
said, " A base Government had by means of a
packed jury and subservient judges succeeded in
obtaining the conviction of honest John Mitchel.
John Mitchel had asserted that the Queen
had forgotten her duty to her country, and
he declared the same opinion. If she neglected her
duty they should refuse to recognise her. Government,
it had been said, had acted upon expediency, but that
was a ridiculous plea for conduct so arbitrary and
disgrseeful. He wished to impress upon the
meeting that there was one safe Way of
getting rid of rulers who forget their duty
to their country, and he would openly avow
what he meant—he meant by private assassination.
(Sensation.) That it was that made the Emperor of
Austria fly, and that it was that should make other
crowned rulers fly also. He had five sons, and he would
disown either one of them who refused to assassinate any
parties who were instrmental iri banishing him from his
native land for such an offence as that for which Mr.
Mitchel had been convicted." Afterwards Williams

addressed the meeting, and at his request they marched
four abreast through the principal streets of the me-
tropolis until a late hour, causing the greatest
terror and alarm in the breasts of the people. The
Learned Gentleman then went on to say, that the Go-
vernment having had these sentiments brought before
them, felt it their duty to proceed against them. No
notice baying been given of the intended meeting, a
short-hand writer was pot sent to it, and they had there-
fore to depend on the testimony of a person who at-
tended to prepare a condensed report for the newspapers,
and who took down such sentences in short-hand as ap-
peared to him the most prominent, and his testimony
would be corroborated by another who attended for a
similar purpose. The matter first attracted the atten-
tion of the Government through the press, and they
then set about making the necessary inquiries for the
reporter at the different newspaper offices. He appre-
hended there would be no difficulty in proving the
—of-
fence. lie believed one of the highest privileges of the
constitution was that which allowed open and public
like speaking calm,
fair, legitimate discussion—and he,
every Englishman, did not wish to take away one
iota of that important privilege. No class of persons
could
look upon the events that had occurred in the me-
tropolis in any other light than that of severe condemna-
tion. They were the means of raising up num-
bers of persons of all classes desirous to pre-