On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    SPECIAL COMMISSION. ! SPECIAL COMMISSION . !

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Special Commission. ! Special Commission . !

    SPECIAL COMMISSION . ! SPECIAL COMMISSION . !

    Monmouth , Thursday . ' Pkcicely at nine o ' clock th- learned Judges took j their seats on the Bench . Oa the application of Mr . I Wigntman , the trials of Mcses Homer , Wm . Hor- ner , and Thomas Davie 3 , charged with stealing the i property of William Thomas , were postponed to the A&S 1 Z 33 . On an application for £ 8 and a watch of John ' -Uewellm , which had been taken from him on his I apprehension , an oraer was made that the property '• be restored to him . " I

    Untitled Article

    IRIAL OF ZEPHANIAH WILLIAMS FOIL HIGH TREASON . \ Zephaniah Williams was then , by order of the ; C&nrt , placed at the bar . j „ Mr . Bellamy , the clerk of indictments , address- 1 ing him , said— "Prisoner , at presentyon have do ounsel assigned to yon ; do you ' wish any so as- i Signed V : The Prisoner— " Yes , my Lorda , I wish to haTe Mr . Thomas and Mr . Rickards as my counsel . " llr . Thomas then objected , on the part of the prisoner , that they had not been properly served ; "with the Iist 3 of witnesses . ' The Chief Justice—13 your objection to the effect : Jhai the trial should not proceed I ' , Mr . Thomas—No , my Lords , I do not object to ' the trial going on . " : The Attorney-General—Then let that be clearly ¦ sdcrstood and admitted .

    Tae Cierk of the Indictments then proceeded ; o Call the Jury . Mr . Thomas objected to several . Tivelre having been sworn , the indictment was reafl , and Mr . Talfcot opened the case . - ' The Solicitor-General addressed the Jury for tl- ; prosecution . Aft-er some introductory observations , ne entered at length into a statement " of ihe circumr . aDces of the late riot , pointing out t-o the jury the evidence by which it was intended to bring home th : charge of high treason against the prisoner at the bar . The learned gentleman then explained to the jury the law under which the indictment was framed , and observed , that if it appeared to the jury that if % body of men were brought together fo : the purpose of taking the town of Newport into their

    profession , andmnking snch taking , a signal for similar movements at other places ; such an act was treason committed alike by all who were concerned in it . That object , t-o a certain extent , had been happily frustrated , Dut the resistance which was neec-ssary had caused both ruin and distress to other .-. The declarations made by the prisoner would be repeated , and they would have t-o judge-of their meaning . If the prisoner had , by these expressions and by these acts * endangered the lives and property 0 ! the public , they would retara a verdict of guilty . The charge was a most serious une , and required 4 he clearest evidence to establish it agaiast the ac-• use-i . The evidence would occupy a considerable portion of time , but he believed the crime of levying war would be fullv made out .

    llr . Thomas here urged hi 3 objection respecting & 8 non-delivering in time of the list of witnesses , lad after 30 ms discussion the point was reserved for afatnre consideration * The Counsel for the prosecution then proceeded to tall witnesses , who deposed to the facts as stated either on occasion of the ^ examination of the witnesses before she magiitratea , or in the course of # ie trial of Frost . Monmouth , Friday . On the learned judges taking their seats , Mr . Thomas applied to the court on behalf of William * , "that he might be accommodated with a chair , in conseqnence of the length of-the investigaaoB which had already taken place , as well as the time likely still ? 0 be occupied by the trial . The Lord Chief Justice—Let a chair be brought and placed in the dock for the prisoner ' s use .

    Williams looked towards tne bench and bowed respectfully . He appeared very -ill ; he , however , paid great a-ttentioa to the evidence as it was giveo , * nd occasionally took notes , which he handed to iir . -Geach . A witness , named Watte , a farmer , and who £ ave his testimony in the former trial , was called . Mr . Thomas begged to ask the witness if he had not been in conrt during the previous day , and after an order was made for witnesses to leave \ if 50 , he - * bou ] d object to his evidence being taken . Watts said he had been in court several times during Thursday . ' The Attorney-General—I understood the learned gentleman to desire only that the witnesses should leave during the address of my friend , the Solickor-¦ General . Mr . Thomas—It was a general order , and I can-Bot consent t-o the witness being sworn .

    The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot , even after the admission made by the witness , depr ive the crown or the other ade of the benefit of the witness's testimony ; our only course being to fine the witness for contempt , if contempt has been committed by him . From this time let it be distinctly understood tna : no witness is permitted to remain in or out of the court , excepting particular permission be granted . The conversation ended , and the witness was sworn . He stated that , ou the morning of the riot , S 3 he was on his « ay to Newport , he met the prisoner returning from the town . Close to Williams was a mob of several hundred people . This * witness also repeated his statement as to having met Hodge near the Waterloo .

    — Emery , in the course of his evidence , stated that on one occasion Jones wa = present at a mee . ing held at the house of the prisoner , when he ( Jones ) told witaes 3 that " all the proclamations were Teady : that the Convention was the Parliament , and Frost the Protector •" About twenty others were examined , who only repeated the evidence given in Frost ' s case . Mr . Thomas cross-examined each- - * : them at considerable length . At half-past six o ' clock the Court adjourned . Monmouth , Saturday . The Conrt sat at nine o ' clock . After the examination of severo ! witnesses ,

    Mr . THOMAS proceeded to address the Jury . You may , said he , easily believe use , -rkeii 1 assure you that this is the meet anxious muiue-t of my life . It is the first time that , in the exercise of my professional duties , I have ever been called upon to defe . d a fellow-creature on trial for his life . ' But this is not the only anxiety tlmt 1 have in this case , because 1 feei co ^ acie-Jtiouily convinced that there are more important considerations m his case than even the life of a fellow-creature . 1 feel , Gentlemen , that , in the discharge of the duty that you are now called upon to perform , is involved the liberties ef yourselves and of your country . It is not simply a trial of the prisoner standing " at the bar for

    hilife , but it is a matter calling upon you to decide ¦ whether the Crown is to have the power of crushing every possible demonstration that may be she ^ n by the people of this country . It is in this view that I consider that this case is of more importance than even that of the life or death of the prisoner who is at the bar . In the anxiety and the zeal which the Learned Solicitor-General displayed in this case , he forgot to aik of you to dismiss from your minds the prejudices that must necessarily exist in them . 1 cannot , asking of you to do so—I cannot but beg of their Lordships to remind you , that you should do so a 3 far as possible . I cannot , however , hope , or expect that you will do so altogether , for it is not in the constitution of the minds of men

    to dismiss from them all previous knowledge of a case , nor of their prejudices , political or religious . I do not expect any siu-b thing as possible ; but as far as you can , I entreat of you to come as unprejudiced as it is possible for you , t-j io ^ k at this case . I implore you to do this ; for it is tot the life of the individual before you , but it is the safety of yourselves and of your country that fs at stake—that country which is looking to that trial in which yon are engaged "with thsdeepest , themo ? tnnprecedented interest . The reason why I ask of you to dismiss all prejudices from your minds , is this—that I am not at all unaware of the efforts that have be-niaade by the press , t-o prejudice the mi ids of all , locally as -well as generally . The press , however , has no ' t which

    been the only engine ¦ his been used in the endeavour t-o excite prejudices in your minds . The pulpit , in this very town , has been made the vehic . e for uttering forth opinion ? , anii for exciting your minds to a degree "which cannot bui be deplored . You have been told of the abomination of *¦ the idolatry of reason . " Such doctrines as ihese have been a-duressed to the very Judges who a e to try the prisoners for their fives . In a case of a local and political nature like this , where such things have happened , is it r ight , is it reasonable to expect , that the minds of the Jury will be uninfluenced by snch doctrines as those 1 have just averted to when addressed from such a place as a pulpit ? Local prejudices and political feelings have been

    arrayed together , along vrith that "which I will not call religious feeling , because it appears to me to be nothing more than profanity , if the temp ' e of religion is to be made the vehicle for conveying such doctrines as these . 1 would beg of you , then , as far as you can , to dismiss all these Drejudices from your minds . The charge that is here preferred agaiust file prisoner is , yon are told , one of the very highest thai can be preferred against & fellow-creature . You iEUBt then , before yon come to a verdict , be con-Tinced that the prisoner has committed one of the most heinous crimes of which any man « an bo possibly be guilty . Do you think that the

    Attorney-General can convice you that this is the fact , when all that has been done is , that at tbe outset yon have heard a few witnesses against the prisoner at the bar . almost every one of these witnesses speaking well of the prisoner , as a man of a kindly nature and of a good disposition , and a 3 one too , who , upon ill occasions , was found to urge the people to the preservation of peace , and the observance of peaceable proceedings . After this was done by iho Attorney-General , he went oa to show you ti : e various bodies of men , u : id- ; r dinerc-nt leaders , and th ^ n t-o fix the gsilt of thote persons upon the prisoner . I fed almost foEgoitea * bf the time thai the last wit-

    Untitled Article

    ness ( btockdale ) was called , vfhat it was that had been said by any of the witnesses that could touch the prisoner at the bar . Y ou even heard the Attorney-General declare that he did not impute to the prisoner that he was present at any of the meetings described . Yon see , then , that from the nature of this charge , though being the highest which can be brought against any man , it is at the same time one that is the most easily proved , for it is thus ; that because the prisoner at the bar was seen at one or two meetings with persons who afterwards were seen in company with others , and those third parties commit faula , the faults of the third parties , are reflected bac : k upon the prisoner , aud this , it is said , because he was one of the leaders . Why , then , was Stockdale called ! It was only that a beginning and P ^ ( St oeWale ) wm called , what it was that had

    an ending might be given in thi 3 case ; for , whether he had committed one orime or another , it was but natural that he should run away ; and it was to prove his capture merely that Stockdale was produced . Even a par ; of the Bench doubted whether or not he could be called , and he was called merely to connect the one part of the case with the other , and to render the prisoner responsible for that which was stated and done when he was not present . There is r . o subject involved in greater difficulty than the definition of high treason . From the earliest periods of our history it will be found that constant contests were going on between our great Lords and our Kin ^ s—it waa to punish the resistance of the former to the latter , that the laws of high treason

    were passed . But to compare the- straggles of Kings and Lords in former times , and to assimilate them to anytliing that happens at this period of time , as a conflict between the Qjioen and her people , is what surprises me , and must create in the intellectual world nothing but astonishment . The charge against the prisoners is that of levying war agaiust the Queen in her realm . We are puvpris-.-d that at this time a charge should be made against men of waging war against the Queen , when none are fouuci to disapprove of a Government carried on by Queen , Lords , a ; - ' C > ionK > i : 3 . While intelligence is u-ifased , and proj . ' - . viy distributed as it is m tLis couutry , it is impossiuir thai a mob couiw cii ' - - t .: t any such purpose , ar . d it is i :-. r .- ^ ible that they evc-r can . I think it

    is impossible lor thu Crown to show that the prisoner , with otlr . r . % intended anything of the kind . But , then , is n ^ -. Ta k ing of war to find a few wretched moa assembled together—one , two , three , or five , thousand altogether , still a number meeting together , with such niii-erable weapons as you have seen produced iiere , to make a display of—and no . doubt you have ; een ail that could be collected together , unJ sii that the mob had gathered—are cu to believe ftvm this that they . acc- > rding to the statute ofJ EJward the Thi .-J , arc guilty of high treason- Such .. classes ofpirsou . s were never intended to be punished as traitors . The crime of high treason was hit-ended agaiiiit other leaders

    those who would bring armed forces fur the purpose 01 encountering the King and his troops . W e know that on William the Conqueror coming to this country , he portioned it out into narrow departments ; he put his own Barons in some places , in others he ' permitted the accient chiefs to remain ; but one condition of holding their property was swearing allegiance to him , and of providing armed men , who might either be at his service upon going abroad , or to aid him at home . Theso persons , in process of time , became sorts of kings themselves ; thus you find the Earl of Hereford and the Archbishops brought their forces to unite , aud to come against the King , and demand of the King that which they wanted . Laws were then passed by the King , against acts of

    this description . Judges were , too , at these times the creatures of the Crown , and they construed those laws in favour of the Crown ; they gave to them a meaning which they were not intended to have . Other risings then took place for the repeal of those Acts , and they effected it after much bloodshed . The reason why kings were so anxious to have the doctrine of treason extended was this—that by treason property was forfeited to the Crown . Kings , in those time , were grasping at the revenues of their subjects , and the crime of high treason was then sought to be established against those having large properties . The nobles disliked this , aud therefore they sought to have the law of treason defined , and for it Lot to be left to the various construction of

    the judges . In the 25 th year , then , of the reign of Edward III ., they succeeded in getting this law , to which 1 have now to call your particular attention . The act states , that it is oue to ascertain " the limits and claims of forfeitures from the crime of high treason . " At that time , for a servant to kill his master , waa petty treason , and the property of the servant was forfeited to the successor of his master . As it was high treason so to kill , or compass the killing of the King , forfeited the traitor . One of the crimes constituting high treason by this statute , L ~ " ihf levying of war against the King in his realm . " What is the levying of war against the Kin : ; in his realm ? I contend for it , that that is not the crime which has been committed m thi *

    case . 1 beg now , gentlemen , your attention to the words at tbe end of the statute—" that in a ca * e of supposed treason , which is not above specified , the Judges should tarry until the case be ? hown before our lord the King in Parliament . " N-. : ' :. '• ~ i \ i yon aee can be clearer than the words of the Ac * . It specifies what should be the crime ef hi _; h treason a ; that period , and it then declares , that if a : iew case of treason shall arise the judges shall not dc ' . irmine it , but that it be brought into Parliament . It is for Parliament to decide or not , whether it is ihe highest crime known , for it still may be a fe ony , which may subject a man to the punishment of death . That Act is in full force to thi 3 day , for lit is under that Ac ! that the prisoner 3 tands indicted . To sh'jv ,- how necessary it was , I may mention that one man was hung for the crime of high treason , because he said that hi 3 child was heir to the crown the the of iun called

    mv : being owner an ' the Crown . ' In another ca » e a man was executed as a traitor because the King , having killed a buck of his , he was > proved to have said that he wished that his buck , j horns aud all , were iu ^ the belly of him who coun-; selk-d the king to kill his buck , and ij being shown \ tl . 2 t tl :- ' king was hi ? own couusellor , ihe man waa . e : i-.: aied as a traitor ! Such an opinion was dissented , ' fru * n by 0 : 0 r . oble ~ niinded judge , who left his place j ? .: } -i .-r than give his asseat to it . It is quite refreshin - ; o thirk teat there were roble-mindcd judges to be : . und dissenting from such doctrines , for at that tiiiie the consequence of a man dissenting from the opini ins of the king was , that he was obliged to resign his office as a jud ^ -e . Formerly the judges were the mere servants—the wretched and servile s-. rvar . ts of the king . They were not , like the present r < *' -e of Judges , made independent of the crown —a change f ^ r which we are all indebted to the l&tg king , Ge-jrge III . £

    The Attorney-General—They were made independent long before the reign ot ' GeorgD III ; they were made so at the time of the lie volution . Mr . Tnomaa—I defy my honourable f r iend the Attorney-General to show that this w afidkme by Wiiiiam III . j ; :- r" Chief Justice Tindal—All that George II Iidid was to declare that the judges should continue sotwithsta : iaing the demise of the crown . Mr . Thomas continued by saving , thafcjas to the period he was probably wroi ; g , but he ricollected that hi 3 Majesty George 111 . had made artaosfc-TO : luntary and gracious concession on the sjyuject . The Ji-dge 3 then were independent from tha"Sme of the " Glorious Revolution . " as it was caJH ^ though H was curious , on a trial like this , to > di ¥ tb . a'f a

    revoration was " glorious . " What h&jihtended for was , | 0 that they should not take tka oqjetruction of Judges i a upon an Act of Parliament , a # a time when those - Judges were nothing better than slaves of the '• p Crown . No laps ;; of time could be a bar against j * that which was law or justice . Chief Justice ' t Vaughan , in a case as to the process * f justice m ' 1 Wales , laid h do * n that precedent might be usefol t when practice was to be attended to ; but when an t Act ef Parliament had been violated , it would be 1 mttnstros 3 to quote precedent for its violation . At 1 the request of one of tbe jury , Mr . Thomas r ad th » *( authority a second time . Sir Edward Coke , too , I I o j I ; 1 j ,

    naving been reproached in Parliament for what he i had done as Chief Justice , acknowledged that he had t been deceived—his guide b * -ing precedent ; but now I that he had swerved from it , he was guided better , ' as he was regulated by Act of Parliament . So it < was in this case . No doubt the man who said this was a very bad man—he was one too , who , as At- 1 toruey-General , had called , as it was done here , the 1 prisoner at the bar a miserable miscreant . He ; would call upon them to listen to the argument of he Attorney-General in the case of Stockdale » . Hansard , when the Judges were attempting to accroach upon the privileges of the House of Com- j inons .

    Oue of the jurors begged Mr . Thomaa would ex-: plain the meaning of the word ** accroach . ' 1- ' Chief Justice Tindal said the Court eoaadered that the arguments were addressed to them , although purporting to be addressed to the jury . Mr . Thoraaa thought that th * construction of the Act was for the jury . Acts Of Parliament were intended for the understanding of the people . ' Chief Justice Tindil observed , that if the judges \ were uot to define for the jury what was the law , they had nothing to do there . Tbe Attorney-General observed , that it was for the court to to say what was the levying of war , for j the jury to decide if the facts amounted to a levying of war .

    Mr . Thomas a * id he wu erateful to the Court for the courteaT it had exhibitod upon all oecasions to him . The Learned Attorney-General , in a case that waa argued in the Queen ' s Bench on a question of privilege , contended against the precedents which were brought against the pririlege , inasmuch as some Jud ge * had formerly decided in favour of their own privileges , and on the ground that some of those I Judges had been corrupt and base . He would quote I : the passages ; and in so doing , he requested the I j Jury to substitute for the word " privilege ,- " I wherever it occurred , the word " treason ; " aad ; they would find that , if applicable to the former , it I { vras infinitely more applicaole to the latter . The i j Attorney-General says , " The law of privilege was ; settled when Judges were the creatures of the

    Untitled Article

    Crown , and liable to be discharged if they were not obedient ; and when kings themselves used to interfere in the administration of justice , which they did personally ; and as judges , in ancient times ; and afterwards by letters to the Judges , directing them how to act in particular cases—a praotioe which several statutes had been especiall y framed to restrain ; and then the Learned Attorney-General ventured on our admonition , which I in my humbler capacity would not dare to venture on ; and though the Jndges are now independent of the Crown , there may still be a proper constitutional jealouaj ; lest at some time a desiro of popularity , or of excluding the jurisdiction of the Courts , should lead them to decisions against wholesome and useful privileges . " Ho applied to them the observations of the Learned Crown , andliable to be discharged if they were not

    Attorney-General in a question of privilege claimed by one branch of the legislature alone * and all bo now claimed at the hands of their lordships and the Jury , was the same jealousy TTith . respect to decisions by which a construction aud interpretation had been put on the words of the rtatute—^ an act of the whole legislature , as the Attorney-General claimed with regard to the decision affeotiag the privileges or alleged privileges of one branoh , 'of the legislature ; and under such circuinstances , arid with such authority , he felt he had a right to oomment on the Judges , under whose directions the lair arose . Amongst authorities that had been and would be referred to , was " Coke ' s Institutes , " a volame pub-. ished after the death of Lord Coke , and without his authority , because it had not received the last corrections of hishand , and therefore could not in all

    cases be implicitly relied on by the learned judges on the Bench . Inthat Institute several cases were mentioned of insurrections which , in consequence of theclause in the act of Edward 111 ., restricting the Judges from construingany new acts not mentioned in the statute as treason , cuild not be puiijehed as treason ; and it appeared tlut in consequence several statutes were subsequently passed , extending the construction of treason so a > 10 embrace those acts which . the statute of Edward 111 . did not recognise . He did not stand there to c . nteud that these men were not' guilty of a very grievous offence , aa offenco for which tne law had provi ed , and for which they could and might be punished ; but he did stand there before them to contend that the prisoaer at the bar oucht not to

    have been indicted . for high treason—that tte > crime proved against hinJ did not , by . the express ierl » s of the act under which he was indicted , amount tottfgh treason—and that ne-straincd construction put upon £ hat statute by Judges in former and more corrupt and servile times , ought to be permitted to prevail in the face of the plain and simple words of the statute of Edward ILL That the law was competent to inflict adequate punishment for any crime of which these men might have been guilty waa evident from the fact that many of those persons , some of whose cases he should hereafter have to defend , were indicted for the minor crime of riot and conspiracy . Although none of the acts of those prisoners amounted to high treason , there was noleood legal

    reason why they shouH not have been iiSdicted for treason also , since if Zophaniah Williams iras guilty of treason , every individual of the 5 , 000 or 10 , 000 people who were with him were equally gailty . The Acs of 25 th Edward the Third had been called a blessed Act , and the Parliament that passed it had been called a blessed Parliament . Why waa it called "blessed ? " Was it because it enabled the King , by means of tho law , to select a victim whom he personally hated ? or whose property he desired ? Was it because it was so clear in the language , so simple in its declarations of what was treason , that all who ran might read , and that no man of the least ordinary intelligence could fall into : the orime of treason without knowing itnor without actually

    , premeditating it . It was not pretended that , according to the words and intentions ot the f t ^ tute , the prisoner was guilty of hj gb ^ 4 q |» 4 &lfybii >» 'it -ipcontended that underaforced construction pot oEtbat statute by former Judges , his acts are to bo construed into a levying of war agaiust the Sovereign , vrnich he never contemplated , and of which he never dreamed ; and the jury was called upon to pronounce the prisoner , and all those connected with him in that transaction , to be guilty of high treaion—to say to all who harboured—that is , give a night's lodging to any ono of those individuals , was guilty of misprision of treason . So that tho jury were called upon to declare that not only every individual of the multitude was a traitor ; but that every father harbouring a

    son—every brother harbouring a brother—every brother harbouring a sister—indeed he might say—for it seemed that the bond 3 of female chastity wete not thought insurmountable—that all those individuals were guilty of treason and misprision of treason , and ought to suffer the death of ti aitors witH all its hangings , beheadings , quarterings , and all ks horrible consequences . Was it not frightful to contemplate that in times like the present , ? aich a law—a law of construction and not ptatute-jaw , should be sought to be brought into operation in times when treason would notbe committed or contemplated , for none but a madman would now venture to raise his hand agav-st the life of the Sovereign ; however , that madman could not . by our present fawa , be punished

    with death . Surely then it was not in these times that men clearly punishable by the law fij > r the offence which they actually did commit—that of agreat and serious riot- ^ ahould be put witrial for their lives under the law of high treason . <; Was it necessary—was there anything ia the ag > 6 ct of the times even to make it necessary that th * Attorney-General should prosecute these wretolj&l men , who had only been guilty of acts of r » t ,, for treason ? Look to the hardship of the situaiidifeSn which they were placed . Look at the additional difficulties by which these men were sutfounded / ty the form and shape of tho prosecution . * Rie question of treason or no treason depended upon the intent and design of ihe prisoner , in assembling and marohing with

    thewmultitudes . But how could he call witnesses to speak to his intentions and designs ? What woulcl . be the effect of his calling witnesses , who could gfra the clearest evidence that hiw designs were traceable . Why , that these * fery witnesses woula ^ Jheniselves prove that they were liable to stand iqlbe same predicament as the prison er , and migo ^^ ffin all probabitity would , be transferred fromfte witness-box to the dock , ttyere to stand a trial for tnW own lives . What would bo the outcry against suob witnesses from the parties who -Sirecte-rj th »>»> ogAte of this prosecution—he did riot mean his learned niend ? , but from thoae parties g lfl resided in the neigh Wrarhopd of Newport ! They- wmild instantly exclaim , What' ? d » yo « come here ij »

    vindicate the Chartists—to prove that their objects were not djsseruction of law and p rder- ^ tfiat they igfSoi-nlleud to levy war agaiost ^ e Queen—that fnar might not to be found guilty wiligh- treason , ana be hanged , drawn , and quartered—why , you yourself are one of them , and you » hall share- the fate of him whom you came to exeplgate ! " Such vra 8 the fear which was hung over the heads of the witnesses ; and though he had witnesses bu his brief who could prove the designs of thft- prisoner , and that those designs were not treasonable—witnesses who , at the peril of their own HveBj were ready to put themselves into that box and gj ] re their evidence —how could he—how dare he , as an advocate called on to give his advice , permit men | b place themselves

    ; in a position fraught with so much danger ? H& had no power to make a defence . " 4 Phe prosecutors had [ -am ^ Je power and means , on thj&Othcr hand , to watch over their case . They could ^ pardon and promise ! Pardon to as many as they jrfeased , and thus had [ tmy got up their case . Th * jury would knew well that wheu a mau had been kopt in prison for ten days r a fortnight on a charge afiecting Uis life , himind , agitated and alarmed by the misery bf his «< Sdition —examined as to what evidence he can giveagainst particular personsj—the species of evidence jjbught , perhaps suggested Jtiim—it was far from unlikely that , with a view to Bave his own life , he would , uuder the impression of fear , rataejjfiaivent a story than run the fearful risk of standin ^ himself at that bar ,. He did not know what the-.- character of the humbler classes in these tlistricta-was . 'bot this he

    : k # rw , that self-preservation waa the first law of ijWurG ; uor was it . much toj » . . j * emdex « d at if , under e influence of tha exceeding fear , it " should be increased even to its most revolting form , and tlat the evidence on which , and on which alone , tap alleged treason of the prisoner Zephaniah Williams depended , even f uuder the Btrained obstruction of the law , .-ought to be looked at with the strongest doubti $ f its trulh , he would show to them when he came to oomment on that part oj the evidence . He was now about to draw their attention to a series of cases on which he felt it his duty to comment , in order to show how , since the Statute of Edward III ., tne law of treason had been extended iu bad times ^—how in better times it had

    been ameliorated , till it was gradually restored to its original position in Edward Ill . ' s time , leaving unfortunately behind in those questions of construction alone which derogated from its original purity . To Bhow how extravagant and monstrous were these invasions upon the law of hi ^ h treason as laid down by the statute of Edward III ., ho need scarcoly do more , without troubling the Jury with all thesuccessive additions by different Parliaments , than refer to a statute of Henry IV ., which provided that any person who should take any stegs to procure the repeal or the revisal of any of the ^ statutes ( respecting treason ) herein-mentioned , should suffer death as a traitor himself . But laws like theae were found

    to become inoperative from their very exttfaTagaaco and severity , and Richard II ., within tvto years after he procured that severe statute Which © atteadea the punishment of treason , waa hyfaself jmusdered by traitors . The Learned Gwnad ^ JiWp ^ oWeded to call the attention of their Lordshipi and * ihe Judges to the eases cited in a book published by a very able and scientific lawyer , Mr . Loder . It was not because there was temporary exoiilomcnt against these men in the disturbed districts—it was not because that excitement was fostered most unseemingly from the pulpit—it was not because a part of the press called upon the Government to prosecute these men for the highest crime known to the laxvit was not for any of these reasons that the

    Governwere justified m prosecuting these prisoners inthat shape . When the formidable riots took place at Bristol , at Nottingham , and at Maidstoue , where lives were lost , did the Attorney . General

    Untitled Article

    think of prosecuting the actors for high treason ? No , they wore indicted for the losser offences , as these individuals , now the object of the Special Commission , ought also to have been . The case in which the doctrine of constructive treason was founded , was that of Damaree and Purchase , in the reign of Queen Anne . The Chief Justice in that case was neither unimpeachable nor unimpeached in his character , and was himself tried afterwards for very high misdemeanours . That Chief Justice was previously Attorney-General , and prosecuted Dr . Sachevcrell with arigour and zeal , — 1 cannot say unparaIlcled--andhavingbeentheAttorney-Generalwho Jrosecuted Sacheverell , was not very likely , as Chief ustioe , to shew any great favour to two men of his think of prosecuting the actor * for Wh t «*«» nt

    party . Tne case of Damaree and Purchase was decided upon various cases which had preceded it , and if those had nothing of soundness , or reason , or honesty , or justice in them , neither the Jury nor their Lordships would have much respect for them . The Chief Justice of that day had carried the construction of treason farther than it had ever been carried before ; and in fact , the encroachment they made upon the liberty of the subject was a greater high treason than any of the parties accused were guilty of . The Judges differed from each other . Those who did not decide according to the pleasure of tho King were dismissed . Others acquiesced , and the unfourtunate persons brought before them suffered the penalties of treason . It was horrible to

    think of , but their Lordships , who now sat on the bench , knew it to be true . It was decided in the case of Damaree , that a mob assembling , and going together for particular purposes , committed treason , although they were not armed . All former cases had required something of a military or martial array , but in that case it was decided that mere numbers furnished fury and force , and that it was not necessary they should be armed . The Jury must feel that to carry constructive treason to that extent would include every Reform meeting in this country ; and , if this prosecution should succeed , he askod would any man be safe who should associate with others on either side in politico for the purpose of obtaining an alteration of tho law ?—for if ihe

    Jury proceeded on the precedent of Damaree and Purchase , arms were not necessary . The earliest case which he found as a decisbn of the Judges , was without date . In that case it waa held by the Judges that an insurrection for the enhancing of salary and wages was levying war against the King , and the authority he had cited , after urging various objections to the grounds of that decision , went oa to Bhew that all la \ V 3 were the King's laws , and founded upon tha Constitution of the country , but arising from the source of the Crown itself , and that the cases were decided by the servants of the King simpiy to keep up his rights and privileges . The next case was connected with the King's right to expel strangers . If there were

    Italians , Flemings , or other foreigners ia the kingdom , the King had a right to order them , by proclamation , to depart tho realm . No subject possessed this right , and it was decided by the judges , that if any assumed it that was a levying of war . Now , certainly , it might be contrary to the statute under which the King claimed the right , and which he got his creatures to assist him in enforciDg , but it never was treason under the statute of Edward III . This case occurred on May-day , 1518 , when a few unruly apprentices resisted an Alderman , and proceeded to break open prisons , where some persons who had ill-treated foreigners were confined . They also attacked houses , burning and rifling them ; and , although the Lieutenant of

    the Tower discharged his guns upon them , the tumult was not quelled until three o'clock in the morning , after they had wreaked their vengeance upon all who were obnoxious to them . The judges all proceeded to the house of Sir John Finnean , the Chief Justice , and after a consultation as to what was to bo done on the trial , they agreed to find the parties guilty of treason , under a particular statute . Was it not monstrous that the case of to-day should proceed upon Acts passed for the temporary purposes of the Crown ; and yet upon them it did proceed , for the Learned Chief Justice had , in his address to the jury , in a similar case , read from Foster those very cases , although he did not enter into them minutely , he mentioned every one of them and that showed that their

    case must stand or fall as regarded law and justice , and the estimation of an enlightened world , according to the principles upon which those cases proceeded . Chief Justice Finnean , in tho case to which he had last referred , said that all who were engaged in the insurrection were guilty of high treason—even those who had not committed robbery , because the insurrection was agaiust the regal honour of tho King . He : e was a uew privilege asserted for tho King—a new offence created , unknown to the statute of Edward , unknown to the history of the country , to the law of treason , and to justice , establishing the regal honour of the King , determining it to be high treason to do anything which might affect him . Chief Justice Tindal—Is that Burton ' s case 1

    Mr . Thomas—No , my Lord , the case of the apprentices . Chief Justice Tindal—Tho first in order of time was Dainaree ' s , the second Burton's , the third lieasted ' s . MrK Thomas expressed the pleasure and gratitude he felt at these proofs that he was honoured with the attention of their Lordships as well as of the Jury . His instructions had been received so late that ho had not been able to do justice to the case , but he had devoted a great deal of study to the law of constructive treason , and he waa endeavouring , for the benefit of himself and his country , to lay before the Jury the conclusions to which he had come upon it , and which he hoped in God would b « p . at . ah

    lished by the law of the country . Tho learned gentleman . then read passages from Luder , and contioued--In reference to the cases he had read and ferred to , that Laud , like all others who promoted prosecutions on constructive treason , shortly afterwards met the fate of him the accusation against whom he promoted , and it was to be found in the volumes of the State Trials , that they who promoted such prosecutions were rocorded as led to the scaffold in pages which related the fate of those whom they accused . This Laud , who assisted in promoting and making out tho constructive treason against Bensteadj shortly afterwards followed him to the block . There was now no Pretender . There was no in-4 eutH > n on the part of his client to lovy an army aud himselt the

    put upon throne ; and was it not contemptible , in this as in other cases , to charge him with " levying wax" as it was meant by the statute ? Did it not strike the Jury that such constructions were monstrous in this age of intelligence , and this was not a case in which the last punishment of the la , w should be inflicted . It struck him that tho wars of Hotspur , aud those of the house of York and Lancaster wore the wars , regular wars } which alone came under the statute of Edward III ., and that this was the intention of the Legislature inenacting it , and tnat such meetings as that in which the prisoner had been engaged were widely distinguished from those which came under tho clause of " levying war . " So it had becu held by Sir Matthew Hale , in

    Messiuger s case , against eleven other judges , and who had the independence to maintain it , although strongly worked upon to the contrary by tho crown . Severe punishments did not oporate upon the terror of mankind , and where the laws were mercifully administered juries would convict , and the sympathy of the world would accompany the punishment ; therefore he abhorred the principle of holding up men as bugbears who were not guilty of high crimes with which they were charged , although guilty of minor offences . Those cases he had brought before them and the court to direct the attention of their Lordships especially to them , with the hope that something might be doiie to regulate and defiuo this law . Lords Mansfield , and Tcntcrdenand

    , Mr . Justice Buller , had in cases where they presided drawn to themselves the power of bringing matter within the statute which ought not to be so . This was a sad thing , and he would now beg to draw the attention of tho Court to tho character of * h © judges by whom the law waa administered ia the old time , and ho would quote from a writer who , like himself , held in high estimation the judges who now administered the law of tho land . Tiic icarnod gentleman then quoted from Luder . The jury would perceive that tho conduct of the judges was such iu those days that , worked upon by the crown , the life of no man was safe . Fortunately , however

    , it had been Bince decided that , although words spoken wero not treason , yet written articles cou'd be brought within tho statutes enacted 111 reference to that crime , and he would now read a passage from an eminent writer ( Sergeant Talfourdj , who was not far from him , which , if ho had writteu in the reign of Henry VIII ., would have brought him to the block of the scaffold , although the learned gentleman had no more treason in his heart than he ( Air . Thomas ) or any of the gentlemen of the jury . In a noble production , written by his learned friend , the following thoroughly Republican passage occurred : — r a

    • " Never more Let tbe great interest of the state depend Upon the thousand chances that may away A piece of buinan frailty . Swear to me Tha * you will seek hereafter in yourselves The means of sovereign rule : our narrow space , So happy in its confines , —so compact—Needs not the magic of a single name , Which wider regions may require to draw Their interests into one ; but circled thus , Like a MeseUfemitjr , by simple law * M ay tenderly bo goTerned . "

    If that and other passages had been written when the judges to whom ho had referred administered the law , his Learned Friend wonld have suffered upon the scaffold , and his entrails would have been torn out and cast in his face , unless the Sovereign spared him , as certainly as Sydney or Russell , tho ancestor of one of the promoters of thi 3 prosecutiou , who was punished by death because he was merely present when another person uttered treasonable expressions , whilst Sydney was similarly punished because his " Dissertation oa Government" was found iu hi 3 houSo . It was true that the scnter . co of Russell was reversed after his death , but this of

    Untitled Article

    ** = * —• = couTst' could only benefit his family . The Learned Genslei uan then referred to Lord MansfieldV charge v n tho case of Lord George Gordon / which stated tkie circumstances of the case—the riotous assemblag s of 40 , 000 men , who had burned anumber of housjea L t Loadoa and four of the public gaols and yet Lor ^ George Gordon , who was their adviser was acqnittet * of the charge of high treason , but was ' punished , togi'ther with many others who were punished for n ' ° t- It was not , therefore , beoause some act 3 of v toleuce had been committed , that they constituted treason . In the case of Home Tooke and Hard } » the circumstances were much worse than in the p . resent case , and they were tried in times of great anx "> ety ; but these trials for con-^^ M ^^ to ^ i . on .. T - — .

    structive treason faile . " > > and the rights of the people were established b \ ' having secured to them the rights of meeting , and by the putting down of the spirit of persecution br . iioans of constructive treason . The Learned GentL ^ men then referred to the cases of Brandreth and Thvstlewood , which wan the last case of high treason tn ' ed in this country , and thus twenty years hare elap sed since the last trial for treason , and ho had hopeu' that he would never have heard of another , for he did not believe that such proseoutions were necessat V while the Crown was secure , and his Learned i ' riends themselves had declared that any attempt upon the Crown was impossible , and completely absurd , and while they say that this is too ridiculous , yet they ask you to fix all the guilt of every one of the paries upon mv client , f ho statute which he ( the Learned Gentle " - man ) considered he should have been indicted under f \ ft-V t I W * L « rti 1 V \ m -J J A . tfc t B - / and hich had directl

    * . ^ ^ * .. w y provided against the affeace he had committed , was the 6 th George I ., cap . 2 , which enacted that such riots as the prisoner had keen engaged in should be punished as felons without tho least benefit of clergy . Under that Act , the Prisoner should have beon indicted , and the Jury should bear in mind that although a man might bo found not guilty of one offence , yet he could be prosecuted for another . In this case there was too much doubt whether the prisoner intended to levy war in the meaning of the Act ; and unless tho jury could bring their minds to the clear determination that there could be no doubt that the object of Zephaniah Williams was to depose the Queen and to put down all laws—unless they came to that conviction , it was impossible thoy could find him guilty Before ho proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the evidence which had been produced , he would refer to the natura of tho ineetin '' 3 which tho Di-isoner ¦

    had been accused of attending ; ' he could show that such meetings had been heldYrom the time of ' Wm . the Conqueror down to the present ; and such meetings for the redress of grievances , the alteration of the laws , or to petition tha Legislature , were legal , and were the birthright of Englishmen ; and if they were not so , what would become of the possibility of an amelioration of the laws \ Now the rules and principles upon which tho Associations with which the prisoner was connected were to procure tho Vote by Ballot , and he ( Mr . Thomas ) would like to know how many of those who instituted this prosecution wero opposed to the Ballot . Why , the BalloJ had been adopted as the best means of selecting a Jury in thoso cases , and there wore many Members of

    Parliament , some of whom he believed were present , who were of opinion that the Vote by Ballot should be instituted ; but if the Jury , or others , were not of that opinion , was a man , because he thought otherwise , to be hunted to death by a vindictive prosecution . Then , wi'h regard to Annual Parliaments , it had been the law that Annual Parliaments should be held down to the reign of William III ., and that they had been made septennial was a blot upon the Statute-book ; but the seeking for Annual Parliaments was but desiring to bring back the old law . Ho would challenge the Solicitor-General to find an instance where any Charter had been established but by force , or by another mode of proceeding , the refusal of tho supplies , the aids to the King . He

    would defy the Learned Gentleman to shew any one instance of a Charter established , which was not wrucg from the fears of the Sovereign , and maintained at tho point of tho eword . He next referred the Jury to the speech of Lord John Russe'l in the House of Commons , where he said that Noble Lord declared , that he would have been disposed , if he had baen an Irish Catholic , and considering the manner in which the Orangemen conducted themselves , to become a member of the Catholic Association . Wa 3 it , he then said , to bo wondered at , when such an opinion was pronounced by tho head of the Governmeut , that men in the same condition of life that tho prisoner was , and who was a Chartist , should also by such Unions and such Associations seek to

    attain his object . By the Reform Bill some advantages had been obtained ; but institutions which required improvement would obtain amelioration as peace continued , the arts flourished , and science advanced . How was Reform to be stopped ! Was it by the plan devised by Periander , who , when asked how was the pride of the people to be humbled , took a person into his garden , and lopped off the heads from the fairest flowers . Was this the way popular leaders wero to be disposed of \ or was this tho mode in which the desiraibr freedom was to be put an end to ! No ; for when the spark was trodden upon , it would fly in the face of ' him who was endeavouring to put it out , or , as Bacon said , it would bo like shutting the eates of a field to Drevont the

    crows from flj ing abroad .. They could not stop the progress of Reform . The Attorney-General could not stop it . He declared , before them , that there was not a principle laid down in the Charter that he did not approve &f ; and he would rather return to the humble situation from which ho was raised , than conceal one single opinion of his mind . He drew his opinions from reading , and from observations , and he had ever held himself as he meant to do , free from all parties . Ho was surprised to find , upon looking to the principles of the Chartists , that they were his own . He found the principles of the Charter advocated by the ablest men amongst the living and the dead—by tho venerable Earl Grey , and by Lord E'skine , tho noble advocate of

    popular rights against the doctrino of constructive treason . What did the Chartists here \ that which ho him 3 o ! f had seen done , in the case of the Reform Bill , where hundreds and thousands inarched down to Whitehall—if they had passed the Horse Guards and the soldiers attacked them , as they had tlono tho unarmed population at Manchester , or that , apprehensive of the repetition of such an outrage , they had como with arms , would that be called high treason ? It might be an offence to take the arms ; but then would it be , as it was made here , high treason ? Now such meetings and processions were , he knew of his own knowledge , encouraged by Ministers themselves , and they mot at the dead hour of the niiiht those who at the time

    of the Reform Bill lod on the processions . And yet were Ministers who did this now to pick out men , and to act harshly towards them ! If the Attorney-Geno-al succeeded now in putting down public opinion , he would do no good by it—that which was suppressed locally would spread universally . Why should the prisoner be punished for doing that in which others had set men the example ? He would 011 this point call their attention to the great Reform meeting , held at Birmingham , at the time that Marshal Soult was in this country . Over that meeting presided his kind and excellent friend , Mr . Attwood , and a part was taken in it by several members of Parliament . Amongst other such things said by Mr . Attwood was this , that they who met

    there " wanted a change of Government . " The prisoner at the bar was not proved to have said anything like that—on the contrary , he was proved to have said to all that they should conduct themselves peaceably . And yet , because violence arose out of the conduct of that part of the meeting with which he was not connected , ho was now to be punished as a traitor . Mobs wero not treated as traitors , but punished by martial law ; or if death ensued , they were punished as being guilty of a felony . Ho trusted that the English people would arrest the spirit of treason , prosecution , and-so far just we think tho law , that men might only bo punished for the crimes which they actually riid commit . Mr . Attwood called for " a total and absolute change . " Williams did no

    such thing , and he was under prosecution as a traitor . Mr . Attwood spoko of " a pressure from witnout , " and " gentle compulsions" upon the rulers of tho state . According to the present dectrine established at thoso trials , every one % vho took part in the meeting at which this was stated , would be liable to be tried for high treason . They had heard the Solicitor-General in this case . The Solicitor-General was the giant of the law , but it was tyrannous in him to use his powers like a giant . It was lamentable to think that where there was the power to show on the part of the Crown a further intention on the part of the prisoaer , and that where evidence might be produced that could clear the prisoner , that it should bo withheld . This he believed couid

    be done here , and yet it was not done . Air : A . called on tho metting in Birmingham , by the next Christmas-day , to assemble , not Dy thousands , but in two millions . Here the very utmost sworn to be collected together was 10 , 000 . Why did not the Attorney-General prosecute Mr . Attwood ! Why allow- great meetings to go on , because tney were useful to the Government , and yet punish others as traitorous , because the Ministry did not like them ! Mr . Attwood said—and so did Zephaniah Williams —that there was to be no bloodshed ; while Mr . Attwood added , that if their enemies wished for bloodshed , the consequences would be on their own heads , and Zephaniah William gare expression to

    no such sentiment . The learned gentleman proceeded to read from Mr . Attwood ' s speech a recommendation to the people to demand and insist upon farther reforms of tne House of Commons , and in particular Universal Suffrage ; and if they , did not succeed in their application b y petition , to resort to other means . That they should have a sacred week , during which not a ploughshare should bo thrown over the surface of tho earth , and not a stroke of work done . He did" not approve of these opinions or recommendations ; but when such principles were avowed by members of the House of | Commoii 3 ,- « was hard that a poor little publican in the hilig should be inoictecl tor high treason , for entertaining opinions aud principles which had been supported

    Untitled Article

    estSSS-11 V ** ^ ? ' sm ^ the gmt-ChaSf K ^ " Suchwe ™ th principles of th » low ? SSi ' dr « f b V 0 d 8 he . but * » ¦ set of bad felun ^ rdonablP ^ -L ^ 0111 & ?¦ * $ > * « " » committed an per haps , with d SthhTSfifSf " ^ P anishe - ' iisliiil had been put upon 25 th of Edward II ? h « £ 3 Kjffis ^ -ii ' ar&tttSSg S SS ^ ssSI not be able to do justice to the case as reeardTrJ fha evidence But here he had a safegnardSl gtronJ ?" A * or his Lordship , who hadTaken ' dwniTrf ^^ , ; ,, IL

    W Zaa- ev-ae » ce ™ & a mind capable and wiffe I . to P 0 «* d and determined not to let anything that , was just or righteous towards the wl demonstration the justice of his client ' s < ££ ? £ easily as he could solve a- problem . Bnt he traced there was enough in his case not to requirelo much as that . The learned counsel then Seeded £ n ££ 3 T * T , t evid t of Bowea , which h * contended showed that the prisoner had no other than peaceable intentions . th ^ , - ? ror ilP ™ i *^ ed t 0 ask a question—Had not to witness said something about a statement as to which S " ° f 9 Oldiers ia Wale 3 ' and " »• effect upon the appearance of the Chartista would kavo

    TO i ; h Jns t tI f eWlBlams w « wwd to his notes , and vrMSS *^™* ? S " -tness-that Zephaniah Williams had stated the number of soldiers in Wale * awl said that if th « y oame out they would be d ESy " * ' ^ li 8 t s woul d umte all in oZ Mr . Thomas thanicea the juror for the interruption , and admitted that the whole : of the witness ' s evidence should be takea together , in which view H presented nothing but peaceable intentions and recoiiimendatfons on his part . The jury mnst recollect the lext of Scripture which said . " Thn f 7 w » l

    hal said in his heart there is no God . " If this passage were divided , and only the latter part taken there is no God , " its sonse would be entirely distorted and perverted . In Remarking upon the evidence of a witness with respect to lodges and meetings , Mr . Thomas said that he did not mean to deny tbat there had been lodges and meetings of men—aye , and of women to © ,, and if the . jury conyicted theso men , they would have a band of these We sn Amazons coming before another jury , at a future special commission , to roeeive verdicts and judgment for treason ; for the women were aa mueh Chartists as tho men . The Learned Counsel then proceeded to remark upon the absut&ty of Bupposin * that the stoppage of the mail was to be a eumal f < £

    aa insurrection at Birmingham and in the North , when the mail from Newport merely went to Bristol and the maiil coach going to Birmingham went from Bristol only , and would have reached Birmingham in due course , whether the Newportmail had arrived or not . Had there been any such conspiracy or intention ; could it not easily hare been proredl Could any aao entertain a doubt that the Crown had made the strictest inquiry , and had discovered no trace of k ! What difficulty would there hare been in discovering it ? Was not Birmingham watched ! Would not some indications of a conspiracy bo horrible have been traced ? Aad was a man to be crushed—was the life of the

    pmoner at the bar to be . sacrificed , upon such an impossible and unsupported statement a « -this ? How was the charge supported—where was tho evidence of an organised conspiracy ? What evidenco had they but a bit here , and a scrap therefa ut where was the proof of that charge in the indictment , of a conspiracy for a general rising in th * country , of men poor , unarmed , with not money to procure ammunition or provisions 1 It was to be found no where—it was impossible that it oould have been contemplated . Was there , for that was the roal question for the jury to decide , any ptoof of any intention and design oa the part of the prisoner , ( accompanied by any overt acts to carrv it into effefltt

    to dethrone the Sovereign or overturn the institution . Was not their design to show their ' numbers , with a view of exhibiting their moral force , ana thus endeavouring to carry out their viows of im * proving the Constitution ! If the ten thousand men who came into Newport had come with any intention of taking Newport , would they have been diverted from their attempt by thirty soldiers . The fact of their retiring immediately the soldiers showed themselves and opened the fire , proves that suen was not their object . But it was said , their intention was to arrive at Newport in the night , and surprise the town . Why , if that were 80 , that also proved that they never contemplated fighting the soldiers ; and that the unfortunate event of tbat day was solely attributable to the heat ef tho moment , and the refusal to surrender the

    Chartist prisoners iu the Wtitga ' e . For that riot they ' Sight be punished , though most , if not all , of thosfr immediately connected with the affray had already paid the forfeit of their lives . He had the deepest respect for the trial by jury , and the highest veneration for the judicial bench as it was now constitated . H » left , therefore , the case in their hands with perfect confidence a 3 to their impartiality . He should call but two or three witnesses ; and he entreated them to consider tho effect of a verdict of guilty in such a case as the present , and not lightly to give up those sacred liberties which were obtained by ouT aucestors with so much-difficulty ; but to Haud them down unimpaired to a posterity which would honour them for their justice . Mr . Thomas spoko for seven hours .

    Monmouth , Monday , Jan . 13 . The court sat this morning at nine o ' clock . On the prisoner beinjf placed at tho bar . Baron Parke , addressing him , said—Prisoner at the bar , you intimated , 011 Saturday , that ^ ou possibly might wish to address the jurv this morning . Prisoner—I did , my Lord . ) Baroa Parke—If you persist in / your determination this is thepropor time . J Tho prisoaer , Williams , here turned ghastly pale , paused for a few moments , and then in a faultering tone of voice , said , " My Lords , Gentlemen of the Jury , 1 am entirely innocent of that of which I stand here charged . I never entertained any notion j ? imputed to me . , As relates to what was said by the witnessos examined , I assure you it is extremely false—at leist the greater part of it . I uever entertained tholeast desiga of revolting against the QueeD , so help me G d !

    Tho Attorney-General replied at great length , and m a tone of milduess and forbearauco , which contrasted very favourably with tho coarso tirade of Mr . bohcHor-Goiieral Wilde , " the worthy scion of » -,. ? i , ' tho de £ cendaut of tho famous Jonathan Wilde of thief-making and thief-catching notoriety . The Jury then retired for a short time . Before the summing up commenced , , t , . T T omas ' addressing the Bench , Said—My Lords , it I am guilty of any irregularity in what I am about to say . I trust your Lordships will impute it onlto

    y my deep anxiety , which is inereased by the consciousness of my own want of experience in case 3 of this kind , lest the interests of the prisoner should be in the loast degree prejudiced ia my hand * . My desire is , before your Lordships proceed to lay tho evidence before the Jury , again to record my solemn protest against any part of that evidence jjoing to the Jury , and to declare that nothing that has passed , or that has fallen from me , most be understood as abandoning tho objection to the want of service of the indictment and lists , according to the statute .

    Mr . Baron Parke proceeded to sum up . He exhorted the Jury to dispossess their miads of prejudice and abide strictly by tho evidenco . " . ' " The Jury having retired for twenty-five minutes , returned a verdict of Guilty , with a recommendation to mercy . Baron Parke said—I will take care to forward your recommondation to the proper quarter . This is all we can say . The prisoner , although he had appeared dreadfully depressei during the proceedings , heard the T 9 rdict with great firmness and composure . Before tho Jury roturuod , Ciiief Justice Tindal aaked if there were any bills to go bfcfore the Grand Jury , or whether thoy could bo now dischargea !

    liie Attorney-General regretted tho exigencies of the public service would not permit the dischar-e of the Grand Jury at present . -The circumstances , however , he was not at liberty now to mention . On Thursday , perhaps , the * might be discharged . ¦ ; " Ctiief Justice Tikdal communicated . to 4 he foreman of the grand jury , Lord Granvifie Somerset , the result of the application . - ' . TRIAL OF WILLIAM JONES , THE WATCH

    MAKER , AND THIRD LEADER OF THE INSURGENTS . During the absence of the jury on Zephaniah Williams s case , William Jones was ordered tobeplawi at the bar , which was done . Mr . Owen , the prisoner ' s attorney , applied that tho trial should bepostponed , on the ground , as w » understood , that the prisoner ' s counsel waa not present . Chief-Justice Tindal said this could not be , ash » wished a jury to be impanelled , in order to allow th « other persons who had &een summoned to go to theii homes for a day or two . Tne prisoner , however * would not be put on his trial till to-morrow mornini * They would only take the challenges to night . The impanelling a jury then proceeded , together with the challenge : ! . Up to tho hour when our express left only thre * jurois had beon ewonn

    Untitled Article

    _ ¦ .--. 6 THE NORTHERN S JTAR ^ I ,, |

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), Jan. 18, 1840, page 6, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/king-y1kbzq92ze2667/page/6/