At the Central Criminal Court, on Wednesday, Joseph Irenmus J.
Fussell was tried, on the threefold charge of seditiousspeaking, being present at an unlawful assembly, and rioting, all at a Chartist meeting held in Clerkenwell Green on the 29th of May. The Attorney-General, Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Clerk, appeared for the Crown s Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Haddlestone for the accused. The Judges were Chief Justice Wilde, Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice Manic The fact of Fusselre having delivered the speeches impugned was proved by two reporters, who attended, on their own account, to furnish a parmership report of what they thought interesting enough to get insertion in The public journals, and who were paid by the line for so much of their report as was accepted. One in Fussell's reported speech had ran—" If the Queen forgets to recognize ttess;egtetple, the people must forget to recognize the Queen." Another had suggested a rising of Irishmen to revenge the insult of Mitchel's transportation, jilt should happen; and had counselled the "overthrow of the Government." But the most remarkable passage was one containing a suggestion of assassination, in these words— Anti now, I wish to impress upon you that there is one safe way of getting rid of bad rulers who forget their duty to their country. I openly avow that I mean private swsssination. What made the Emperor of Austria fly from his country ? Why, the fear of assassination ; and It is by those means that other bad rulers will soon fly. I have five sons, and I now declare I would disown any one of them who would refuse to assassinate any person who may be instrumental 10 banishing me from my country for Such an offence as John Mitchel was convicted of."
Witnesses; proved that the meeting was one that had been concerted beforehand by the Chartist leaders, and consisted chiefly of persons who obeyed with military precision some marching orders given by those leaders: they also proved marching in procession, collisions with the police, and a degree of alarm felt by the tradesmen in the route of the matching. Mr. Sergeant Allen's plan of defence was based chiefly on a denial of the use of the assassination phrases—at all events, their use in the sense given them by the popular newspaper report. By cross-examining the reporters, Mr. Allen got from one of then, some facts of a kind to lower his personal estimation. The other reporter was not personally impeached. Mr. Sergeant Allen contended, that if the assassination phrase were withdrawn, there was no sedition in the speech; and he denied that the meeting was an illegal assembly. He justified the phrase about refusing, alternatively, to recognize the Queen: in 1688 a King been expelled by the Teeple for not recognizing laws and liberties which were the result of an act of the
Poets line Judges held that the evidence of riot was insufficient to go to the Jury. Chief
Justice Wilde summed up. If the expressions reported were used, there was no doubt they fell within any reasonable definidon of sedition. The Jury must judge of that; and also if the second charge were supported by the evidence of concerted arrangement of the meeting, and of alarm mepired by its proceedings. Sir Thomas Wilde stated his astonishment at Sergeant Allen's justification of the phrase regarding the Queen. The law everywhere stated that the King could do no wrong, and that the responsibility of the acts of the Crown rested on its adyieers. That was the doctrine maintained on the abdication of King James (who was not expelled); and if the principle were tree that the King could be denied recognition or brought personally to trial, all public security would be destroyed, and the same confusion follow here that at present exists in France.
The Jury found Fussell guilty of sedition, and of attending at an unlawful assembly; not guilty of rioting. Judgment was postponed.
On Thursday, Joseph Williams, a baker, and William John Vernon, lecturer, were tried on two charges of being present at an unlawful assembly and of rioting. Williams was defended by Mr. Sergeant Allen; Vernon by Mr. Parry and Mr. W. Metcalfe. The Attorney-General did not insist on the second charge. As soon as the evidence of Williams's presence at the meeting in Clerkenwell on the 29th May was proved, his counsel asked permission to withdraw his plea of "Not guilty," and plead "Guilty": but Mr. Parry complaining that this course might prejudice his client, it was arranged that the whole proofs should be gone through in each case, though Williams made no further defence. Mr. Parry admitted that the meeting was illegal, but made an attempt to show by evidence that Vermon took no part in its illegality. The Jury -found both prisoners guilty of the charge of being present at an unlawful meeting: they also, in defiance of Sir John Jervis's waiver, found Williams guilty of rioting.
Yesterday, Alexander Sharpe, painter, was tried for sedition, for being present at an unlawful assembly, and for rioting. The Attorney-General was particularly desirous of proving the last charge, in order that it might be known that persons who excite the passions of a mob, but leave the mob from cowardice before the actual violence takes place, are yet as guilty in law of that violence as if they stay and actually join in it. At the meeting in Bonner's Fields on the 4th of June, the prisoner used language which was provocative of a collision with the police: he suggested the pulling down of iron railings for weapons, and had told the mob they should on a late occasion have opened and received the police and then closed in on them; "and then, if they had done as I would have done, very few of them would have come out again." Two gentlemen employed by Government to take verbatim reports of the speeches produced their evidence. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins defended the prisoner at great length: he referred to the Whig agitation for Reform and that for repeal of the Corn-laws, and by comparison with the speeches made then by eminent persons, justified his client's language. The Chief Justice summed up. He responded to the Attorney-General's desire to state how the law bore on Sharpe s partisular case— "If persons assembled to the number of three or more, and speeches were made calculated to excite and inflame them and induce them to commit sets of violence, or having a clear tendency to that effect; and if at that meeting, or immediately after it, acts of violence constituting a riot -were committed, and it was impossible to sever those acts from the excitement occasioned by the speeches that had been delivered; then lie was of opinion, that in law, not only the hand that struck the blow or threw the stone would be guilty of riot, but the persons who had excited them by tbeir inflammatory harangues, if it should be considered that they had been acting with one common object." The Jury found Sharpe guilty of the two first charges, but not guilty of riot.
Previous page
