fit to use. But now comes the expression that there is a safe mode of getting rid of bad rulers, and that is by assassination. Now, the learned Counsel, as might be expected of that honourable gentleman, and every other round the table, would never think for a moment of defending the use of such an expression or such an exhortation. He has taken the fair and legitimate course of submitting to you that the evidence is not such as should satisfy you that so horrible and s› detestable a statement ever was made; and in proportion as you detest it, he invites you to be cautious in the reception of the evidence which is offered to you to prove that it was used. The more violent it is, the learned Counsel tells you, the less likely is it to have been used, and, therefore, the more satisfactory should be the evidence. On the part of the Crown, the evidence is that of two persons who attended for the purpose of reporting; and they swear that these expressions were used. But the learned Counsel requires you to reject their testimony, not to consider it safe to act upon; first, because it is grossly improbable that the person charged should have used it. But as to the probability, you must form your own judgment. It is a sentiment undoubtedly most abhorrent to every feeling of honourable men, high or low. The humbler classes of this country do not entertain feelings less abhorrent to assassination than the highest class in the kingdom; at the same time, you must in every individual case not shrink from a fair and calm examinaLion of the evidence, and see how far it is made out. Now, there are other probabilities to be considered. You must look at the general tone and see whether you can draw any inference from that; next, you have two persons who swear that the expressions were used, and that they reduced them into writing; one is a shorthand writer, the other is not. Observations are made with reference to the one who is not a shorthand writer, tending to show that his evidence is entitled to less reliance from the deficient means from which he is supposed to speak, namely, the writing in ordinary hand instead of shorthand. Gentlemen, I must own, as far as my experience goes, that if one man takes notes in ordinary hand, and another takes notes in shorthand, so far as the ordinary hand goes, it is generally the most correct, he does not take as much, but the shorthand writer has many marks and notes; and it is not unfrequent to find that one person will copy the mark as meaning one thing, and another will copy it as meaning another thing, which is not the case with long hand; and, I believe, among the best reporters, it has generally

been admitted, were to be found men who did not write shorthand at all. Now it does not appear that these two reporters were aware whether there was any other reporter attending that meeting or not, there were no others on the platform or in the van; but whether there were others attending the meeting, they had no means of knowing, If, therefore, they sent an erroneous account to a newspaper, they did it at the peril of some other reporter, or anybody else, taking a more correct note and contradicting them. Now, at a meeting of two or three thousand persons, an individual who should impute a long distinct statement to another of so remarkable a nature as that which I have read, would undoubtedly do it at the peril of very serious contradiction. The probability, therefore, of the party having used the expressions must be put against the probability of these two persons sending their notes to a paper giving a false account at the peril of contradiction, and (according to their statement) the loss of future employment. But, in the next place, you have two persons, the one writing shorthand, the other ordinary hand, and they agree in their note of this particular expression; and that is another circumstance, therefore, to be taken into account. [The cross-examination of the witness Fowler was important as affecting his credit, but his evidence is supported by the shorthand writer, who has produced his original notes which contain the expression; so that if he invented it, in concert with Fowler, he must have invented it at the moment it was spoken One of the defendant's witnesses confirms the allusion to the Emperor of Austria.] The witness says that the defendant was remarking on governments which were apparently strong, and pointed out how soon they might be shaken or destroyed;

For what made the Emperor of Austria fly from Vienna ? The fear of assassination." It was undoubtedly a most unhappy allusion. In a meeting of that sort, talking of bad governors-talking of a Queen who had forgotten and neglected her duty to her subjects-pointing out how the Government might be destroyed, and pointing to an Emperor who had flown from assassination-would, even supposing it was not followed by the particular words which were used, and referring to the Emperor of Austria, would tend to raise the idea of assassination in the minds of the hearers, and suggest the idea that there was one mode of redress in regard to a Queen who had forgotten her duty to her subjects, or in regard to a bad and contemptible Government, like that which they impute the present Government to be. And what was the object of

g to the Emperor of Austria fled from the fear of assassination; he had fled from the displeasure, ent, excitement, and so on, of the ce generally, but that assassination en the cause? You will, therefore, or that supposing it stood as the ant's witness has stated, that in the of speaking of these grievances he ed to the Emperor of Austria, who en compelled to fly from his capital fear of asassination; with what with what intent, and with what ng the defendant used the expreswhich the witnesses impute to him, sing him not to have used all the exons which the parties called by the n have sworn he did use. But there room for doubt, if the expressions used, as sworn to by those two wites; if you credit Potter, who proved from his shorthand notes, without id of Fowler; or if you credit the two the confirmation that arises from united testimony, both speaking from r notes, made at the same time, and curring and containing this passage. entlemen, he then proceeds to say that had five sons, and he declares that he ld disown any one of them who would ise to assassinate any person who might nstrumental in banishing him for the ence of which John Mitchel had been victed. To be sure, one hardly knows w to deal with sufficient temper with an pression which imputes to a man that ilst doing acts which might be expected subject him to great trouble and to blic prosecution, he is avowing that he ould wish that his crime should be llowed by murder, to be committed by s sons, in order to avenge him, should › be made amenable to punishment. Gentlemen, you will therefore consider ow much of that which I have read to on, as contained in the indictment, has een proved; and you will then consider hether those expressions were used with he intention, which the indictment imutes, to incite to disquiet and disturb the iege subjects of the Queen; to incite and nove to hatred and dislike to the person of the Queen and of the Government by law established; and to incite, move, and persuade great numbers of the subjects of Her Majesty to insurrections, murders, assassinations, tumult, and unlawful assemblies, and to obstruct by force of arms the execution of the laws of the realm. That is the intent charged. Now if the expressions were used with the intention of exciting to unlawful assemblies and tumults, to obstruct by force of arms the execution of the laws of the country,

not meant the administration of the day, but the permanent Government of the country, composed of the various institutions which unitedly constitute the Government of the country--if you consider that the expressions were used with the object of exciting to the hatred to which I have referred, or to insurrections, assassinations, tumults, and unlawful assemblies, or to obstruct by force of arms the execution of the law, then the defendant will be guilty. You will understand it is not necessary that the expressions shall have been addressed to the mob with the intention of doing each or all of these things; but it is enough if they were addressed with the intent and purpose of accomplishing any one of them, and in that case the party would be subject to a verdict of guilty. Gentlemen, the expressions are themselves, I apprehend beyond all doubt, of a very dangerous nature. Of the degree of danger you will judge. It is to juries, and to juries alone, that the country looks to protect fair and honest meetings for the discussion of public grievances, with full and free liberty in strong language to discuss these grievances, with the view of procuring a constitutional and legal redress. It is for you to secure the continu. ance of the right of public meeting, to protect the right from being abused, and public meetings being made the instruments of exciting to discontent and hatred of the government of the country, and to excite to those tumults and meetings which have a tendency to disturb all property, all peace, and make the existence of the right of attending public meetings the greatest possible nuisance-if, indeed, it could exist with such incidents as that last referred to.

There is, gentlemen, a second count in the indictment, for attending an illegal assembly. Now, I before stated to you that if that assembly was got up with the view of making inflammatory harangues, and speeches of a dangerous nature, and for the purpose of getting people together to hear them, undoubtedly the calling a meeting for such purposes as those, and calling people together in such numbers as to be calculated to produce alarm in reasonable minds, would constitute an illegal assembly. Mere numbers may meet for the purpose of rejoicing; they may meet for the purpose of discussing grievances; they may meet peaceably, and legally, and quietly; but wherever there shall be a meeting of great numbers, then it is important to look at the objects of that meeting, by whom called, the objects for which it is called, and the manner in which that meeting is con

are presented for adoption. It appears that this meeting was called by a placard, in the terms, "Meet at all hazards!' What was meant by that? Did it mean, meet in spite of the authority of the civil law; meet in spite of any resistance which may be offered; or, what did it mean? It appears also that there was an intimation published among a certain class of persons through different stations or districts, and that a great number of persons were got together without its appearing that the attention of the public generally had been drawn to the intention to hold any such meeting, and it also appears that there were contemporaneous meetings in different places, because it appears that Williams in his speech says, Come with me; I will lead you to a meeting where there shall be"-at one time he says, "five times the number," and at another time he says, "ten times the number that are here; go with me and you will know where you are to go when you are there, and you will be told, when you are there, what to do." You will look to the manner of calling this meeting, and you will consider, when the meeting was called, was there a discussion of public grievances- -a discussion in that form and manner which was consistent with the intent and design of procuring legal and constitutional redress for those grievances, or with some other design. There were three or four speeches made; you have had laid before you what is alleged to have been all that was said; you can judge whether that which was said, and has been detailed to you, really was that sort of discussion which reasonable men, intending only to procure a legal redress of grievances, would be likely to use, or whether they were expressions tending only to produce dissatisfaction and a contempt of the laws, and an intention to

resist.

Now, it is perfectly clear that meetings may be called under the pretence of public meetings to discuss the redress of grievances; but persons are quite mistaken if they suppose that juries will be so weak as to be easily deceived, if those meetings are really attended with circumstances which disturb the public peace and create alarm, that any pretence of invitation to keep the peace will be taken to qualify the objects which are distinctly apparent from the conduct of the parties, and of those circumstances attending the meeting which clearly show that the meeting does produce alarm and does tend to disturb and interrupt men in their lawful and reasonable occupations. A jury will never be diverted from looking at the real character of a meeting by any pretended speeches of calmness and gentle

ness which may be made by canning speakers at the meeting; the jury will be found to look at the substance. You will ascertain the real character of the meeting and pierce through any expressions which may inculcate peace, if it be intended that there shall be no peace. But at the same time, in the first instance, a man ought to be taken to mean what he says. You will, therefore, always hear with a disposition to believe and to give credit to them expressions inviting to the public peace; but when you do hear them, whatever may be your inclination to believe them, if the meeting is called in a manner to import secrecy, and an intention to throw the public authorities off their guard, that they may not be there to preserve the public peace-if you find that they are under the control of particular individuals to whom the mob or the people assembled lend themselves, and are ready to go where they are led, and to do what they are told-in that case being accompanied with harangues which in your judgment are calculated to excite resistance and disobedience to the law, beyond all doubt, whatever expressions may be used, such a meeting is an illegal meeting. Now, look at the circumstances under which this meeting is called; look at what is said at the meeting; look at the control which it is said Williams exercised over the meeting, leading it to such a place as he thought fit, and taking persons with him under his direction, that they might do what they were told. Attend also to what passed at the coffee-shop in Redcross Street, when they talked of doing something, and one of the parties was speaking from the window, the mob said "Come down, and we will do it to-night." That was accompanied by an invitation to go to the Times newspaper office. It is to be observed that the defendant is not proved to have been there; and, therefore, we ought to take him not to have been there, and he is not responsible for what was there said, unless it can be supposed to have been part of the original design. When they separate the defendant is present, and then, according to the statement, stopped speaking to enable Williams to tell the people to fall in four abreast and to follow him; and, before he speaks, Williams has stated that he would lead them to a meeting ten times greater in numbers, and they would do what he desired. Whether that can be taken by you as satisfactory evidence that the defendant was mixed up with Williams, so as to exercise a control over the mob under the leadership of Williams; if it satisfies you of that, then what was done under such an arrangement would affect

endant; but it would not other f there was a new thought, somehich arose after they left Clerkene last place at which the defendant n-you ought to reject the words her, and ought not to allow your to be in any degree influenced by passed. You, therefore, will look character of this meeting; how it lled; by whom; what was said; u will form your judgment whether it was called for the purpose of g and making seditious speeches, or the purpose of exciting general tent; and although not intended to to a riot on that night, whether it tended to prepare the minds of that with such a degree of discontent, such a degree of hostility to the exg authorities of the country, as should er them fit and apt instruments on a re day, when they might be more ared. If you see any ground for that lusion upon the evidence before you, ill be material that you should take into consideration. You will, there, consider whether the defendant used language which is imputed to him in first count; and when you have satisyourselves of the extent to which it roved, you will see whether those exssions were uttered with the design of ving the tendency to which I have led your attention; and, in the next ace, you will also consider the circumnces attending the meeting, although fell short of being a riot, for a meeting ay be a very illegal assembly without ere being a riot. A meeting called for e purpose of exciting general discontent ad putting the people in that state of xasperation which may lead to a riot, by aligning the authorities of the country, would be an illegal meeting, although it hould stop short of a riot; therefore, lthough the learned Counsel was relieved rom any burthen of defending his client against the riot, inasmuch as on this I articular occasion it would appear that the alarm was not very great, they speak of other meetings and at other times which we cannot mix up with the present occasion. The evidence was certainly not strong upon the alarm which was produced on this very night. One man was called who told you that shops were shut on

seven

several nights, and he could not distinguish this night from the rest; but there were a great many persons to hear what was said, and you will judge how far what was said, with the number of persons who were present at that hour of the night, namely, commencing at six or o'clock and keeping on till half-past eleven-you will judge how far such a meeting would be an illegal assembly. Although the defendant may not be responsible for every expression which may have been used after the time he is shown to be at the meeting, yet undoubtedly this was a continuance of that meeting of which you have the commencement, and you may fairly take into account what took place after that meeting in considering the character which belonged to it at the time of its assembling. It does appear that the defendant, Williams, and M'Carthy took a leading part; they were in the van. It will be remembered that you have no evidence that they were the persons who called the meeting, or who procured the van; they were the only persons who took that part of leading the meeting, which may very properly be taken into your consideration in determining whether they were or were not the persons who called that meeting. You will take the whole into your consideration. It is beyond all doubt a most important case, and much depends on you in holding even scales, and exercising a cautious but firm judg ment on the part of the Government and between the public and the defendant, taking care to preserve the public right of free, open, vigorous discussion, if people think fit, of public grievances, on the one hand, and that you do not allow it to be abused by the creating of public terror and public mischief on the other. You will consider your verdict, and I dare say you will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

The jury retired, and, after an absence of fifteen minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty."

66

See sentence below, p. 817.

MATERIALS MADE USE OF.-The speeches of counsel and the summing up are taken from Mr. Gurney's shorthand note, preserved at the Treasury. The evidence is taken from the Old Bailey Sessions Papers.