before daylight, None of the mob went forward as spokesmen. They came close to the door. I could only see the steps, to which the mob came close up. The first moment or two they asked for the prisoner Smith; then a rush was made. Then I heard firing, and took to my heels. I cannot say whether the mob had guns, pikes, or clubs. I cannot tell whether they were armed for the biggest part. I heard some one say, in a very loud voice, "No, never." I was distant from the door of the Westgate twenty-five yards when I heard the words. I heard no groaning. I could not say where the firing began. No man could judge. You nor I could not tell. Saw no smoke outside. It is likely enough the firing began from the Westgate inn."

Mr. Edward Thomas, a draper, and Mr. William Townsend, an iron dealer in Newport, also spoke to Mr. Frost's character during the last twenty years. He was described as punctual in his payments, of "much benevolence and kindness in his feelings," and a most unlikely person to engage in any design of overthrowing the govern ment. Mr. Thomas also mentioned particulars respecting the mode of forwarding letters to Bristol from Newport, in conformity with sir Frederick Pollock's statement.

Sir Benjamin Hall said, he had frequently been in communication with the prisoner, who assisted him in his canvas in 1834. He never knew anything of him but what was very good.

Mary Jones, who lived next door to James Hodge, stated that she saw him in bed in his own cottage at Blackwood, between eight and nine o'clock on the Monday morning

I went for milk that morning;

and after I had left it at home I turned in to Hodge's house, seeing the door open, and said to Mrs. Hodge-"Mary, did you hear the people going down," says I, "last night," and she showed me her husband, and said, "here's my old man, thank God." I did not see James Hodge that morning before I saw him in bed. I cannot say if his wife was up. I suppose she was in bed as well as I was. Nobody was living in my house but myself and my daughter.

Henry Williams, an ironmonger in Newport, and a special constable at the Westgate hotel on the 4th November, was called to prove that the men who first came up to that inn said, "Surrender up your prisoners." To this he deposed, as the following evidence elicited from him, will show.

I had the honour of acting as the mayor's aid-de-camp very early in the morning. I saw the mob about two miles or two miles and a half off. I went then up Pyecorner, which is beyond Tredegarpark. I saw a great number armed in various ways, with pikes, guns, and mandrils. I saw one party which was between four hundred and five hundred in number. When I saw the mob a second time, they were about a mile from Newport. They were then halting and cheering. As soon as I saw the body, I returned to the mayor and told him what I had seen. They were then near the machine. I did not observe whether they divided. When I returned the second time, I was stationed at the Westgate door. I remained there until the mob came down to the Westgate hotel. They passed the front door and went towards the gates, and then they returned. They were led by the man who spoke to me,

and who said "Surrender up your prisoners." He had an axe upon a pole. I received two stabs in the body, a wound in the leg, and a gun-shot in the head. I received these wounds from the Chartists when I was standing at the door acting as a special constable. The The mob tried to get in at the door, and I and other special constables tried to prevent them; and we were wounded while thus preventing them. I heard no groaning for the special constables. I am convinced there was no groaning. I fell senseless after being shot. It was in the lobby where I had been wounded. At that time a great many shots had been fired from the insurgents. I was three or four feet inside the door when I was shot. I saw Oliver and O'Dwyer there, acting as special constables. I saw the Chartists thrusting at us with their pikes, breaking the windows, and doing every damage they possibly could. Did not recover my senses until after the insurgents had retreated. The lobby was full of insurgents, and I was left alone. The rest of the special constables were driven in. Those of the mob who were in the lobby had pikes and guns. I am not sure that any of them were in the passage where the soldiers were stationed, but I think they were. I did not see the constables make any attack, or attempt to seize a pike. We were on the defensive. The mayor had positively ordered that we should not attack. struggle was going on about two minutes before I was shot. I did not see the front-door shut at all. I do not know how many special constables there were. I suppose there were a hundred altogether. I think there must have been twenty in the lobby. The special

The

constables had no other weapons than a constable's club. Before I was shot, I saw the guns pointed and the firing come from the street and street-door. The shots were directed against the special constables. There were eight or ten shots fired. The special constables did all they could to guard the Westgate, and were driven in by an armed body. I saw the soldiers arrive from the barracks. I saw the soldiers come round the corner, as if from Stowe Hill. That would be the natural course from the barracks. There were numbers going about at the time, who must have seen the soldiers coming down Stowe Hill. There was not fa quarter of a minute between the man speaking to me and the first shot being fired.

Lord Granville Somerset, M.P. for Monmouthshire, gave evidence that, during the reform struggle in 1832, Frost endeavoured to protect the Tory candidates from the violence of a mob. The misdelivery of a letter alone prevented the duke of Beaufort from being present at the trial.

This closed the evidence for the defence.

Mr. Fitzroy Kelly then addressed the jury in a most able and luminous speech in defence of the pri soner, at the conclusion of which, chief justice Tindal asked the prisoner, whether he wished to say any thing in addition to the arguments of his counsel?

Frost, who then for the first time appeared to lose somewhat of his previous resolution, said, "My lord, I am so well satisfied with what my counsel have said, that I decline saying any thing in addition"

The solicitor-general followed on the side of the prosecution. A considerable part of his speech was

devoted to the purpose of establishing a connexion between Frost's acts and those of Zephaniah Williams and other leaders in the insurrection, in order to satisfy the jury that it was not a sudden or isolated movement for the mere purpose of releasing the Newport prisoners, but a preconcerted scheme to subvert the queen's go. vernment throughout the country -though if the design extended to the deposition of the lawful authorities in Newport only, it was treasonable. He maintained the credibility of the statements that Frost and his associates really intended to stop the mails, and the traffic of Newport, and to produce a general insurrection; and argued, that the assembling of men in large numbers, from many and distant quarters, the seizure of arms, the compulsory enlistment of the colliers, the proving of the guns during the march, and the attack upon the Westgate inn were facts altogether subversive of the theory set up by the prisoner's counsel, that he meant only a peaceable demonstration in behalf of Vincent and the Chartist prisoners. Frost knew there were soldiers in Newport, and he must have gone there with the foreknowledge that his armed followers would come into collision with them. In fact, they were armed and expecting a fight. With respect to Mr. Frost's character, let all that had been said for him weigh in his favour; but he could not discover any very extraordinary degree of humanity in marching an armed body of reckless men into a peaceable town, in the dead of night-for such was the design-with no power to prevent outrages, or even to protect his own wife and five daughters. He fully admitted that Frost's papers

contained nothing treasonable the prisoner took especial care, it would appear, of his papers. The prisoner could only be convicted upon clear testimony; and his object was not to convict, but to obtain a verdict, whatever that might be, consistent with the facts and the evidence.

Chief justice Tindal in charging the jury, explained the law of treason, and directed particular attention to the following dictum of sir Matthew Hale:

:

"If men levy war to break prisons, to deliver one or more particular persons out of prisons, wherever they are lawfully imprisoned, unless such are imprisoned for treason; this, upon advice of the judges upon a special verdict found at the Old Bailey, was ruled not to be high treason, but only a great riot (1668); but if it were to break prisons or deliver persons generally out of prisons, this is treason."

He thought that the rule of law might be explained in a few words

"There must be an insurrection there must be an armed force accompanying it, and there must be an object of a general and public nature, and if all these occur in one instance, it is sufficient to constitute the levying of war under the statute; and the question for you to determine will be, whether, when the facts are more fresh within your knowledge, whether the acts reported to have been done by the prisoner amount to the levying of war in the sense I have explained; or whether they amount to no more than a grievous misdemeanour. For although they may have been attended with great danger to the country and to the public peace, still they may not

amount to the offence of high treason, but only to a grievous misdemeanour."

Having recapitulated the principal facts stated by witnesses, the judge put it to the jury to decide whether "the prisoner had levied war against the queen in her realm."

That there was very great violence, that there was an attack made upon the town of Newport, and that a conflict was carried on at the Westgate, is placed beyond all doubt. It is proved that a very large body of men came into the town at an unusual hour; and that they came from different points are matters not disputed. Acts were done which you are to judge of. If their intention was to carry on a rebellion, or by a display of that which is called "moral force," but by means of which no mischief was intended, it was still expected that the magistrates would be induced either to release Vincent, or to treat him more favourably than hitherto he had been treated, if these things were done with a general design, then was high treason committed; but if it were for the other object, it would be punished, and very severely punished, by the law, but not with that extremity of punishment which treason incurred.

It was not necessary for the pri soner to show that his design was to release Vincent and other prisoners, but it lay with the crown to prove that his acts amounted to high treason.

The jury retired for half an hour, and then brought in a verdict of "guilty," with a recommendation to mercy.

Shortly afterwards, Zephaniah Williams and William Jones, the principal accomplices of Frost,

were put upon their trial, at the conclusion of which the same verdict was brought in against them.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

TRIAL OF GOULD FOR THE MURDER OF MR. TEMPLEMAN.

APRIL 14.

At ten o'clock this morning, precisely, Mr. Justice Littledale, and Mr. Baron Alderson entered the court, and having taken their seats, the prisoner, Richard Gould, alias Arthur Nicholson, was ordered to be placed at the bar. He was immediately brought forward, and advanced to the front of the bar with a firm step and perfect selfpossession. He is a clean, good looking young man, and wore a drab shooting jacket.

The prisoner was then charged with having, on the 17th of March last, in the parish of St. Mary's Islington, in and upon John Templeman, feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, made an assault; and that he, with a certain piece of wood, of the value of one penny, did inflict upon the said John Templeman divers mortal wounds, blows, strokes, and contusions on his head, face, and breast, of which mortal wounds, blows, strokes, and contusions, he then and there did die, and that he (the prisoner) was guilty of the said murder.

The counsel for the prosecution then proceeded to state the case to the jury; and, in doing so, he expressed his anxiety to place before them fairly and dispassionately the circumstances con

nected with this most atrocious and mysterious murder. The only object which the prosecutors had in view, was to bring the guilt home to the guilty party and he was quite sure, that if the evidence which he proposed to bring forward distinctly pointed to the prisoner as the man, the jury would not hesitate to do their duty, however painful it might be; but if, on the other hand, they should see reasonable ground for believing that the prisoner was not guilty of the atrocious act imputed to him, they would at once acquit him of the charge? The unfortunate deceased was an old gentleman; was, in the carly part of his life a robust athletic man, but latterly his frame was debilitated by illness. He inhabited a cottage in a place called Pocock's-fields, near the Hollowayroad, in the parish of Islington; and, although several cottages were scattered around, the spot was nevertheless exceedingly lonely. The deceased slept and lived by himself, but a woman who lived close by, was in the habit of occasionally attending upon him, to go of his errands, and perform the duties of a domestic in his cottage. A man named Jarvis and his wife lived in another cottage close by, and another was occupied by a person named Thornton and his family. The deceased had the reputation amongst his neighbours of being a man of property; and, unfortunately for him he appeared to have encouraged the notion. The learned gentleman then proceeded at great length to narrate the facts connected with the murder of the deceased; the manner in which it was discovered, the finding of the body; the state in which the cottage was found; and

finally, the suspicious circumstances which led to the apprehension of the prisoner in the house where he lodged on the night after the murder. Witnesses were then called in support of the case for the prosecution :—

Elizabeth Thornton sworn :-I live with my mother in a cottage in Pocock's-fields, Islington. I am a single woman. The cottage in which the deceased lived is facing ours. I remember the morning of Tuesday, the 17th of March last. I went to Mr. Templeman's cottage on that morning at halfpast eight, by direction of my mother with two sheets of writing paper. I knocked at the door, but received no answer. The deceased slept in a room the farthest from the door. There is a window to the bed-room, which was closed. I then went to the sittingroom window, and looked in. The bed-room window had a curtain, but I could not see over it. I then went to my mother, and told her what I had seen.

Mary Thornton. I am the mother of the last witness. In consequence of what she told me I went to the cottage of the deceased, and knocked at the door, but no answer was returned. I went to the bed-room window, and looking over the curtain I saw the bed. No one was in it. I then saw the deceased on the floor. His feet were towards the fire place and his head towards the parlour door. I found the sittingroom window open. I had been in the habit of washing for the deceased and fetching his errands. The parlour-window had been broken for some time. I observed a hole near the button which fastened the window. I had been to the house of the deceased at a