He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by counsel. The case of Miss Porter was then gone into, and the evidence, as already detailed, was adduced. For the defence, he called his master, Mr. Michell, who swore that he was at work till twelve, on the night of the 18th of January, and did not quit his house till after supper at half-past twelve, which was also substantiated by the witness of his sister, Miss Michell, Catherine, and Molly Harmond, and two of the workwomen, besides a customer: and ten witnesses were called as to character. The judge summed up very favourably for the prisoner, but the jury, without hesitation, found him guilty. The judge said, as this was a new case, and he had some doubts as to the indictment, he would respite judgment until he had laid the case before the twelve judges. So this, and the other indictments, were put off until the December Sessions. There were many accounts of the trial, and numerous portraits were published of Williams, who was by no means bad-looking, thin and pale, with powdered hair "en queue." The caricaturists took the matter up, and treated the matter as a joke, recommending ladies to have copper petticoats, &c. But the most awful picture is that of "The Monster going to take his afternoon luncheon," where he is depicted as a terrible being about to devour a pretty girl--but the caricaturist shows us, kindly, "the Monster disappointed of his afternoon luncheon," in which engraving, he has a double shot--one at the somewhat delicate subject of the "dress improver" of the day, and the other, how this fashion might be utilised to baffle the Monster of his intended meal. There was the usual newspaper correspondents' wrangle, in which, of course, it was unpopular to advance any argument in favour of the Monster. Indeed, _The World_, of October 16th, says: "Writing a defence of the Monster carries with it more serious consequences than people are at first aware of, because it would appear as if publishing accounts, in the newspapers, or otherwise, could really justify atrocious acts. As Junius has said: 'The people at large are never mistaken in their sentiments, and, if they have formed an opinion, there is no taking them out of it by misrepresentation.'" That there was an opinion in his favour is not only evidenced by this, but at the City Debates, Capel Court, Bartholomew Lane, the question was debated on July 12: "Did the late extraordinary conduct ascribed to Renwick Williams (commonly called the Monster) originate in an unfortunate insanity, a diabolical inclination to injure the fair part of the creation, or the groundless apprehension of some mistaken females?" [Illustration: Protection from the MONSTER.]