The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-11 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

CONSPIRACY—THE KING V. KENSETT AND OTHERS.
(Concluded from The San of yesterday.) -
Stephen Curtis, a vestryman, was present at the vestry
on the lit of August, and inquired of Flood about the list,
but he seemed to know nothing about it. Witness then
went to Davy, and asked for the manuscript, and was told
that he had sent it to the counting-house, with the proof
sheet. He did not say to him at the vestry meeting on the
• Ist of August.that Kensett said that he was the prime
mover of the whole concern ; that he had no doubt all the
vestrymen would be proud of being freeholders of Middle-
' se3t ; but that all the vestry could not be so, and that he
had put forty.two names of the right sort. The motion to
appoint a Committee was made because the registration
had before cost so much money. It was made on the score
of economy.
The beadle proved the ;arraying of the two guineas to
the banker's.
Mr. Coventry—l was the Barrister appoin.4..ed to revise
the list of voters for the county of Middlesex. I pt::fectly
well remember the question arising about the lists of Mary-
lebone. The clerk of the peace at the first. sitting generally
delivers the whole of the lists which have been put upon the
church doors. Those lists generally have the names of the
overseers written. We then call on the overseers to verify
the lists. When I did so in this case I first examined Mr.
Harwood. I could 'get' very little Information from him. I
then examined Mr. Garnett, and got from him the informa-
tion of the insertion of the 42. names. Ithen inquired for the
original list. I traced it to. Mr. Flood, whom I then called,
and he said that the last time he saw the list it was in Mr.
Kensett's hands. I then said, " Mr. Kensett, the list is now
traced to you, will you have the goodness to produce it ?"
No answer was returned. Finding that I could not get
the original list, I swore the overseers to the, true copy.
Mr. Garnett then said that there were forty-two names in-
serted, which were not in the original list whieh he signed.
I then requested him to point them out, which he did. I
think I was then addressed by Mr. Robinson in support of
these claims, and then by Mr. Ady, to show that the whole
list was invalid ; but in exercising my judgment upon it, I
said that the forty-two were improperly inserted, and I
handed the list to Mr. Garnett to strike out those names.
He did so.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—There
was a good deal of political feeling in my Court. Mr. Ady
appeared for the Conservatives, and he argued that the
whole parish ought to be disfranchised, on account of the
illegal insertion of these names.
Mr. Mills cross-examined—He had not,authorised any one
to appear for him before the ReVising Barrister, and sup-
port his claim. (A paper was put into his hand.) Seeing
his name to that paper, he could not deny that he had given
authority for it ; the writing of the name was certainly his.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—And "30 the case for the
prosecution had closed, and they knew not who were the
prosecutors. Were they in an English Court of Justice ?
. There was some assassin in the dark who had got up ti is
prosecution, and who was ashamed to show his flee as prc-
•secutor. Ile did not wonder at it. No Englishman dnre
avow himself the prosecutor of such an indictment. He
never condenmedhe admired—political zeal ; but such a
perversion of the course g f public justice as this, for party
purposes, he abhorred. A went beyond the line of political
.zeal, and became political persecution. He had ever dis-
countenanced, and ever should discountenance, such a per-
version of the powers of the law. His Learned Friend Sir
F. Pollock (not now in Court) had again and again con-
demned in public and in privete, with his high authority,
the present law of conspiracy, and it had been truly said to
general, so vague, and indefinite was the offence of conspi-
racy that if two persons were to blow their noses at the
same moment in church they be indicted for a con-
spiracy to disturb the congregation. There was no one
who might not find himself included in an indictment for
conspiracy. Here, for instance, were six most respectable
persons included in an indictment for a conspiracy, when
some of them, Mr. Flood and Mr. Davy, for instance, had
done nothing but rhat their duty in their respective sittu-
tions called on them to do. He was sure that none of the
lion. Members of the Loyal and Constitutional Association
would have been parties to a prosecution like the •prese.nt,
and if it should happen that any members of that. associa-
tion were by chance in the jury-box, that circumstance
would not appal him, nor even give hint the least uneasi-
ness, for he was sure that they would do their duty and
discountenance this disgraceful prosecution.
The Foreman of the Jury said, that the Jury. having
been thus appealed to he could not remain silent. He was
a member of the Association alluded to, but knew no-
thing of this prosecution, and he should do his duty con-
scientiously and according to his oath, without any regard
to the question by whom the prosecution hail been insti-
tuted. He said this, because if he hail remained silent it
might afterwardS have
.been said that he had been impro-
perly influenced in giving his verdict.—Jlear, from some
person in the crowd.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued. He was corro-
borated in his opinion by what the Forearm of the Juiy
-had said, that the Loyal and Constitutional Association
would have nothing to do with this most scand.does and
disgraceful preeccution. He repeated that it was so, and
that if such prosechtions were frequently resorted to, ne
man would be safe, and this would no longer be a ceuntry
fit to live in. He was glad to find in this declaimer of the
Foreman of all knowledge of this prosecution the proof that
party politics could not blind a conscientious man to the
disgracefulness of the prosecution. The question was,
whether these six gentlemen conspired together to com-
mit a crime ? There were no less than twenty diffe-
rent counts in this indictment. Did not that show that
this was not a well-founded accusation, .since the pro-
secutor was so much In doubt as to the supposed
crime as to vary the statement of it twenty different
times ? One of these twenty charges was-to destroy the list
which had this day been produced uninjured before the
Jury. Instead of being destroyed it WaS in existence ; it.
was preserved in the proper custody, and was ready the
moment it was wanted. Then it was said that these (fefen-,
dants had put. on the list persons not having a colourable
title to vote. The charge was that the 'names were not
upon the list to secure them the right to vote - that was not
the fact. They were put therein
order that 'a
claim law-
fully existing might be put into a train of public and legal
investigation. It was not (lone secretly ; all the world could
see the claims. Any person interested might object to
them, and the Loyal and Constitutional Association was
frill activity, so that it was impossible that the claims could

A verdict of Not Guilty was then taken as to Davy and
iressed the Jury 01 his r n hchi lf.
Stuart,
Mr. Robinson then aa's
Lord DEN3IAN then sun,:med up.
.at a quarto . t 1 tr. o o'..:lcek
The Jury then retired, anal
in the morning, returned a verth ef, finding Henry Stuart,
Christopher Flood, James William Robinson, and William
Davy " Not Guilty," and William Kensett aid George
Glazier " Guilty." _