The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-13 00:00:00

dieted, amoent to high treason—and, that no etrained con'
struction put upon that statute by Judges in former and
more corrupt and servile times, ought to be permitted to
prevail in the face of the plain and simple words of the
statute of Edw. 111. That the law was competent to inflict
adequate punishment fur any crime of which these men
might have been guilty was evident from the fact that many
of those persons, some of whose cases he should hereafter
have to defend; were indicted for the minor crime of riot
and conspiracy; Althoitgh none of the Bete of those priioners
arnoanteal to high treason, there was no good legal reason
why they should not have been indicted for treason also,
since if Zephaniah Williams was guilty of treason every
individual of the 5,d00 or 1,0,000 people who were with him
were equally guilty. The Act of 25th Edward the
Third had been called a blessed Act, and the Parliament
that passed it bad been called a blessed parliament. Why
was it called " blessed ?" Was it because it enabled the
King, by means of the law, to select a victini whom he per
sonally hated, or whose property he desired ? Was it be-
cause it was so clear in the language, so simple in its de-
clarations of what was treason, that all who ran might read,
and that no man of the least ordinary intelligence could
fall into the crime of treason without knovving its nor with-
out actually prrdieditatiti. it. L *at not pfetende,'
that, according to the words and intentions of the st,,-
tute, the prisoner was guilty of high treason ; but it it
contended, that, under a forced construction put on that
statute by former Jedges, his acts are to be construed
into a leVying of War against the Povereign, r hieh he never
contemplated, and of which he never dreamed; and the
Jury was called upon to pronounce the prisoner, and all
those connect, d well him in that transaction, to be guilty
of high trea.on —te 5,y that all who herboured—that
gave a eight's lodfeine to any one of those indtvi luals, was
guilty of mispri-ton of treason. So that the Jury were
called upon to declare that not only every individua,
of the multitude was a traitor ; but that every father
harbouring a son—every brother harbouring a brother
—every brother harbouring a sister—indeed, he migh;
say—Ser it seemed that the bonds of female chastity were
not thoueht unstirmotiritable—that ell those individuals
were guilty of treason and misprision of treason, a.md
ought to suffer the death of traitors with all its hang-
ings, beheadings. quarterings, and all its horrible conse-
quences. Was it not frigh•ful to contemplate that ie li
time, like the present, such rt law -,a law of con-
struction and not statute law, should be setight to f
brought iuto operation in times when treisoo would nil
be committed or contemplated, for none but a madma
would now venture to raise his hand against the life
the Sovereign i however, that madman could not, by our
present laws, be punished With death Surely then it was
riot in these times that men clearly punishable by the law
for the offence which they actually did commit—that of s
. . .

great and serious riot—should be put on trial for
their lives under the law of high treason. Was it neces-
sary—ae as there anything in the aspect of the times even to
make it necessary that the Attorneys General should pro-
secute these wretched men, who had only been guilty of
acts of riot, for treason ? Look to the hardship of the
situation in which they were placed Look at the addi-
tional difficulties by which these men were surrounded by
the form and shape of the prosecution. The question of
treason or no treason depended upon the intent and de-
sign of the prisoner, In asseriibling atid Matching with
these multitudes. But how could he call witnesses to
speak to his intentions and designs? What would be the
effect of his calling witnesses, who could give the
clearest evidence that his designs were peaceable. Why,
that these very witnesses would themselves prove that
that they were liable to stand in the same predicament
as the prisoner, and might, and in all probability would, be
transferred from the witness-box to the dock, there to stand
a trial for their own lives, What would be the outcry
against such witnesses from the parties who directed the
progress of this proseetitiorl—lle did net mean his Learned
Friends, but from those parties who resided in the neigh-
bourhood of Newport ? They would instantly exclaim,
What 1 do you come here to vindidate the Chartists—to
prove that their objects were not destruction of law and
order—that they did not intend to levy war against the
Queen—that they ought not to be found guilty of high
treason, and lie hanged, drawn, and quartered—why, you
yourself are one of them, and you shall share the fate of
him whom you came to exculpate I" Such was the fear
which was hung over the heads of the witnesses ; and
though he had witnesses on his brief who could prove the
designs of the prisoner, and that those designs were not
treasonable—witnesses who, at the peril of their own lives,
were ready to put themselves into that box and give their
evidence—how could he—how dare he as an advocate called
on to give his advice, permit men to pla-e themselves in a
position fraught with so much danger ? He had no power,
to make a defence. The prosecutors had ample power
and means, on the other hand, to watch over their case.
They could pardon and promise pardon to as many as they
pleased, and thus had they got up their case. The Jury
would know well that when a man had been kept in prison
for ten days or a fortnight on a charge affecting his life, his
mind, agitated and alarmed by the mi,ery of his condition
—examined as to what evidence he can give against par-
ticular persons—the species of evidence sought, perhaps
suggested to him—it was far from unlikely that, with a
view to save his own life, he would, under the im-
pression of fear, rather invent a story than run the
fearful risk of standing himself at that bar. He did
not know what the character of the humbler classes
in these districts was, but this he knew, that self-
preservation was the first law of nature ; nor was it much
to be wondered at if, under the influence of the exceeding
fear, it should be increased even to its most revolting
form, and that the evidence on which, and on which alone,
the alleged treason of the prisoner Zephaniah Williams
depended, even under the strained construction of the law,
ought to be looked at with the strongest doubts of its
truth, he would show to them when he came to comment
on that part of the evidence. He was now about to draw
their attention to a series of cases on which he felt it his
duty to comment, in order to show how, since the statute
of Edward 111., the law of treason had been extended in
bad times—how in better times it had been ameliorated,
till it was gradually restored to its original position in
Edward the Third's time, leaving unfortunately behind
it those questions of construction alone which derogated
from its original purity. To show how extravagant and
monstrous were these invasions upon the law of high
treason as laid down by the statute of Edward 111..
he need scarcely do more, without troubling the Jury
with all the successive additions by different Parliaments,
than refer ,to a statute of Henry IV., which provided
that any person who should take any steps to procure
the repeal or the revisal of any of the statutes (re-
specting treason) herein-mentioned, should suffer death as
a traitor himself. But laws like these were found to be-
come inoperative from their very extravagance and severity.
and Richard 11., within two years after he procured that
severe statute which extended the punishment of treason,
was himself murdered by traitors. The Learned Coun-
sel then proceeded to call the attention of their Lordships
and the Judges to the cases cited in a book published by a
very able and scientific lawyer, Mr. Luder. It was not
because there was temporary excitement against these men
in the disturbed districts—i was not because that excite-
ment was fostered most unseemingly from the pulpit—i,
was not because a part of the press called upon the Go-
vernment to prosecute these men for the highest crime
known to the law—it was not for any r,f these reasons
that the Government were justified in prosecuting these
prisoners in that shape. When the formidable riots took
place at Bristol, at Nottingham, and at Maidstone, where
lives where lost, did the Attorney-General think of prose-
cuting the actors for high treason? No, they were indicted
for the lesser offences, as these individuals, now the
object of the Special Commission, ought also to
have been. The case in which the doctrine of con-
structive treason was founded, was that of Damaree and
Purchase, in the reign of Queen Anne The Chiet
Justice in that case was neither unimpeachable nor unim
peached in his character, and was, indeed, himself tried
afterwards for very high misdemeanours. That Chief
Justice was previously Attorney-General, and prosecuted
Dr. Sacheverell with a rigour and zeal—l cannot say un-
paralleled—and having been the Attorney-General, wh.
prosecuted Sacheverell, was not very likely as Chief Jus-
tree to show any great favour to two men of his party.
The case of Damaree and Purchase was decided upon
various cases which had preceded it, and if those had no-
thing of soundness, or reason, or honesty, or justice in
them, neither the Jury nor their Lordships would have
much respect for them. The Chief Justice of that day
nad carried the construction of treason farther than it had
ever been carried before, and in fact the encroachment they
made upon the liberty of the subject was a greater high
treason than any of the parties accused were guilty of.
The Judges differed from each other. Those who did not
decide accordine to the pleasure of the King were dismissed.
Others acquiesced, and the unfortunate persons brought
before them suffered the penalties of treason. It was hor-
rible to think of, but their Lordships, who now sat on the
bench. know it to be true. It was decided in the case of
Damaree, that a mob assembling, and going together for
particular purposes. committed treason, although they were
not armed. All former cases had required something of
a military or martial array. but in that case it was decider:
that mere numbers furnished fury and force, and that i,
was not necessary they should be armed. The Jury must
feel that to carry constructive treason to that extent would
include every Reform meeting in this country ; and, it this
prosecution should succeed, he asked would any man be
,afe who should as•oeiate with others on either side in po
litics for the purpose of obtaining an alteration of the law ?
—for, if the jury proceeded on the prece tent of Daman,
and Purchase, arms were not necessary. The earliest cast-
which be found as a decision of th:: Judges, was without date.
In that case it was held by the Judges that an insurrection

for the enhancing of salary and wages was levying war against
the King, and the authority he bad cited, after urging various
objections to the grounds of that decision,went on to show that
all laws were the King's laws, and founded upon the con-
stitution of the country, but arising from the source of the
Crown itself, and that the cases were decided by the ser-
vants of the King simply to keep up his rights and privi-
leges. The next case was connected with the King's
right to expel strangers. If there were Italians, Flemings,
or other foreigners in the kingdom, th King had a right to
order them, by proclamation, to depart the realm. No
subjoct possessed this right, and it was decided by the
Judges, that if any assumed it that was a levying of war.
Now, certainly, i might be contrary to the statute under
which the King claimed the right, and which he got his
creatures to assist him in enforcing, but it never was trea-
son under the statute of Edward 111. This case occurred
on Mayday, 1518, when a few unruly apprentices resistel
an Alderman, and proceeded to break open prisons, where
some persons who had ill-treated foreigners were confined.
They also attacked houses, burning and rifling them; and,
although the Lieutenant of the Tower discharged his guns
upon them, the tumult was not quelled until three o'clock
in the morning, after they had wreaked their vengeance
upon all who were obnoxious to then. The Judges all
proceeded to the house of Sir John Finew, the Chief Jus-
tice, and after a consultation as to what was to be done on
the trial, they agreed to find the parties guilty of treason,
under a particular statute. Was it not monstrous that
the case of to-day should proceed upon Acts passed for the
temporary purposes of the Crown; and yet upon them it
addreidpsrs to the oceed,fo r the Learned Chief Justice had, in his
d
Jury, in a similar case, read from Foster
these very cases, although he did not enter into them
minutely, he mentioned every one of them, and that
showed that their case must stand or fall as regarde,l