The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

4- ?vt'f•---T--

Scotland had been transacted and confirmed at a fornier
period
" And whereas, in furtherance of the said resolution, both
II uses of the said two Parliaments respectively have likewise
agreed upon certain articles for effectuating and establishing
the said purposes in the tenor following :
" Ariicle First—That it be the first article of the Union
of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said
kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first
dar
om,
tGhreaadrr shall
neol
into
batd i
ot
utems
roadiinttneiaeol
nntkeh:i
aendungeny,dni
under the
ohabafneynt
greatiau:nerl
siinnLtastohmehraaedetl
the
f ofy(
thet)l:Re'oofs
Majesty,ta)a:nani January,
at:tenf United rbaei Ktyree)ai dhn:e
is Royal
inr Kingdom
et
whiche3
u °s
al Kingdom appertaining to the lmperial Crown
ensigns, armorial flags, arid banners thereof, shall be such as
hiof the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint." In
the Act of Union the kingdom of Great pass-
ingceased
to
exist, and the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist ; and instead
of these too there was formed one united kingdom, under the
style and title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland. It was not that there should be one King having
thereafter two kingdoms for his dominion, but one King
having one kingdom ; and to say that the King or Queen
of Ireland may be treated as the King or Queen of a separate
kingdom, this is absurd—seditious. Until the law be al-
tered by the proper authority—and I don't say that it
may not—but while the law remains as it is—and it has been so
daring the whole of the year 1813 and the preceding years-
which have intervened since the enactment of the Act of
Union—there is one King over this kingdom, incapable by
himself of treating with any class of his subjects, except
through', the Legislature, with regard to a new constitution
or new laws, with respect to any part of the United Kingdom.
I say, moreover, that whichever of his subjects would
take upon himself to inculcate—to proclaim among the
subjects of this part of the United Kingdom that he or any-
body else abstracted from the Legislature the power, either
separately or by himself, or jointly by himself and a
portion of the inhabitants of this part of the United King-
dom, that he or they, independently of the Legislature,
had a power of treating with the Queen for an abro-
gation of the existing law, and to put in its place a new law,
such as we heard suggested, is guilty of a great offence—he is
guilty of the crime of sedition. Scotland as well as England
are:a party to this Act of Union, as appears from the third ar-
ticle of union. The Judges of our Courts are bound to admi-
nister the law as they find the law constructed by the proper
authorities, and are sworn to preserve the laws to administer
justice according to that law, and we have no power, if we had
the disposition, to take upon ourselves—nor have you, Ge• tle-
men of the jury, to take upon yourselves—the power of altering
that law which had been passed by the King, the Lords, and the
Commons of the country, as by law established. It would be
productive of wittiness, anarchy, and confusion, if every roan,
or set of men, abstractedly from Parliament, were permitted to
say " we do not like this law as passed by our Legislature—we
think it was not properly passed—we think there were reasons
which should prevail against it, and therefore we are not
bound in conscience to obey it." Any man who would in-
culcate that doctrine publicly, is guilty of sedition ; it is not
for us, or for you, or any set men, or any individuals abstracted
from Parliament, to take that power and responsibility on
themselves. The law permits it to nobody except the lawful
Legislature of the country, which consist of the Queen, Lords
and Commons, as settled by the Act. of Union. Then, Gentle-
men, the fourth article goes on to regulate the number of re-
presentatives, Lords spiriteal and temporal, and the repre •
sentetives of the House of Commons, which should thencefor-
ward be returned and sit in these respective Houses—so many
for Ireland, so many for England, and so many for Scotland.
It provided all these essential articles of agreement on the
basis of which these three great countries, England, Scot-
and, and Ireland agreed to together to become one great
empire, under the denomination of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland. I need not go over the other
articles which regulate other matters thus formed between the.
two parties—all these have been duly enumerated; and these
articles being recited in the Bth article, the whole were de-
clared to be the Articles of the Union of Great Britain and
Ireland, and the same shall be enforced and be in effect fur
ever from the Ist January, 101. That Aet was, of course
carried into effect. This is the law announced and ratified by
the King, the Lords, and the Commons of both countries, and
that is to be for ever the law of the land—what her Majesty
the Queen, by her coronation oath is sworn to preserve;
and let no man presume to attempt an alteration in this
law by illegitimate or violent means—by threats of
violence—or other such shifts which may be resorted to. Re-
collect the doctrine of that constitutional lawyer, Mr. Bur-
rowes, that " the omnipotence of the Legislature must be ad-
ministered in any regular state." Mr. Shiel required me,
when I should charge you in this case, to advert to the doc-
trine of Baron Alderson, in his charge to the grand jury in
the case ref the Queen against Vincent, given in a volume of
Carrington and Payne's Reports, page 93. [ Having stated the
case, his Lordshiplahus proceeded : j --N'ow, Gentlemen of the
jury, there is the constitutional laws as laid down by this very
eminent constitutional lawyer, Baron Alderson, than whom no
man was more highly respected and esteemed.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—The parties were acquitted of the charge.
The GRIEF JusTre a—Yes, but that is not what Baron Al-
derson said. What I was indeed going to observe was this,
that I fully concur with Baron Alderson, both as regards his
charge to the grand jury arid his charge to the petty jury.
Now it is no crime for a man to state a grievance ; it is no crime
for a man to make a mistake with regard to his political posi-
tion, in respect to the alleged grievance ; he has a right fieely
to communicate his sentiments on the grievance to his fellows
similarly circumstanced. He has a right to make the
communication, not merely to his friends or fellows, but to
strangers; he has a right to make his complaints' wherever
he goes, should he think proper to do so, even if he should
attend a public meeting, however large, the mere fact of
its being a public meeting is no reason why a man who has
a grievance, or thinks he has, should not attend that meeting,
making a statement of what he conceives he has a right to
complain of, and so, on the principle of free discussion, endea-
vour to get by peaceable means as many advocates in support
of his alleged grievances as he can procure. That is the mo-
rality of the law as stated by Baron Alderson, and concerning
which he said, " God forbid the country should ever be without
it," and so say I, too. But, in order to disseminate those
grievances, he must take care not to infringe upon the rights
and privileges of others, and he is the more bound to be careful
as to the effect of what he does, if the assemblage which he at•
tends is assembled and congregated in such masses and multi-
tudes, as to excite terror and alarm amongst the neigh-
bouring people, or amongst those who are bound to watch
river and preserve the peace and constitution of the country.
If he goes with arms, it is the more likely that the law will be
infringed; but if he goes without arms—which is the case
always here—it does not., therefore, follow that that meetinghas
been lawful. Ido not mean to say that the mere attending a
meeting is unlawful ; on the contrary, the mere attending a
meeting, however large and numerous it may be, if no breach of
the peace be committed, nor a tendency to a breach of the peace,
at the time or immediately ensuing the meeting, I do not mean
to say that so attending a meeting, under such circumstances will
be necessarily unlawful—l do not mean to say that it would be
necessarily lawful. I shall explain that. But there is nothing
in the mere fact of the asemblage of the people that ren-
ders tint an illegal act. Now, in order to make a meeting un-
lawful it would not be necessary that in point of fact the peace
should be broken. It does not follow that because there is no
breach of the peace the parties attending the meetings are not
guilty of the offence of exciting terror and alarm among her
Majesty's subjects. If meetings to which parties went unarmed
have been attended with demonstrations of physical fore! that
would reasonably have excited fear, terror, or alarm, amongst
the peaceable subjects of her Majesty, they are illegal whether
they consist or not of an unarmed mass. A multitude of per-
sons assemble, and if persons are alarmed and terrified by that
multitude so assembled, by the terror so caused, they would be
shown to have been an illegal assembly, and for whatever
terror the parties so assembling would be answerable. But it
is not necessary that that should have been the state of things
in order to make that an unlawful assembly. Suppose the
parties all went to those great meetings, in ever such great
masses and multitudes—suppose they went without arms—
suppose they conducted themselves with great propriety—sup-
pose no breach of the peace was committed—and suppose there
was no tenderly.), to a breach of the peace ; all these facts might
concur towards the establishment of the innocence of that
meeting, but, Gentlemen of the jury, that meeting might have
been an illegal assembly, and every party who went to that
meeting might be convicted, if they concurred in the objects of
the meeting. Suppose the object of collecting those hundreds
and thousands of persons was not for the purpose of corn.
mitting a breach of the peace—suppose it had an ulterior
and more remote object—suppose it was for the purpose, not of
terrifying the neighbours by what was done, or in-
tended to be done, by the persons assembling at
that meeting—but suppose that the persons who had
collected that mass and multitude together, did so for the
purpose of making a demonstration of immense force and phy-
sical power, guided and actuated by the will and command of
the person who had caused that multitude to assemble—sup-
pose they hail no intention of disturbing the peace, but that they
met for the purpose of exhibiting to those with whom they had
to do, to those who were the legal leg,islators of the country, and
that his object in calling all those people together—his object in
assembling, dispersing, and calling them, was to do that with the
greatest possible notoriety. Suppose he did it in the open (la!,
when all the world could sec and hear him, and that his object
was to overawe the Legislature, who are likely to have to consider.
certain political subjects in which he was interested, and for
the purpose of deterring the Legislature and the Government
of the country from a free, cool, and deliberate judgment on
the subject— if that were his object in causing and pro-
curing that demonstration, then, Gentlemen, 1 say, that that is
an illegal object in him and in all who concur and agree with
him in the procuring of such means. I have not ventured to
say that I suppose that any of the traversers are yet proved to
guilty, but I am merely explaining to you what I take to be
the clear and incontestible law on this subject. I admit to the
fullest extent the principle of full and free diseusion—of the cool
and deliberate consideration of any given subject. I admit
that warm arguments might be used in support of every-
thing advanced—they might not only be admissible but abso-
lutely necessary for the information of all who were present,
and fur enabling them to come to a conclusion as to the course
which they should advise her Majesty to take with regard to
the subject under consideration. 1 .i,hould be glad to know if
the Parliament of the country, the Queen's Ministers, or
those who are interested in the management of State affairs,
I are they to be the only persons in the country who are not to
have the benefit of free discussion—the benefit of fair, open, and
impartial deliberation? Are they to be influenced and led astray
' by intimidation, and fear, and demonstrations of physical force ?
I If they think proper in their judgment to come to a difference
of opinion on this or that political subject, are they the
only persons who are not to have the advantage of free and
full discussion ? Are they to be told this—" Here are hun-
dreds of thousands of fighting men ; they are all peaceable ;
there is no breach of the law ; they coalesce with no illegal
bodies ; they are warned and advised to keep out of secret
societies ; they have been guilty of no breach of the law ;
they have not appeared in arms, but they are the finest pea-
santry in the world; they stand No. 1 in the class of nations.
Differ from me if you like ; but take care that, at the first step
you make, these masses that are now dissolving at my com-
mand, like the snow under my feet, will re-assemble at nay call,
arid then what will be the step that you take ? Take care of
that !" If you be of opinion that their object was not what
they profess, to consider a grievance —to discuss which, in
order to lay a petition before that Parliament, the legitimacy
of whose existence they are denying—if you believe that that
was not the object, but on the contrary, that it was for the
purpose of proairing by intimidation and overawing of
the councils of the Legislature, an alteration in the govern-
ment of the State. •am of opinion that that latter
object was unlawful—and if more than one concurred
in pursuing it by unlawful means—they are guilty of the act
of conspiracy. I have already said, Gentlemen of the jury,
that the doing of such things by one is not enough to prove a
conspiracy ; there must be the concurrence of two or more.
Before we go to the consideration of particular causes, I will
make some further observations which seem to me to apply to
the case of all. The traversers are persons who conseientiou!ly
entertain the opinion that repeal is best suited to the exigentcieeys
of this country. They say that perhaps on that
the.
wasp
h
gation
have grievances. I will not now enter
hiinsto was occue
which is put forward, and with whichndt
the means by which
pied for several days, as to the groups
thies treegeotye-
ot hurneter
iyees a rrsa
sasegdo
their common concurrence
that Act of parliament. and y
Ltinueo in force, and is in force in
e
this year. years by the
tethhi since thecctt of
fIL
jrndiso Unionn nh‘diaCs,o ,-n carried.m? hs o f
e
in the last forty-three
Members
of Parliament the who were returned
Very many Acts of Parliaumneitnetd hitaverlibameeentitp.assil
those Acts
for Ireland, and the Members who were returned for Scot.