The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

Iby law established, and to submit the same to
the-, judgment and determination of other tribu-
nals to be constituted and contrived for that purpose."
That was the charge in the indictment ; it then set forth
a vast number of overt acts, among which were attend-
ing and assembling a large number• of persons between
January and October, 1843, and making various sedi-
I4ous and infineteatery speeches at those meetings, and
&fling that period causing - those speeches to be pithlished in various newspapers. The overt acts ran to a
',teat length, but he had stated accurately the subject of
the first count. The second count is the same' as the
first, omitting the overt nets. The third count is the
same as the second, save that in the fourth charge the
words " unlawfully, maliciously, and sedition Jy," arc
bmitted.' The' fourth coutt is the same as the third,
omitting the charge as to the army. The fifth count
contains the first and second charges set forth in the
first count, omitting the overt ac's. The sixth count
contains the fourth charge set forth in the first count,
omitting the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi-
tiously," and the overt acts. The seventh count is the
same as the sixth, adding the words, "and especially-by
the means aforesaid to bring about and accom-
plish a dissolution of . the Legislative union
now subsisting between Great Britain and Ireland."
The eighth count contains the fifth charge set forth in
the first count, omitting the overt acts. The ninth count,
contains the fifth charge set forth in the first count,
omitting the intent therein charged and the overt acts,
but adding the following charge (that is to say) : "And,
to assume and usurp the prerogative of the Crown in
the establishment of courts for the administration •of
law." The tenth count is the same as the eighth, omit-
ting the intent stated in the fifth charge in the first count.
The eleventh count charges the supposed conspiracy to '
be to cause and procure meetings in divers places, and of
divers times, in Ireland, " and by means of unlawful,
seditious, and inflatuatory speeches and addresses to be
made and delivered at such meetings, and also, by means
_of the publishing and causing and procuring to be pub-
lished, to and amongst- her Majesty's subjects, divers
malicious, unlawful, and seditious writing§ and Composi-
tions, to intimidate the Lords spritual and temporal, and
the Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
and thereby to effect and bring about changes and alte-
rations in the laws and constitution of the realm-as now
by law established." Such were the several counts.
The record then proceeded to state the finding
of the jury upon the several counts. The parties, when
called upon to plead, pleaded in abatement; they pleaded
that the bill was found by the grand jury upon the
evidence of witnesses that had not been properly sworn
in the Court of Queen's. Bench in Ireland. These pleas
in abatement were over-ruled, and the defendants then
pleaded not guilty, and upon that plea issue was joined,
and the trial was appointed for a certain day. On that
day, on, the jury bring called, Mr. O'Connell challenged
the, array. Mr. O'Connell says "that the said several
lists 'respectively Were by the said Recorder at the said
special sessions duly corrected, allowed and signed by
the said Recorder, pursuant-to-the statutable enactments
in such case made and provided, and that the several
persons whose names are hereinafter mentioned
were then and there adjudged by the said Recorder
to have the qualification hereinafter named, ' and
that the names of the said several persons were
then and there contained in the sail several lists
so corrected, allowed and signed as aforesaid; but the
,said Daniel O'Connell says that the said Recorder did
not, as by the said statutable enactments is directed,
cause to- be made out from said several last-mentioned
lists one general list containing the names of all persons
whose qualifications had been so allowed, arranged ac-
cording to rank and property, nor did the said Recorder
thereupon or at all deliver such general list containing
such names to the Clerk oF'the Peace to be fairly
copied by said Clerk of the Peace in the same order as
by the said statutable enactments is directed, but on the
contrary thereof omitted so to do. And the said
Daniel O'Connell further says, that a certain paper
writing purporting to be a general list, purporting to be
made out from such several lists so corrected, 4-
lowed and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and frau-
dulently made out by some person or persons unknown."
To that challenge the Attorney-General of her Majesty
in Ireland demurred. So likewise the several defendants
all presented their challenges, and to their respective -
challenges a like demurrer was filed. The record pro-
ceeded to state that those-demurrers were overruled, and
judgment given for the Crown. It then proceeded to
-state the - cmpannelling of the jury, and their being .
sworn to speak the truth. --The appearance of the parties
was then set forth. It then-proceeded to aver that the
jury found the verdict upon the indictment, which verdict
was contained in page 76 and the following pages. The
first finding was that eight of the defendants (there was
a ninth, who was dead) were guilty of so much of the
indictment as charged that they unlawfully, maliciously,
and seditiously endeavoured to create disaffection among
the subjects of the Queen, and to excite hatred and
contempt of the Government ; that they " did
conspire with each other" which words would
be found material in a future stage of this
argument—and with divers other persons whose -names
were unkown, to raise discontent, and to excite contempt
of the GovernMent, and to create jealousies between "
different classes of her Majesty's subjects, In fact, the
whole eight were found guilty of the .charges set forth
in the first and second counts. The Learned Counsel

then proceeded to read the particulars of the finding of
the jury, and the sentence of the Court. In page 80, a
writ of error, corant ?obis, was set forth. It appeared
that the Attorney-General did not take issue upon that,
but he joined, and, after the case had been argued, the
Court held that the error was not well assigned, and
that there was no error in truth, and gave judgment fur
the brown. My Lords, continued the Learned Counsel,
-upon that judgment, given by the Court below, and also
upon the judgment originally given, writs of error have
been brought. My Lords, upon this record several objec-
tions appear to arise.• I will state to your Lordships
what these objections are:—ln the first place, it is meant
to be insisted that these counts are too generally
framed to be properly the subject of an indictment ;
that the judgment was not formed upon evidence sworn
as required by the statute ; that the jury was not pro-
perly constituted ; that judgment had been passed upon
more offences than are charg•rd in the indictment, than
have been presented by the grand jury, and than have
been pleaded by the defendants.; and that will apply to
the first, second, and third counts ; that with respect to
the verdicts of acquittal in certain insances, no proper
judgment has been pronounced.
Lord CA3IPDELL here put a question to the Learned
Counsel which was inaudible in the gallery.
Sir T. WILDE—It is insisted that these counts are
bad, for the reason I have stated, their being too gene.
rally framed, and not stating an indictable offence ; and
it is contended that, if any one of the counts is bad,. the
judgment must be reversed altogether.
The Loup CHANCELLOR—Do you make that a sepa-
rate position ?
Sir T. WILDE—I don't know that it is a separate posi-
tion; it is stated ratherby way of answer to anything that
may be urged, supposing the argument should not sa-
tisfy ydur Lordships that the whole of the counts are
bid. We mean to- insist that if any one is bad the judg-
ment cannot be sustained. It is then stated that the
judgment is unlawful, inasmuch as the parties are re-
quired to be in prison( not only till they have paid their
own fines and given their own recognizanees, bat also
till the others have paid their fines and given their re-
cognizances. Thirdly, the judgment requires the pri-
soners to give security fur their good behaviour for seven
years, but it does not say from what period that seven
years is to commence. The judgment is also defective
in its form in not stating where and when the jury was
sworn, and it is also alleged that there is an uncertainty
whether ,the jury was sworn, or whether they merely
affirmed ; and if they affirmed it is not stated that they=
were of that description of persons whose affirmation
would qualify them to be upon the jury. It is also stated
that whether the jury was sworn or affirmed they did
not do so in the legal words, " we do solemnly affirm,"
which are in the statute, but "we affirm" simply. It is
also stated that the order for the continuance of
the trial out of term is also informal, and that
there is a discontinuance on the record. These
are the points that will be presented to your
Lordships, and it is my intention principally to ad-
dress myself to the character of the indictment anti the
effect of the finding of the jury, and to insist that with
respect to the finding it is erroneous in several particu-
lars, upon grounds that entitle the defendants to the

_
judgment of the Court. This, my Lords, is, I believe,
the first time that an indictment for conspiracy has come
before your Lordships for judgment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—AIIow me to ask, Sir Thomas

Wilde, if your statement includes all the points that are
,o be argued by all the Counsel ?

Sir T. WILDE—They do, my Lord. lam not aware,
my Lord, that I have omitted any. I was stating that
this is the first time that an indictment for conspiracy
has come before your Lordships for judgment. 'The
nature of an indictment and conspiracy has always been
the subject of much comment, and I have never con-
versed with any legal :authority who did not express
himself with respect to the form of such an indict-
ment it was inconsistent with justice.
The foundation of law on this subject seems
to have - been the 33d of Edward 1., and I be-

Hove there was no attempt made to prosecute any one
fora-conspiracy from that time down to the trial of the
seven Bishops. They were tried for an offence similar
to one of the charges in this indictment ; the seven
Bishops were tried for attempting to encroach on the
royal prerogative, by the'presentation of a certain peti-
tion. There was a charge in this indictment for en-
croaching on the royal prerogative, by creating courts
of justice. From the time, of the seven Bishops to the
year 1796 there was no indictment for any conspiracy
to commit a political offence. Mr. Redhead Yorke was
the first person tried on such an indictment, but one
count of it charged him with a riot,. and being found
guilty of that it was useless for him to contest the le-
gality of the indictment. The next case was that of
Henry Hunt, he was charged on one count with attend-
ing an unlawful assembly. Mr. Hunt defended himself,
so was not competent to contest the legal form of the
indictment on which he was tried. That case brings us
down to a very modern period.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WAS Mr. Hunt only con-
victed on one count ?

Lord BROUGHAM—Was he sent to prison for 30 months
fur attending an unlawful assembly ?
Sir T. WILDE—For a conspiracy for procuring and
attending an unlawful assembly. When your Lordships
consider the great expense attending the prosecution of
a writ of error before this House, you will perceive that
it is not in'the power of many defendants.to contest or
impeach the form of an indictment and conspiracy. The
Courts of Westminster Hall would not feel inclined to
deal with such a -question, but before this tribunal parties
are justified in bringing it. And it is one of the most
important duties of this House in its appellatejurisclicticn
to review the law as it is laid down and acted on in the
courts below, or as it may have been retained and acted
on till challenged as informal. I think the form of this
kind of indictment is utterly inconsistent with justice, and
at variance with all the principles of justice, which re-

quire that a man charged under it shall be adequately,
informed by its terms and shape of the crime imputed
to him, so that he may know how to prepare his defence;
and one of the most important objects of an indictment
of this kind is that the defendant may have the
charges presented to him in such 8 ' form
that this House, as an appellate court, should have the
opportunity of seeing and judging whether, on the
several points, a crime has been committed. The chaege
involving the crime, may embrace an innocent act, which
could only be made an act of guilt by leaving the person
charged with the means of seeing and knowing whether
he was convicted on a charge involving legal guilt; and
to deprive the criminal of appeal in such a case would
'not be consistent with the general principles of law, and
which should receive great consideration before it re-
ceived the sanction of the House. Looking to the doc-
trine of conspiracy, it eme impossible nut to feel the ex-
treme mischief which it had done, and is calculated to
do; the crime of conspiracy does not consist in au act
done; it is complete when the intention is formed.
Much is left to uncertainty; it is not like any
other crime. You were left to infer inten-
tions from acts of a very doubtful nature. Most
of the political
.cases that have cccurredin which in-
justice is supposed to have been done, have occurred in
cases of political conspiracy. To say that the party is
protected by the jury because the matter is for the jury,
is to give.an answer supposed to afford safety to the sub-
ject. But the whole history of the country shows this
to be utterly fallacious. The objects of persons in the worst
periods of-our history have always been accomplished
through juries. The difference between the safety which
prevailed at one time, and the insecurity which existed
at another, had been when the power of appeal to pro-
cure other judgments on the questions of law on the
nature and character of the crime, upon the nature and
character of the evidence, was When facilities were given-
for appeal in those several matters: How stands the
case of conspiracy in re ? Your Lordships are aware
of•the facts to which this indictment refers, but the
question here is as to the form of the indictment, and I
ask of your Lordships if such an indictment can be sus-
tained, what security is there for the subject if those
parties have been tried and convicted according* to law ?
The charges are of such a nature as to convey
nothing sufficient, to ' enable your Lordships to say
that they constitute an illegal act or not.- In the
course of the trial it was held that those acts
could not be tendered in a case of misdemeanour,
and when your Lordships look eo the indictment pur-
porting to prove those charges,
,you will find that they
are made up from circumstances occurring from January
to October, a period of ten months, by the selection of.
speeches of different persons, not made in the presence
of the others charged, of reports of newspapers, done in
the ordinary course Of business, giving 'the news of the
day. One of the objects was to procure a dissolution of
'the Act of Unidn between Great Britain and Ireland—a
great political object, no doubt; but when in the history
of this country was it, that certain parties did not hold
opinions on some great political subject ? That con-
formity of action should result front coincidence of
opinion, might bo naturally expected—not upon any par-
ticular transaction in which the parties had any indivi-.
dual interest, not conspiring to obtain goods by fraud, to
affect the eharacter or interests of individuals, but in a
conspiracy to obtain Parliatneeriary etekirm, to obtain a
repeal of the Corn-laws, to prevent Catholic Emancipa•
tion, that was to say, there must he a coincidence of
opinion, leading to uniformity of action upon any gem*
event affecting the interests of the country. There was
a charge of exciting the subjects of her Majesty. to dis-
affection against the Government. In what age of the
country was it that persons had not endea-
voured to excite disaffection against the Government?
Did the Government mean the Constitution, or the form
of the Government, or thtl persons administering it ?
Why, may not the present Government be charged with
exciting disaffection against the late Government ?,
Each of the parties of the present day seemed desirous
of producing disaffection and hatred towards what wass
called the Government ? If the parties were guilty of
making seditious speeches, let them be tried for it. I '
would call attention to what was done at the Revolution'
in France. There was then a conspiracy to excite dis-
affection against the Government. One drunken woman
uttered a few idle words, tending, it was supposed; to
produce hatred towards the Government,- and- she` was
hanged for it. I cou!d find many parallels to this in-
dictment, where the parties charged have been hanged. I
would- ask of your Lordships to consider whether a
charge of this kind, seeking to establish guilt by those
means, can, be the subject of a prosecution ?
But here a course of conduct is permitted to be persisted
'in for two months—and there is no limit to it—the time
may be extended indefinitely until the victim is caught.
Here are these transactions , allowed to go on, until by
an accumulation of acts, each innocent in itself, it is
sought to take the chance of the weakness, or the in-
firmity, or the prejudices of the jury, to lead them to a
conclusion, not that any particular act. has been done,
but to some conclusion which is -utterly false and un-
founded—that the defendants met together and con-
spired. 1)0 your Lordships 'believe that the jury were
.told that Government endeavoured to'ascertain when and
where those parties entered into a conspiracy ?—that
they were not to convict them unless they could come to
the conclusion that there really had been some common
consent and agreement between the parties ?. No such
thing. In an ordinary case, , such as a conspir-
acy to defraud or obtain money .under false
pretences, if. you see parties acting together for
that common illegal object, it might be evidence to go to
the jury, and it might be. for them to consider whether the
so acting together could be considered us proof of some
common agreement. But when a case is on in which
great public interests are concerned the principle does
not apply—then the acting in concert cannot be taken as
proof of conspiracy, and it must be shown that the
several parties actually met and conspired. My Lords,
I submit that all the counts of the indictment from the
fifth to the end are bad—bad for generality. They are
framed in terms unknown to the law, and are wholly
destitute of legal precision. The fifth count charges that
the said DanieLO'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas
Steele, Thomas Mathew Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy,
'Thomas Tierney, Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray', and
Richard Barrett, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously
contriving, intending, and devising to cause and create
discontent and disaffection among 4 the liege subjects of
our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said
subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government
and Constitution of this realm as by law established
heretofore ; to wit' on the thirteenth day of February, in
the rear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-three, with force and arms, to wit, at the parish' of
St. Mark, in the county and the city of Dublin aforesaid,
unlawfully, maliciously and mditiously did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, end"
with divers other persons whose names are to the jurors
aforesaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and
disaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady
the Queen, and to excite the said subjects to hatred and
contempt of the Government and Constitution of this
realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and sedi-
tious opposition to the said Government and Constitu-
tion ; and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and
between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and
especially to promote amongst her Majesty's subjects in
Ireland feelings of and hostility towards and
against her Majesty's subjects in the other parts of the
said United Kingdom ; and especially in that part of the
said United Kingdom called England, in contempt of our
said Lady the Queen and the laws of this
realm, to the evil example of all others in
the like case offending, and against the peace of
our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
Now, what is meant by creating discontent and disaffec-
tion ? What is the legal meaning of these words ? What
is the crime against which a party thus charged is called
to defend himself ? Why, at the time the Bill was pro-
posed granting, Catholic Emancipation, there were many
persons who endeavoured to persuade the people that if
the King consented to the measure he would be violating
his coronation oath—that it would introduce Popery,
and upset the Church. They endeavoured to excite a
spirit of hostility to the Government which supported
that measure. Now, who were those men who thus en-
deavoured to excite discontent and disaffection '? The
words conveyed no legal charge. To what are we in-
debted for every legal change which is brought about
but to the attempt made to excite discontent and dis-
affection with the existing state of things ? It is impos-
sible to produce any change except by such means. Now
ought such words to be introduced into a criminal in-
dictment, and left to the jury without any explanation
of their legal meaning ? Are the words to be looked out
in-" Johnson's Dictionary," and is the meaning, there
found to be attached to them ? Tho charge of disaffec-
tion does not necessarily imply guilt. Some of the
greatest patriots that ever lived might be liable to a
similar charge. They are alto charged with unlawful
and seditious opposition to the Government. Now,
what is meant by illegal opposition ? Who is to decide
what is meant by seditious opposition ? . Is it' to be left
to the jury ? They will determine, according to their
party
,politics ; if they are of the same party with
the Government, they will probably consider all opposition
seditious ; if they are opposed to it, it will be hard
to convince them that any opposition can be seditious.
But how is a man to know what he is called upon to de-
fend himself against when he is accused of seditious
opposition .? It may be a refusal to pay taxes—it may
be some other act which is to show that he has been
guilty of seditious opposition. Now what act except the
commission of the crime of sedition—a crime to be sepa-
rately proved—is there to give meaning to the words
seditious opposition.' If the word seditious is to be re-
jected as surplusage, as a word of' no meaning, then' the
count stands for offering opposition to the Government,
which is no crime at all. Now, your Lordslips should
recollect that you are nowelealing with a criminal charge,
and that,. therefore, the most rigid construction is called
for: I submit that the fifth count is of too general a
nature—that it embodies no legal charge, and that from
the wording of it the party charged cannot tell
what it is that he, is called upon to answer.
It .is of the utmost importance, in order to secure the'
due administration of justice, that there should be upon
every criminal charge sufficient to enable a court of ap-
peal to see more clearly than they could in the present
case what was attempted to be charged. In the present
case no bill of exception could he tendered to the sum-
ming up of the Learned Judge, and the only course, ex-
cept coming to that House, would be to apply for a new
trial. When they could not bring. the charge of the
judge before a higher tribunal, the indictment ought most
clearly to describe.the offence of which the party was
charged. The importance of individuals having a fair
means of defence, . and the necessity of the indictment
conveying some definite charge which the party might',
grapple with, had been clearly stated by Lord Ellenbo-
rough in the case of the King v. Perry. In that case the
man suffered his whole imprisonment before his writ of
error was argued, although upon - the arguing of that
writ of error, he was found to be an innocent man. (The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to refer to the state-
ments of Lord Ellenborough in the case of the KinT v.
Perry, and then proceeded.) In the count to which
I am now referring, there are no overt acts

' attached, but if there were, they did nothing
te show, clearly what the charge was. Now, appY
the doctrines of Lord Ellenberough to the present
case the indictment in the King v. Perry referred to
several transactions, but in this case it refers to a variety
of subjects. It is scarcely possible, I will venture to saaa
fur any individual to be able to meet such a charge as is
made in the present case. Certainty, in matters of a .crie
initial charge is one of the great principles of the lot
that should le acted upon always, and never lost sight •
of in a criminal charge. Such, then, my Lords,
is the
fifth count. The sixth count charges the assembling of
large number of persons, for the purpose of changing and
altering the Government of the realm as by law estAlislu-d.
'f he question is,. were these meetings illegal ? they all
, not charged us being so. The Ist and 2cl counts, which
charge else illegality of the meetings, were overruled by
the jury. Here . was intimidation at a legal meeting
charged as a crime.
Lord BROUGHtM—The count says for an unlawful
and seditious purpose.
Sir THOMAS WILDE—The count ought to have stated
how it was unlawful. The count says, procuring diverl
suleiects of • our Lady the Queen to meet and assemble
far in large numbers, r the unlawful and
seditious purpose of obtaining, by moans of intinii-
dation to be thereby caused, alterations in the
Government, laws, and Constitution of the reaku•
There is no charge that the meetings were unlawful, or
that they were called together for the purpo4e of intitvi'
dation. In fact there is not a single circumstance that
gives to these meetings any illegality. If they bad bee°
illegal what, I would ask, would be said to the Execir
tive for allowing them to go on ? L_ook at Ilunt's cases,
he was sentenced to two years' imprisonnieui
for attending an Illegal meeting: There is u°
charge that the objects of the meeting were illeg3lt.
It is stated that a meeting of a great number of persons,
was caused, but nothing -is asserted as to the conduct 01
those who attended the meeting. - - -
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Thera is. no allegation' i°
this count that any meeting was held.
Sir T. WILDE—I thank your Lordship.
The LORD CHANCETILOR—The charge is a charge °f,
conspiracy to do oertain acts ; there is no statement that
it was followed up. The question, therefore, is the
question of law, whether the conspiring of persons to d°
the acts which are here stated is a sufficient allegation--
conspiring to do that which on the face of the indict*
ment is stated to be illegal.
Sir T.' WILDE-.-What I complain of is, not that the
indictment states it to be unlawful, but that it does not';
; show it to be • unlawful that it does not show lb° ,
which it ought to have shown, in order to enable you to '
say that it charges a crime. „
The LORD CHANCELLOR—AS the object of the co..'
spiracy the parties must be supposed to have met toge'
Cher, and to have agreed to this. ' 1
Sir T. WILDE—Yes, so I understand it. I
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The charge is that theg, l-
agreed to cause a meeting of a number of persons 1°
order by a demonstration of physical force to procarl;
changes and alterations in the Government, laws, ail'
Constitution of- this realm as by law established. The
question is, whether, if parties conspire and unite toge'
ther for that purpose, snob meeting is unlawful.
Sir T. WlLDE—Whether the egreemeot it =lawful ?
The LORD c naezcgaaeon-eYes.
Sir T. Wereae„,--Well, ifiein, I ety that ttio statemeul
that they meant to intimidate by-causing a large Die C.sll
ing is not a statement of -aat agmetnent which forms 1
itself a crime.
. Lord BnoraerAet—Cotrspiring- together *as Otlel
stated to be assembling—to be assembling a portion U.,
the people of England together on Salisbury Plailia.fuh
the purpose of intimidating the Government. '-
Sir T. WILDE—The quesaion, my Lofts, is, who is:°)
be intimidated ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you are consideril
._af
this indictment you must suppose the parties to /au
met together, and to have come to this agreement • ,
‘i Let us assemble a great force—so great, so enormous'
it shall produce intimidation and alarm, and cause
a change in. the Government and Constitution of the.,
country." They may have failed to accomplish the
purpose ; but are parties, by meeting together acct
agreeifig to such a scheme guilty of an unlawful a
or not ?
. Sir T. WILDE—Any. epithets which may be intr°,f
duced, I apprehend, are not material. It isa meeting
a large number of persons.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—YOU cannot' say that el)ii
thets are immaterial. " Seditious" is an epithet, and 1
has a specific meaning.
Sir T. WILDE—But your Lordship used the words
ts
" great and " enormous," and I say that such ePith° 4
will not be material. Now, I say, that this agreemen,
this conspiracy, is not charged in terms sufficiently E_t,
vise to constitute a legal offence. Of course, 'the indie ,
ment is addressed, or purports to be addressed, to a atirr,
posed agreement between the several plaintiffs in trtQpi
The- indictment supposes an agreement to the effeetsp
forth. (Their Lordships here consulted together ),,
two or three minutes.) . I say, my Lords, it must
looked at with reference to the object here stated. eto
Lord CAMPBELL—What meaning is to be attached
" physical force ?" When was it first inserted ill
indictment?
Sir T. WILDE—Let us first see, my Lord, what a'i 01
meant by " demonstration." I' believe that word igo
be least entitled to the merit of novelty. I.have not
~`' re,
able to find it used in any other legal form. • Bet°so
however, I catl your Lordship's attention 'to titer
words, I wish to ask 'What .4 meant by "intimidatio%,
Who is to be intimiclatedV -Hcyeb,y ineans,ofietheltlo,
tion, is the effect to be producca.or-fibeuring an alt°,ol
tion of the law? It is not to " break the law;" it is l'
re
to " set the law at defiance;" it is to procutv
an alteration of the law. Does that mean by legal l'ay
thority or otherwise.? Is it 4 sufficient charge that o 5
a great numiter of persons meeting the Merv!
and the Commons Will be intimidated, and that they `lio
be induced, under the influence of that intimidation,
consent to an alteration of the law contrary to their eceo,
victions, and as to what the interests of the country.tle
quire ? Are these persons to be suppoced to Ills
..lihelled your Lordship, as well as entered into cooloee,
racy, by imagining that your Lordships would I),0 tit
duced by intimidation to repeal an existing law? l'tl et
is not said that your Lordships are to he intimidateaece,
that the House of Commons are to be intireithlt 0
Who, then; is to be intimidated? "Are these pereoet,sicii
set of maniacs who met for a purpose wttet
they could not possibly accomplish. It is not stated it,"e
these parsons intended to procure their object by °Peres
ing upon her Majesty, or upon your Lordships, or tent
the House of Commons ; what is stated is an agrecai by
to call .meetings of large numbers a persons, thereool,
trying to intimidate, and by this intimidatr
so called, to put:icier° tin alteration of the law. IBu ',
mit to your Lordships that it is absolutely necess° rco
in order to mike this intelligible,"that it should 00
stated who it was upon whom the intimida'o4
was intended to operate, so es to procurc,roy
a consequence, an alteration of the law. Surd,
it is not enough to leave this uncertain. '''' by
then, how is this intimidation to be produced 41
the " demonstration of physical force ?" Is it trei
that physical force is to be used ? No ; it iS 011ie
stated that by the meeting of a number of persons, so:09
how or other, the alteration is to *be procured. 1- rce,
thing more meant by a demonstration of physical '°o,ed
than the calling together of a number of well of
women ? Surely that is not such a demonstraa 0° tie
physical force as can be suppoted.or intended to havcali
effect of intimidation. I know of no authority for 5 ill•
a. position. In the case of Lord George Gordon, tilde
dictment was for high treason, for levying war ; still
court laid it down, that the bringing of an immense O.
round the Houses of Parliament, and perseucoe
intimidating the Legislature, 'was not a
P,irp
spiracy, but a levying of war against the the
Lord George Gordon was tried for high treasoaa °lv' til
ground of personally intimidating the Members of itite
Houses of Parliament, surrounding the lobby, assal,",,ge
Memberi, and pulling the Bishops out of their carrl°lo
That was an intimidation that could be understood• ice
the intimidation here was confined to meetings in
land, at a time when the Legislature was not sittl°°or
vvhenit was uncertain how many of the Member dial,
which of them, would ever meet together again. I te"reto
dation is stated without saying who it is to eit' ee'
on ; I contend that such a charge is infinitely too giecol
ral and too-ambiguous to be made the subject of 3' ea
charge. How is such a charge to be met ! 18" °,
el' bet
timidation the necessary consequence of a large ottol-
of persons meeting together for a political purpose ' 0;1
Lord' CAMPBELL—Might there not be an 10,1° jea
agreement in the city of Dublin, to call' meetings lt!vag
lace-yard, Westminster, for the purpose of oven``
the Legislature ? ire'
Sir. T. WILDE—The count says meetings in
land only. el
RC'
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes ; ' meetings at Pi
" within Ireland."
„ao°
vwarSsiiertsoTofr.oln W,algeLmesubmitted that the charge of intilallu-o°l
a , general,
Filth by
exnteral; and
adding
indefinite.u)the general l'h e ncoetti:t
lie;
lithee
leo
procuring any alteration in the laws, the special °wife
of proceeding to procure a repeal .of the Legis.- c
Union between Great Britain and Ireland. 0
- The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is not the alteratinid
gist
tt
ofa lttheerai
the law that is the question, it is the means by !vie
tiiirctmisentt.o To° cenfiteer
the i • ttaeit—ththealtegiasl
qtuheestrilloiiiitillo
indictment we must consider that such meetings
I
been held.' - t
.Sir THOMAS WILDS--Yes, my Lord. But ‘111:1:0
lair

complain of is this, that the charge in theco 7011/
such a one as the defendants can answer. I is°
that it is not shown to whom the intimidatioo
apply. If it was stated that it was meant to apply t° e¢
titular persons, it might be shown that the means taacil
were not sufficient to make it so apply, but, as it 5 1115
it is impossible to say whether it is directed gg
the whole Irish people, the Legislature, or her istly
jesty. The seventh count is the same as the 00;
The eighth count charges defendants with a coorf
" To bring into hatred and disrepute the courts tisticrl
established in Ireland for the administration of jubjecti;
and to diminish the confidence of hal Majesty's sti .{0
,in Ireland in the administration of law thereir'Wo
the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to wit
opt,
the adjudication of their differences with and claims
each other from the cognisance of the said courts viocifo
established, and to submit the same to the l,"
ment and determination of other tribuilol,,o"' se',
be constituted. and contrived fur that flu', ejl:
Now, first of all, your Lordships have often be:";01„o
gaged in framing Acts removing certain kinds °,;pprio
diction from onAribunal to another. It ofon Do
that merchants and traders present petitions 'Toss i:;#
Houses of Parliament, praying for alterations in a
risdiction by which their differences and dispu,
settled—the pending alterations in the laws e„
ruptcy are cases of that kind. 4111 Ab
Lord CAMPBELL—This count Charges an unla's
jcct—the last one charged the use of unlawful
°
Sir T. WILDE—Both counts proceed on the sssnt 1
tier' of an illegal object, but the defect of the tea, 0
not betting forth how that object is to be call