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

What tribunals were they from which confidence was to r agreement to corrupt the Legislature—the Lords and
be removed ? The) might. be of such a character tliet he et .uetops—would be treated sis an idle crime.
s our Lord. hip, youreei tea (Add b.A di,pose.t to sty, tee Lord CAMPBELL—Suppese A, B, anti C joined toge-
sooner thee were put an end to the better. They might ' gather, hat ing got 100,0001., to offer 1,000/. each to 100
be artentied wit's dela:, , with e xpenee, with many other Members of the House of Commons to vote in a certain
eiremestences that might render them anything but a way, would not that be illegal ?
rune ie• A tid here are no felse repr. senettioas alleged Lord BROUGHAM—It would require 1,000,000/., and
to i.e used with reg.,,sl to them ; there is no statement i that would not be enoughe--(A lauch.)
hoe the d, tendents proceeded against these courts, Lord CAMPBELL—That I suppose is your price ?
whorl) er by writing or by Needs. Sir THOMAS WILDE—I doubt very much, my Lords,
Lord CAMPBELL--The count does not say all the whether that would be treated seriously as a crime.
courts of law, The case put to me does not appear to create the diffi-
Sir TRoents WILDE—The count only says, the tai- culty lam presenting to ) our Lordships' minds, be-
bunithe 11 hither the defendants have proceeded by cause to corrupt the Legislature would be looked upon
writing, or by speeches, is not said. las impossible to be effected ; but to intimi-
The LORD Cueoecnenoa—l see this indictment says, date it—that had often been done. Is not
" bringing the tribunals into contempt, and withdrawing I the apprehension of consequences the motive constantly
from them the business that goes to them, and submit- of action in the Legislature ? Now, is the intimidation
ting the same to the judgment and determination of other here alluded to one of personal violence; the count war-
tribunals to be contrived for that purpose." The indict.. rants no such conclusion ; there is no appearance of the
anent does not say that these tribunals are not to be use of violence, nothing to warrant the supposition
" contrived" by the Legislature ! that personal violence was the species of inti-
Lord BROUGHAM said the charge was that of destroy- midation intended. How many persons, I will ask,
ing one kind of tribunals for the purpose of establishing have been intimidated by a threat of resignation.—
others, like destroying the Ecclesiastical Courts in order (Laughter.) Why, such a threat has produced greater
to establish Diocesan Courts. consequences than the millions or hundred thousands
Lord CAMPBELL said that the Commissioners ap- that have been talked of. (Laughter.)
pointed to inquire into the operation of the Ecelesias- Lord BROUGHAM—Even when it was impossible.
tical Courts were in some danger under this indictment. Sir THOMAS W \` hat, my Lords, was
Sir THOMAS WlLDE—Beyond all doubt, the Commis- the apprehension that produced Catholic emelt-
Tillers who made this report have committed an offence. cipation ? It was an operation in the under-
% hether it can be rosecuted or not
p, is another standing. The number of persons who meet is
question. important, as showing public opinion. The crime in the
Lire BROUGHAM—It should have set forth—And to present case is striving to intimidate the Lords and
extend their jurisdiction to other tribunals than those Comm .ns, and that is no crime. There is nothing
alreaelty established by law, or to be established. shown except that it was intended to operate upon the
'it THOMAS WILDE—The next count had the effect understanding and the law. 'I he law will not adopt
Of doing that. It charged them with " using and usurp- that as a crime which is calculated to alter the opinions
lug the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of of the Houses of Lords and Coennens.
courts fur administration of the law ;" but the eighth Lord CAMPBELL —Do you maintain, Sir Thomas
count stated no such thing. If half a dozen of those Wilde, that there is no good count in the indictment ?
publish pamphlets at various times in order Sir T. WILDE—I am prepared to maintain that, but I
that certain portions of the administration of the law don't think it necessary. '1 he present ease is of import-
',night be corrected, not doing this for any idle purpose ante far beyond the interest of the parties concerned.
uite, improve the tribunals of the country, could it be It involves the whole criminal justice of the country,
,that they were bringing the tribunals of law into and it will be for your Lordships to decide whether the
disrepute ? Were those gentlemen guilty of conspiring general charges made in the indictment are sufficient to
to bring
the tribunals of the country into disrepute, be- substantiate a criminal charge, and one for which parties
cause they eought to induce persons to withdraw from are liable to suffer imprisonment. Indictments of this
thotie courts, and submit their disputes to other tribunals general nature in all times, and in caes, lead to
to be constituted and contrived for that purpose ? I say great evils, and bring the law into great disrepute.
it is perfectly legal to do so, for there was nothing ille- If these parties have been guilty of the acts laid to their
gal in the object or the means. Your Lordships have charge there was a much better mode of indictment
passed many Acts to abolish or improve tribunals which then the present. The question has been repeatedly
were in disrepute—that is, which did not answer the pur- put, whether there was a good count in the indictment,
pose for which they were intended,or in theplace of which and if it was stated that there was, the judges generally
better may be substituted. Suppose a person applied to the good count. In criminal cases the judge
should say it was not a wise or a prudent thing always asked if there was any good count. The judg-
to have recourse to the ecclesiasticul courts— merit of the Court in a criminal case placed the judge
that it was costly, and would be followed by no good in the situation of a jury.
elfect, could it be said that he wanted to bring the tribu- Lord BROUGHAM—With this difference, that the
nals of the country into disrepute, so as to constitute an judge knows which count is good and which is bad, and
offence punishable by law ? Here then was nothing ille- the jury does not.
gal in the object, nor in the means as far as could be Sir T. WILDE—I think your Lordship will find that
ascertained ; on the contrary, the object appeared to be that does not operate as a distinction in this case. If all
a good ene. If it was intended that those other tribunals judges are supposed to know at all times what judgment
should have something illegal in their character, that they ought to give, writs of error are dead and u.eless
would be illegal, and in the next count an attempt was forms. The law, on the contrary, supposes the possi
made to introduce an allegation for this purpose. The bility of error in judgment: The law gives an appeal
allegation in the 9th count, that the defendants sought from one Court to another on that assumption.
to assume the prerogatives of the Crown in the establish- Lord BROUGHAM—I remember taking this point in
ment of courts for the administration of the law in con- the court of error before the judges, and Mr. Baron
tempt of the Queen's authority, is much too Wood said, "We contend in the court of error that the
general. There is no parallel fur it, except in the judgment was given below upon the count, which is
case of tee seven bishops. It is not stated good.
how this is to be done. Were they to have a great seal, Sir T. WILDE—A judge cannot say, if the Court
and set up some office for the purpose of creating courts, below has given judgment upon two counts, that he in-
or was it by Act of Parliament, or what other mode was tended :o give it only upon one. There is no difficulty,
to be adopted? I cannot imagine how this usurpation whatever in a Court having hefore it a defendant
is to be carried into effect. This count is not more for judgment.—(Their Lordships here consulted
sound than the last. fit about five minutes.) Why is it that, in civil
Lora BROUGHAM—I am not prepared to say if a person cases, the Court feels it necessary to arrest the
set up a house as a court of law it would be illegal. judgment. altogether, where general damages are found ?
_ Sir T. WlLDE—There are, in this very city, coffee- The Court arrests judgment altogether, because it can-
houses where persons are ready to decide causes, and not give judgment upon a bad count, having no legal
your Lordships frequently recommend resort to be had power to fix the proportion of damages. Care was taken
to them. The next count is the tenth, to which I will that the verdict for damages should be given on
- now call the attention of your Lordships. lam afraid counts which were unobjectiuneble. In a criminal
one of the Learned Counsel who will appear before case there was no difficulty whatever. It is
your Lordships will be under some apprehension perfectly competent to the Court to surest judgment
from the framing of this count, for he had in- upon the bad counts, and to piss sentence upon the good
troduced a Bill to provide an appeal in criminal cases, ones. There is no reason which applies to civil cases
and the present case of the Queen v. O'Connell will not that does not also apply to criminal. In a criminal case
dilninish the necessity for such a Bill. The 10th the Court is bound to give judgment upon
count charged the defendants with an attempt to the good counts, and upon those counts alone. Judg-
bring the tribunals of the country into disrepute. ment is supposed to be compounded of the several offences
Is it a crime to bring the tribunals of the law into dis- of which the party has been found guilty. There is
reePute without a cause? This is charged as having been no ground, therefore, for the supposition, that in a crimi-
e're unlawfully, but what is there in the body of the nal case the Court is authorised to give judgment upon
-erne to show that it is unlawful ? The mere intro- the whole record, good and bad, if there be a
il".?tien of the words unlawfully and maliciously, does good count , and the mistake has arisen
terrirLbereake that a crime which could not be so under other simply from the judges saying in criminal
utustances. Now the law does not presume that the cases, when objections. have been made that some
wilds of the law are so perfect that no man may not counts were bad, "We will not arrest judgment"—that
have good grounds for bringing them innocently into dis- is, there shall not be an absolute arrest of the judgment
Pute• But what courts were to be brought into dis- upon the whole record. Nothing was ever heard of so
repute—there is no allegation stating wnat were absurd, as that the judgment upon the entire record is
courts—there is no overt act set out. Now, good,whenthere are several bad counts and one good one.
suppose some listener at a door had heard It would be quite an anomaly .if the Court could pro •
these defendants say we will agree to bring the amass a judgment which was in truth applicable only
tribunals of the law into disrepute, and had to one count, as though it were applicable to the entire
heard nothing further, either as to the means by which, record.
or the objects for which, this was to be done, I submit Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose there were one count only
to your Lordship, that would not be sufficient to convict, in the indictment, and that count charging a clearly
as it might be with a perfectly legal object, and by per- indictable offence, stated several things which would not
fectly legal means, that this was to be ; and, if Lord he indictable ; and there was a general verdict of guilty
Elienborough's remark, that it was necessary that every upon the whole count. If judgment were given would
man accused of crime should know precisely that the whole count be vitiated ?
of which he was accused, in order to be able Sir T. WILDD(SS we understood) intimated that he
to defend himself, is to go for anything, then thought it would.
this count fails. The eleventh count charged Lord BROUGHAM—Was The King v. Pellatt" a case
" The said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas in error ?
Steele,* Thomas Matthew Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, Sir T. WlLDE—Yes,..my Lord. The Learned Counsel
Thoaias Tierney, Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray, and then referred to the judgment of Lord Ellenboreugh, in
Richard Barrett unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously support of his argument. If the Court gave judg-
contriving, intending, and devising, by means of intimi- ment on the wholt. of the counts might not intend-
dation and the demonstration of physical force, and by tants be made in the absence of evidence ? But
causing and procuring large numbers of persons to meet the record states that judgment is given on the
and assemble together in divers places and at divers whole of the counts. What is the record ? A memo-
times within Ireland, and by means of sodi- rial as to what the law is. If damages of 1001. were
tious and inflammatory speeches and addresses to be given in a civil action on matters, some of which fur-
made and delivered to the said persons so to be assem- nished cause of action and some not, how would a court
bled as last aforesaid and also by means of the publishing of appeal deal with that judgment ? Refuse the whole
and causing and procuring to bepublished to and amongst of it. What is the use of a writ of error ? Its object
the subjects of her said Majesty divers unlawful mall- is to see what the Court has done on the record. Who
emus and seditious writings and compositions, and fur- could doubt that here a judgment has been pronounced,
;her contriving and intending by the several means and that tht party is sufferiug an imprisonment upon that
aforesaid to intimidate the Lords spiritual and tem- judgment ? And should any legal legerdemain pretend
IWO and the Commons of the Parliament of the United that this judgment had not been passed on certain parts
Kingdom of G reatßritain and Ireland, and thereby to effect of the record ? Surely it was seat up here as the record
and bring about changes in the laws and Constitution of a verity. In an appeal against a judgment on a civil
of this realm as by law established heretofore, to wit, on action, part good and part bad, the judgment would
the thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord be refused. A writ of error is given only on
one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, to wit, at the presumption that an error has been committed in the
the parish of Saint Mark aforesaid, in the county of the Court below. Yet when the writ comes before this House
city of Dublin aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously, and are your Lordships to be told that something has been
seditiously did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree done different from what the record states? Would not
with each other, and with other persona whose names the effect o+' that be to leave all in a state of uncertainty.
are to he jurors aforesaid unknown, to cause and Parti, s were put to an enormous ex; ense in having their
procure large numbers of persons to meet and as- decisions examined by this House ; and after
tnauble together in divers places, and at divers this, were they to presume that the Court
times, within Ireland, and by means of unlawful, below has done just what is right ? What the Court
seditious, and inflammatory speeches and addresses below has done is not a matter of intendtnent,
to be made and delivered at the said several places, it is inscribed in the record. The object of the
on the said several times respectively ; and also by writ of error is to bring under review what the record
means of the publishing and causing and procuring to be declares. If it is your Lordships' opinion that one years'
published to and amongst the subjects of her said Ma- imprisonment and 2,000/. fine on Mr. O'Connell is a
jesty, divers unlawful, malicious, and seditious writings punishment that applies to the offences stated in these
and compositions, to intimidate the Lords, spiritual and counts, this House is then in the situation in which it
temporal, and the Commons of the Parliament of the would stand with respect to a decision •of the Court be-
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and low, in which a jury has given damages on several
tleereby to effect and bring about changes and alterations counts, some good and seine bad. 'Fevre are no means
in ttle laws and Constitution of this realm, as now by law of disentangling these counts, or of saying what portion
estaneSehed, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen of the year's imprisonment, or what portion of the fine is
and of ,be laws of this realm, to the evil example of all adjudged teeny particularcount asconpared with the rest;
others in ihe like case offending, and against the peace and as you cannot apportion the punishment in one case
of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." any more than you can apportion the damages in the
New your _Lordships will observe that in this count other, the judgment given on the whole of the record
the charge is with attempting to intimidate cannot stand, if any portion of that record is bad. The
the Lords and Commons, for the purpose of proper course is this, to send the record back, and
altering the law, without any mention being made to correct it, according to the facts, if any
of her' Majesty. I conclude that it is meant to be mistake has occurred; but nobody ever heard of that
charged that the Lords and Commons would be induced being dene in a case of this description. If lam askee
to alter the law by intimidation. Now, I think your for authorities for the reversal of a judgment on a
-Lordships will never admit that the House of Lords and record partly good and partly bad, my answer is,
Commons could be intimidated to— the universal practice and general principle of the law.
L.Nrcl CAMPBELL--There may be a conspiracy to do On every appeal the case is treated as if it was an
that a eaSch may not be accomplished. There may be a original hearing, and the judgment given in the Court
eonspira cy to intimidate, but the Lords and Commons below is not considered of the slightest authority;
and here I refer your Lordships to the record
linty meet et. vs ith firmness and resist the attempt.
Lord Bno'CWHAm—But if it were accomplished—
itself. On that record sentence has been passed with
Sir T. Wir,PEI will suppose the alteration in the law respect to the offences disclosed in it. These words
to have been sheeted. I will suppose that, at the timde are not to be treated as idle words. It is a matter of
of the Reform dill, persons had been indicted for hold- clear law, that the record must speak for itself, and if
ing large meetings for the purpose of intimidating the judgment has been given upon it, it must he supposed
Lords and Commons.
Sustained. Would theiSru4 be the consequence of your acting otherwise ?
han indictment could not be that it is upon the whittle of it. What would
Lothhips admit that such a
thing could happen as that, by inti, neidation, the Legisla- In future times in inspecting the record, what is to guide
tuts could be induced to alter'-. pad how could that
thosewho seek instruction from it as to what your Lord-
which they not accomplished, subject party to an in- s'p Whatever decision your Lordships come to, that
ships' judgment ha's been, except what you chose to
enter. j
rdiFtment for conspiracy, when, if they had acitiorn-
p/tshed it, they would have been subject to no 6E41 ij!. will be the guide. But let me ask how the defendant
diattnent? An agreement to do that which it was imposei-
'tends in point of plea here ? Is he not to
ble eo accomplish was no crime. Would the law intend have the record framed in such a way as to
to say that such an effect could be produced, and if it could give him the means of pleading one way or the
not, how- could the agreement- to produce such an effect other. Is he to plead that he has been convicted, and
are the Court to conclude that he has been autrefois con-
constitute a crime ? To what intimidation does the in-
via ? Surely in a case of such a complicated nature as
dictment refer ? It may refer to the intimidation to be
produced by setting before the Lords and Commons this! it is of importance that the record should speak fur
the political consequences which must ensue itself When there was a necessity to have the record pro-
fromit
say
ywouhlde
a certain course of conduct. Now,extremely
yth avieviti)euwit tporaeat
•Icpelea,to
was pony framed,
be an
it not lawful to lay before the Legislature
has never affirmed it, if it be the coarse of the courts
the consequences of the doing, or failing to do, certain
acts. There was nothing degrading, as in the sense of deny,
below, which I to enter judgment upon a tad
personal intimidation, in such conduct. Is it the intimi- count of the indictment, because it would pass on
the good counts. There was no necessity for such a
dation of the whole body, or only of individuals? If a
course being pursued. Supposiug that there were some
number of persons who had particular opinions agree
gether to endeavour to induce the Legislature to altertp. cunts good and some bad. If the Crown was entitled
the law, is that necessarily a crime? If an Important to judgment upon the good counts the defendants would
be equally entitled to judgment on the bad counts.
alteration in the law is required. in what SitUittioll
There is no reason why judgment should extend beyond
the subjects of this country placed, if they are not to
the legal bounds to which it is applicable.
express any opinion for the purpose of attracting the at-
Lord CAMPI3gI4,—A H
owthe to ask you, supposing
tskt.tition of the Legislature to the subject?
-n ereland thought that one
LOrd BROIGHIM—Thib is laid as by seditious speeches the Court of Q
and writings.ueen's Bench T
of the
counts, the 7th or Bth say, for argument's
Sir T. WILDE—I should be glad to know, if this is the sake, was a bar/ "11114 how do yon euggest that it ought
charge, ;! &see seditious speeches ought not to be set out, to be entered ?
thereof
that your f.e.`ndebips might see if they were seditious or Sir THOM id—
I 8 WILDThat he should go
with-
not. If a 'erns makes seditious speeches he is out bail.
liable to be prosm?ted for it, and an agreement to make The LORD CHANCELLOR—.Can you give me any in-
seditious speeches is nCt an offence. There is merely a stance of a record in a criminal case so framed ?
general allegation that
.41tiettidgion was to he used, Sir T. WILDE—
I am not aware of any such thing, but
Why, that is only what every great aitd. powerful man is it ie eaey to account for it, because there was no advan-
in the habit of doing when he objects to en y act which tae in requiring the record to be properly entered,
the Legislature is about to do. The allegation of inti- supposing the judgment to be entered on. a count which
midation as made in the indieten.ent (Les not constitute good. The opinion of the Court taken on notion
an unlawful act. i for arrest of judgment, and the Collet
record is scarcely made
Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose it had been to corrupt the ment en the tu,o4 count, and tie
cultli het-se?
Legislature. Although the+ would no suppese that up at all. 1V hat is the fouvd4lioti of the,
possible, it wool be an uttlewful .say lee give jodg
( the learned Uebtlemaii ices precsediug whit n cur
Sir T. WILPg—I should say, my Lords, that a I report left)