The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

knowing against what it was he was called to defend
himself' cold in what his guilt consisted. In no other
construct:on of the law could there he any safety. Ile
wished to save all parties who might hereafter be accused
from the (hunters arising from the abuse of the law of
roeseiracy. He would conclude in the eloquent worth
which had been used by en eminent person in another
Place--" I wish the law net to he a two-. dgcd sword of
freed and oppie seTon, but the staff of honesty and the
slit, hl of innocence."
irelieei.e. appeared for Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. T.
M. Ray, and Dr. John Gray, and as his Learned Friends
tvli"11'1 preceded hint had addressed their Lordships
more or less on all the points which had arisen in the
ease, he should be best discharging his duty by advert-
ine principally to these points which he thought of vast
impertance, not only affecting . the interests of those
'hem he represeeted but-as affecting the right, just, and
satisfactory adwinisiratiun of the criminal law of this
.ei roue.He would, therefore, proceed at once to state
his first objection, which,, if his statement should be sus-
tained in their Lordships' opinion, would at.once appear
manifeetly fetal to the whole 'judgment, and that was,
that all these defendants had been convicted, and were
eutfering the sentence of the Court, for a greater number
°f effenees than had been found or 'presented- by the
had ever pleaded to, or been heard on, and-above all fur
greater number of offences than the petty jury were
sw"rn or had any authority to try. He ventured to
!tdmelt to their Lordships this objection, in the first
11,116ta"ee because if it were admitted. it would
ofatal to the whole judgment, and he could
f believe that their Lordships would assent to the ex-
trraaretrl,f the
inary proposition which was contended for on the
Crown—that if there were one good count in
t7ll indictment for conspiracy it was sufficient to sustain
b %judgment, although all the other counts might be
in law. But even if that proposition were admitted,
it
'auuhf be no answer to the objection which he was
and 'bout to make, which stood out clear, alone, prominent
unconnected with any other. He could satisfy their
(relshiPs, from a comparison of the counts of the in-
dict'nent and the finding of the jury, that these several
efeedants had been indicted for one conspiracy, neces•
wetly laid et one time and place, and on one occa-
Lrend that they had been convicted of three con-
..hte'r'i,s, each separate, and were now suffer-.
sentence of the Court on three c0n-
%%7
21;Aeles, each in the indictment' being charged
0 1‘,'1,1 oue conspiracy. To disencumber this part
h- subject from all irrelevant matter, he would limit
his
to the first count, which, for this -pur-
tna ' Tul this purpose only, he would suppose a good
mt.i— valid count in law. He would make no reference to
)e defendant who was dead, and they would find that
Pume count charged eight different persons with one con-
race- to do five different acts, and effect five different
re
Nit e oaee, each of which he would assume to be unlaw-
Their Lordships would find, when the count and
nothingd eelisgehtthroughout the whole record, that the count
cth 'persons with one conspiracy, and under
.tat count several persons ere found guilty, and had
dtiugni'eut passed upon them far three conspiracies. Ile
could not go into the first count at any great length,
tent he would lir-idly state the effect of it.
ehat count charged eight persons, on a day and place
named, L with having been guilty of an unlawful cons.
pi-
I acts •
ae), to do the following five different unlawfu
.Air3t, to create disaffection and discontent areainst the
Queen's Government. Secondly, to create ill-will be-
tween one class of the people and another. Thirdly, to
effect changes in the Constitution lea demonstrations of
Physical force, for the purpose of intimidation. Fourthly,
endeavouring to bring the tribunals into contempt ;
',11,1, fifthly, for creating discontent and disaffection in
tne army. Here the count charmed eight persons with
Oreoi conspiracy
.to effect five unlawful acts. But the
end of the .
ding jury was wholly different.; that found that
the eight. defendants were guilty of conspiring to do two
Meaest
nil acts—to create disaffection to the Government
and and jealousy between one class of her Ma-
Jesty's subjects and another. He would class those
Se°findings together, and call it number one.
en and eight were found guilty of another conspiracy,
eMlspiraey of altogether a different character, and
enill_leer. and different purposes—namely, a conspiracy to
a,t changes in the Constitution by physical force and
tatimidation, and also to bring tee tribunals of the
country into disrepute and contempt.
rhe LARD
Of the —IIANCELLOR—A.re the seven found guilty
ial3P'racy to du 1,2, 3, and 4 ?
`-ante nnv—ci yes ; three are found guilty of con-
d,
are to do No. 5 ;
that was creating disaffection in
of alitn, Yeand therefore those three were found guilty
Thee conspiracies, 1,2, 3,4, and 5.
Me 1.!..°110 CHANCELLOH—That is to do all ?
h.teer— Yes.
"aiurai 14)11D CeraeleeLeort—l think, Mr. Kelly, the
w for yo'n to.. have proceeded would have been
'1)• threeifqate „,, were found guilty of doing all; seven were
"aild of 'doing 1,2, 3, and 4 ; and eight were
b leelY of doing 1 and 2.
clit the ii;Llr admitted that that, perhaps, would have
„such /eau "'ter course to have adopted. He would treat
LientleieeherseParately, to avoid confusion. The Learned
the cou then read the finding of the jury on all
at ii,„„tuti's, which has already been given several times
tu Now from those findings it would befound
eonspiipap.arent that eight persons were charged with one
ve objeec•i,"lY, the one time and place to effect those
'oekine te—,eene whole question then at once arose
Was it''a ;ernduretternS of this
finding, was. it
.a finding,.
one only
? of guilty of three conspiracies, or of
ord anotherCM
APBELL—
? °f one conspiracy and part of
KELLY would rather say one conspiracy, be-
cause it was necessary to bear in mind the d.f-
wL't.L
-' between the conspiracy and the object of it.
"en one conspiracy was found, when one unlawful
ti-Otnent, amounting to a conspiracy, was wade, it
stituted an indictable offence. 'The question was, •
Whether it was possible, looking at this finding, to put
t"ilY other conetruetion upon it, than that it was a find-
eig ef three conspiracies, where conspiracy only. was
ntrged in the indictment. He had already reminded
sir Lordships that every conspiracy must be laid with
they'i and place. In the first count they would find that
e was a charge of but one conspiracy, at one time
ne occasion. The first finding was that the
iee weroe guilty of one
it conspiracy to do two unlawful
• Was that, or was not, in itself a verdict of one
tu sht
Iplete offence—a crime upon which, if the record
;11",PPed there, those eight prisoners might have had
th`,'grn. ent passed upon them ? He began, then, with
ei„s•—There was, in the count, a charge against the
t persons of one conspiracy. One conspiracy was
all'lerged, and the defendants were found guilty of one,
le there. was nothing to prevent the sentence of the
(;curt from being passed upon them for that offence.
jury what followed? There was then the verdict of the
.t.hat seven of those eight persons were guilty of
"_3(luetiiittiittirtiedifffreeremnt and distinct conspiracy—a conspiracy
be f the first as a conspiracy to murder
conspiracy to rob a garden. The re.
by lat from a
tated a perfect and complete offence, punishable
thw,.and within the language of the charge contained
Thee Illtdiettnent.
this e e:?11.0 CHANCELLOR—The real mode of trying
jute,a would be to turn the finding of the jury
lir. 'PM, and then see what the count would be.
• test, ''''.-ELLY would be quite willing to accept that
would Meet only to this observation, that the count
ir.thr•eclsell
to this defect, that it would be one count
the;
ece different offences. He undertook to satisfy
torolo4ordships that a count so framed, supposing it not
thre„ fen to the objection that it contained a charge of
fer . offeuces, would be a good count
a n_niree several conspiracies. What would such
term be ? It would be that Daniel O'Con-
ereateand seven others • unlawfully attempted to
04 th disaffection, and did unlawfully and soforth,
Darisrle Ist Of January, 1844, at Dublin, and in the
eoiebi Of St. Mark's, unlawfully, maliciously, and so on
ea
other n conspire, and confederate, to and with each
the and to and with divers persons unknown, to bring
tet4"vernment and constitution of this realm into con-
'h ,and to raise jealousies, hatred, and ill-
le_• eekweee
eutieeti en different classes of her Majesty's
, and also that the said Daniel O'Con-
-0t14,,," the same day, and (naming the six
to e 0 at Dublin, &c., did unlawfully combine, &c.
N,isittligr, by violence and intimidation, the laws and
urn, e,"tl°ll of this realm, and to bring the tribunals of
Fatdi)untry into disrepute and contempt ; and that the
be a year
O'Connell did, on the same day (or it might
bee aliar afterwards) conspire, &c., to spread disaffec-
jealousies in her Majesty's army. That would
uneall'ereet count, or, to speak in the language of cri-
ilfdiehl pleadings, that would be three good counts in any
by Arent fur three several and distinct conspiracies
turait:e several persons. It was an inconceivable ale-
ated ai'",ttilat five persons should be declared to be guilty
Lord g!dity of one and the same conspiracy.
feem Lseeeneeet.--You say that the three who are
1 sea guilty of Nos. 1,2, 3,4, and 5, are found guilty of
of three ielnore than once.
Rho ii-lkena, said that, according to his view, those
ad been found guilty in each finding eseiie guilty
Ler7,"nspiracies.
that in'o.?itiPhELL—Then it would be the answer—and
favourable to the applicants—that those three
Were thick% e times found guilty of counts 1 and 2.
Mr,
Nth, ,E"Y—That is not so ; for eight were found
re„„et!'i conspiracy to do certain acts—seven of conspi—
de.'„3" do certain other acts—and three of conspiracy to
toreciother separate and distinct act.
gun, CAMPBELL—DO you say that they are found
Of three conspiracies to do 1 and 2 ?
these
.lELLY replied that they were not found guilty
l;eilt time
8 on those two counts. They were once found
lewin3:.o4ll_,those two counts, then found guilty on the fol-
There.r. 0, and, lastly, found guilty- on the fifth count.
Spi,aeie"Cre three separate findings of three separate con-
that Ulla 8. Suppose there were an Act of Parliament
guilty of certain conspiracies should be
certain " a penalty of 100/., and it; under that statute,
sets.....%nersons were indicted for conspiring to do several
_nr„sultie of the persons indicted were found guilty of
taili in the acts, others of the same acts, and also of
cer-
,elher acts charged—and the remainder were further
FltiltY Of the other acts charged. Now, the first
,cableliabl' to 100/. penalty, would not the second be
,bke 200/,
ts-"'.14, statute. atlnled thetmtthiffirdi to O/. ? Ifl it were under
z:vtl'd eight of them') plaintiffs in this
the penalty
weref indicted,
ell to 200/ e to •
each, and three to 300/. each ? 100/• each,
Lo • • sieinie CHANcELLoil—Would not this be the most
iittli!vay of putting it ? Suppose A, B, and C, being
"
eor,4 _ ea together, as in this case, were found guilty of
vvl)ltlng with others to do certain of the acts charged, B
e e foun
oth guilty of conspiring, with others, to do certain
placeof the acts, in the same time, and in the same
.0 was found guilty of conspiring, with the
ferrT _ do one other of the indictable acts.
htrq CAMPBELL—AIthough the acts might be as
the in their nature as to storm the Tower, and violate
,xcifts,ti ty of a woman.
--"
j'ORD CHANCELLOR—You maintain that these Would be of three conspiracies.