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

.----.--411•,.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••........."'°
attached, but if there were, they did mil,
to show clearly what the charge was. wow,
the doctrines of Lord Ellenborough to the re
case the indictment in the King a. Perry referte:-.
several transactions, but in this case it refers to 9
or subjects. It is scarcely possible, I will venture tt't
for any individual to be able to meet such a charC,
made in the present case. Certainty, in matters of
Initial charge is one of the great principles of tilt,:
that should be acted upon always, and never lost:,
of in a criminal charge. Such, then, my Lords,
fifth count. The sixth count charges the assetabliti'
large number of persons, for the purpose of chaig.o'
altering the GoPernment of the realm as by law estabh
•fhe question is, were these meetings illegal ?
not charged as being so. The Ist and 2d counts', t
charge the illegality of the meetings, were overrnees
the jury. Here was intimidation at a legal In
charged as a crime.
11
Lord BROUGHAM—The count says for an ne
and seditious purpose.
Sir THOMAS WILDE—The count ought to have
how it was unlawful. The count says, procuring.
subjects of our Lady the Queen to meet and el'
together in large numbers, for the unlawful
seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of 10.
dation to be thereby caused, alterations
Government, laws, and Constitution of the ,
There is no charge that the m, etings were unla
that they were called together for the purpose of'
dation. In fact there is not a single circumstal
gives to these meetings any illegality. If they bes
illegal what, I would ask, would be said to the
tive for allowing ihem to go on ? Look at Hen's'
he was sentenced to two years' itnpris'',
for attending an illegal mesting. There
charge that the objects of the meeting were
It is stated that a meeting of a great number of
was caused, but nothing is asserted as to the e'e
those who attended the meeting.
,
The LORD CHANCELLOR iii —There is no ieg-
this count that any meeting was held.
Sir T. WILDE—I thank your Lordship.
The LORD CHANCEMOR—The charge is a C
conspiracy to do certain acts ; there is no statelnei
it was followed up. The question, therefore,.
question of law, whether the conspiring of perses
the acts which are here stated is a sufficient allege;
conspiring to do that which on the face of the
ment is stated to be illegal.
Sir T. WILDE—What I complain of is, not Pei
indictment states it to be unlawful, but that itu„
show it to be unlawful ; that it does not sb°l
which it ought to have shown, in order to enable'
say that it charges a crime.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—As the object o.s
spiracy the parties must be supposed to have In
ther, and to have agreed to this.
Sir T. WILDE—Yes, so I understand it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The charge is tt,:
agreed to cause a meeting of a number of pet
order by a demonstration of physical force to
ieo
changes and alterations in the Government, is
Constitution of this realm as by law establish,:
question is, whether, if parties conspire and tien"
ther for that purpose, such meeting is unlawful. y
Sir T. WlLDE—Whether the agreement iS uD
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes.
Sir T. WILDE—WeII, then, I say tent the
that they meant to intimidate by causing a )1
ing is not a statement of an agreement which
itself a crime.
Lord BROUGHAM—Conspiring together ts
stated to be assembling—to be assembling 0,P,1;5•
the people of England together on Salisbury
the purpose of intimidating the Government..
Sir T. WILDE—The question, my Lords, is,
be intimidated ?
0'
The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you are Co'
this indictment you must suppose the partieeii
met together, and to have come to this agrees„
"Let us assemble a great force—so great, so e"Ii;
that it shall produce intimidation and alarm; ",
a change in the Government and Constituted,
eountry." They may have failed to acsol,
purpose ; but are parties, by meeting tog,eo,
agreeing to such a scheme guilty of an o°l
or not ?
Sir T. WILDE—Any epithets which may be
ei
duced, I apprehend, are not material. It is a 0
a large number of persons.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—YOU cannot satin
thets are immaterial. ." Seditious" is an ePI
has a specific meaning.
Sir T. WILDE—But your Lordship used
" great " and " enormous," and I say that suede
will not be material. Now, I say, that this e''s:
this conspiracy, is nut charged in terms sulfids,
else to constitute a legal offence. Of courses's
ment is addressed, or purports to be addresss.°Aire
posed agreement between the several plaisaireee
The indictment supposes an agreerar nt to °id
forth. (Their Lordships here consulted t.
two or three minutes.) I say, my Lords, itel,
looked at with reference to the object here stilott;
Lord CAMPBELL—What meaning is to be
inset
" physical force ?" When was it first in'
indictment?
Loris'
meant T. WILDE—Let us first see, my
meant by " demonstration." I believe thst et
least entitled to the merit of novelty. Iha
able to find it used in any other legal fort 't
however, I call your Lordship's attentioll if
words, I wish to ask what is meant by "iutlil
Who is to be intimidated? How, by means °
tion, is the effect to be produced of prrjeuringe
ton of the law? It is not to " break the 10';
to " set the law at defiancei" it is t`'S
an alteration of the law. Doss that mean it
thority or otherwise ? Is it a sufficient eil‘'ise
a great number of persons meeting tf
and the Commons will be intimidated, and tilt'
be induced, under the influence of that int`V
consent to au alteration of the law contrary lei
victions, and as to what the interests of the
quire ? Are these persons to be supPos?,
libelled your Lordships, as well as entered 01.
racy, by imagining that your Lordships c'
duced by intimidation to repeal an existing a
is not said that your Lordships are to he
that the House of Commons are to bee T
Who, then, is to be intimidated? Are the!.d
set of maniacs who met for a pint'"
they could not possibly aeco.nplish. It is Ott:
these persons intended to procure their objece
mg upon her Majesty, br upon your Lord6bo
the House of Commons ; what is stated is soo'
to call meetings of large numbers of Pered.
trying to intimidate, and by this IsS,
so called, to procure an alteration of th 9
mit to your Lordships that it is absolut%
in order to mike this intelligible, that golf
stated who it was upon whom the ise'
was intended to operate. so as to as
a consequence, an alteration of the et'":
it is not enough to leaye this unFer
proi)
then, how is this intimidation to be Is 4
the " demonstration of physical force r
:hat physical Force is to be used ? N° 'rse'•
stated that by the meeting of a number 0, riffse
how or ether, the alteration is to be pro° 04
thing more meant by a demonstration of P off
than the calling together of a number
women ? Surely that is not such a de.,133,1
physical force as can be supposed or intetwersf
effect of intimidation. I know of no autb°,
a position. In the case of Lord George
diottnent was for high treason, for levying' isSe
court laid it down, that the bringing of au a
round the Houses of Parliament, °lists
intimidating the Legislature, was s
spiracy, but a levying of war agair'nsai
Lord George Gordon was tried for high .obtr,
ground of personally intimidating the M_sse )5,
Houses of Parliament, surrounding the luTs,b;
Members, and pulling the Bishops out ot
That was an intimidation that could be 101,0
the intimidation here was confined tO
land, at a time when. the Legislatve vvos )1'
when it. was uncertain how n3ar,y of the U
which of them, would e**. TWeet together aye
dation is stated wititon.,,, saying who Nelf,t
on ; I contend that stsch a charge is il,finslee!s
ral and tooambignous to be made the OW"
charge. How is such a charge to be 11' IFAs
timidation the 'necessary consequence otl.psn
of persons PLeeting, together for a polities. ;Is
Lord. CAMPBELL—Might there not bet;
agreement in the city of Dublin,' to call °of
sace. yard. Westminster, for the purpose A
VP
the Legislature ? "
ieee

Sir. T. WILDE—The count says In' 4'
land only.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes ;
" within Ireland."
Sir T. Wri.DE submitted that the chargeoe2
was too vague, general, and indefinite.
varies from the sixth by adding to the
c.,
procuring any alteration in the laws, t'
of proceeding to procure a repeal 0'
Union between Great Britain and Irels01,911"
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It i 8 not t
t
the law that is the question, it is cns
that alteration is to be effectea—thle6'
gist of the indictment. To entertoin the
the indictment we must considor that 50C-
been held. A 0:$
Sir THOMAS WILIA.--Ycis, my L°,l:,-.tbe
such
comp lain of is this, that the charge i"pr, '
-ilsor- • •

one as the defendants can an-
at"?
that it is not shown to whom the -or°,
apply. If it was stated that it was meallibe
titular persons, it might be shown that pt,
were not sufficient to make it so applY,,-hclit'oc
it is impossible to say whether it IS re,
the whole Irish people, the Legisletlle ty
jesty. The seventh count is the snob
eighth count charges defendants wttb-e.c,0,,t
" To lying into hatred and disrepute
established in Ireland for the achniuittieV
and to diminish the confidence of kokf lad to t
in Ireland in the adminiAr:sttion of onet,,
the intent to indloo her Majesty's ttlrciic,
the adjuclioattsot of their differences o
each other from the cognisance of th.e_n,i toy
established, and to submit it;
ment and determination, t 1 doe' 00,1'4
e constituted and
Now, first of LordshipshaV- 10 0,
411 your in
gaged • • contrived ft); at,
framing Acts removing or° It
(action from one tribunal to another. netilt_dl si;
that merchants and traders preseott rotivto
Houses of Parliament, praying for a1,e0404
risdiction by which their difference the
settled—the pending alterations in ofp
ruptcy are cases of that kind. es.
Lord CAMPBELL—This count c0e1f..;00,61 4
ject—the last one charged the tige-° ea 04,
Sir T. WILDE--Both counts Pre° t I
Jefec 1,4
tion of an illegal object, but the o,
not setting forth how that object
tt