The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

that instance, sitting in the Court of Queen's Bench.
There Were a great number of other cases, which showed
that the Court of Queen's Bench I.7ftS a tobrt of assize.
He would only make a few observations upon what had
been said with tegiii'd to the counts of the indictment,
am hie :earned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ire-
land, would deal more at large upon that point. He
would contend that it was immaterial even if there were
bad counts in the indictment ; but he was prepared to
argue that all the counts in this indictment were good
and valid counts. He would contend that the offence
was but one, though it was laid in different ways. He
would first call the attention of their Lordships to that
count which- charged the defendants with con-
spiring to bring into contempt the tribunals esta-
blished for the administration of the law in Ire-
land, and to diminish the confidence of her Ma-
jesty's liege subjects in them. The Hon. Gentleman
then referred to a case in page 678 of the 6th volume of
Term Repbrts, and to other cases, to show that there
was a distinction between an indictment for a conspi-
racy, and an indictment against an individual. He
asked. was, or was not, the charge laid in the eighth count,
namely, the conspiracy to bring into contempt the tri-
bunals of the country, an indictable offence? His Hon.
Friend said* that reform might be made in the law, that
persons might league together to make those re-
forms—to reform the Ecclesiastical. Courts for instance.
He (the Attorney-General) did not dispute that, but he
said it was an indictable offence for parties to conspire
and confederate to bring into contempt the tribUnals of
the country as by law established. He begged on this
point to refer their Lordships to the observations made
by Mr. Justice Buller, in the case of the King v. Wat-
son, 3d Term Reports, p. 196. His Learned Friend,
put the case of a number of persons meeting
together, and agreeing to write down the Court
of Star Chamber, and he then put the case of the
abuses which prevailed in the Court of Queen's Bench
and the Court of Common Pleas, amongst the judges of
the laud, in the time of the Stuarts, and he read a pas-
sage from a work of the Right Hon; Gentleman in the
other House, in which he, in strong terms of vitupera-
tion, attacked the courts of justice of that time. But he
(the Attorney-General) would contend that, with re-
gard to the Court of Star Chamber, and with re-
gard to those bad times, it was net a mode of
trying what persons were justified doing at piesent.
His Learned Friend might just as well have said that
they were now indebted for the liberties they enjoyed to
the army of the ,Prince of Orange, and to the 'employ-
ment of that army by the gentry of England against the
King. If the abuses that prevailed were put down by
force of arms, yet it was a means beyond the law ; and
though we may feel that men were then justified in re-
sorting to them, transgressing the law and-going beyond
it, for the purpose of redressing their grievances, yet it
did not follow that at - the present day rparties
were at liberty to take the same means of
bringing the constituted authorities of the coun-
try into contempt. Suppose a conspiracy was
formed, of which the overt acts were publications of
a nature that would bring the Constitution into con-
tempt, would not that be an offence. This count of the
indictment charged a conspiracy to bring into hatred and
contempt the administration of- justice. That count
could be proved if it should be established that the
parties had poured fourth a succession of libels having
that intention; beyond all doubt this would be an indis-
putable offence. But his Learned Friend said if persons
did honestly believe that the Court of Queen's Bench now
was in the same bad state as in the time which had been
mentioned, they were entitled to meet together, and
combine, in order to write it down. This
he wholly denied, and when his' Learned Friend
said that if they honestly believed such to be the case
they had a right to meet for that purpose, let them ob-
serve what it would lead to. Where was the distinction
to be s'rawn ? In the same way, parties might honestly
believe that it would be for the benefit of the public to
conspire in the same manner against the Houses of Lords
and Commons ; for the same reasons they would be jus-
tified in writing them down. In the attempt to reforni
the institutions of the country, persons were not jus-
tified in meeting together to conspire to bring into
hatred and contempt, above all with respect to an,
authority which could not be brought into disrepute
ithout sapping the foundations of the Constitution.
Were their Lordships prepared to say that this was no
crime, or that any number of persons might meet to-
gether for the purpose of writing down the tribunals of
the country, and bringing them into contempt and dis-
repute ?
Lord CAMPBELL—YOU should take the whole of the
count which lays the charge of bringing the tribunals
of the country into disrepute, for the purpose of having
others substituted for them. That is certainly much
like what we call law reform.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the count did not state
certain of the tribunals of the country, but the tribunals.
Lord CAMPBELL—That others may be constituted ; it
may be that those others are to be constituted by Act
of Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the statement in
the count was that parties unlawfully conspired, for the
purpose of inducing her Majesty's subjects to withdraw
their business from the tribunals of the country. It was
not that these tribunals were to be swept away and others
substituted. The existing tribunals in Ireland are to
remain; but the conspiracy was to shake their founds-
twos, by bringing them into disrepute, and withdrawing
their business f'rom them.

Lord CAMPBELL—The courts are to remain ; but
a concurrent jurisdiction is to be given to new ones, and
there is an incitement to the people to leave the old ones
and come to the new.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not for bim to
argue with his Lordship ; but he supposed, if the exist-
ing tribunals were to continue, they were, at the same
time, to be brought into disrepute and contempt.
Lord BROUGHAM said it would have made the count
quite clear, if it had said these new tribunals were to
have been constituted by other means than by Act of
Parliament.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued. There was only
other count to which he wished to call their attention.
It was the sixth, which charged the meeting in large
numbers, 'and, by demonstrations of great physi-
cal force, to make changes in the law. It
was objected that the count did not distinctly state
who was to be intimidated, or how the intimidation was
to be effected. He submitted that that was not neces-
sary. The allegation was that the parties conspired
together to cause a large number of persons to meet toge-
ther, with a view of procuring a change in the law. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the case of The Queen
v. Eccles. In that case certain persons conspired toge-
ther by divers indirect means to prevent a certain person
from carrying on the business of a tailor. The Court was
of opinion that it was not necessary that the means
should be set out. In the case of the King v. Gill, Ist
Barnewall and. Alderson, the parties were charged with
combining and conspiring together, by divers means,
unlawfully to obtain possession of large sums of
money. Lord Tenterden said that the indictment was
sufficient, as the gist of the offence was the conspiracy.
The Learned Counsel mentioned another case, in which
certain persons were indicted for a conspiracy to de-
fraud divers of her Majesty's subjects. The Court of
Queen's Bench were of opinion that the count was good
without stating who the persons to be defrauded were.
So with regard to the persons to be intimidated. Here
was a conspiracy to collect together great
masses of the people, with a view to pro-
cure a change in the law ; and the inti-
midation was used against all persons and all bodies who
might oppose and resist a change in the law. It was not
necessary that the count should state against whom the
intimidation was to be directed.

Lord CAMPBELL—It is said, on the other side, that
the intimidation might be that of a highwayman, or of
persons seeking to intimidate the Legislature.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that would not apply
to a count which referred to an attempt to change the law
Lord BROUGHAM-Mr. Kelly argued in this way..
There is a body of people coming down to prevent the
Legislature from doing what it is minded to do. Then
would very loyal people take part with ,the Legislature, and
preserve to them free liberty of action, by intimidating
the intimidators.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not suppose for
a moment that their Lordships would adopt that view.
He would now leave this case after referring to the form
of the recognisances. His Learned Friend said that if a
person remained six years in prison, he might then
come out of prison without entering into recognisances.
The object of recognisance was, that the person so
imprisoned, should , not be let out of prison until he
had entered into recognisance to keep the peace—no
matter what length of time he had been imprisoned.
He would not trouble the House by further reference to
precedents. He submitted that he had shown that this
appeal in error must be rejected.
Mr. Justice GURNEY suggested that the Attorney-
General had said nothing about the indorsement.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there were other
points upon which his Learned Friend, the Attorney-
General for Ireland, would presently address their Lord-
ships. With respect to the indorsement, he would only
say that there was only one error assigned on that point,
and that was by Mr. Steele. The indictment could not
be affected by that, for the indictment was found before
the endorsement could be made.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—There is no time fixed at
all for the endorsement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Certainly not. The error
in fact admitted that the witnesses were all sworn
properly before the grand jury, and that the Bill
was founded upon that evidence. In conclusion, he sub-
mitted that he had shown to their Lordships that the
verdict was not at variance with the indictment—that it
did not find the defendants guilty of more offences than
they were charged with—that there were no grounds for
the challenge of the array—and that there was no ground
for impeaching the judgment of the court below; because
the witnesses, were sworn by the grand jury. He sub-
mitted that their Lordships must decide that there were
no grounds whatever for reversing the judgment of the
court below. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who
was heard for the last few minutes with great difficulty,
then withdrew, apparently much exhausted.
The Lord Chancellor and the Judges then retired for
a short time.
On the return of their Lordships,
Mr T. B. C. SMITII (the Attorney-General for Ire-
land) then proceeded to address their Lordships. He
appeared also on the part of the Crown, and he thought
it would not be consistent with his duty to occupy their
Lordships at any great length, as the case bad been so
fully argued by his Learned Friend the Attorney-General.
He would endeavour to compress his-observations into
as narrow a compass as possible. Now he would first
apply himself to the challenge of the array, and he
thought that when their Lordships came to consider the
challenge it would be found to be unsupported either by
substance or form.. There was no default or misconduct
attributed to the sheriff. The challenge was only to the
array empanneHed by that officer. Now by the 9th
section of the Jury Act, to which their Lord-
ships had been referred, the clerk of the peace
haying made out the - jurors' bobk, was ' to "de--